I don't think democracy is the best system to have in all cases. A classic example of this is Philippine democracy. It is worse than elementary school class elections. Anyone who starred in a movie is capable of winning the presidency. Already two popularly elected presidents have been ousted from power (it was almost three after last year).

The Philippines could use a good does of dictatorship. It's weird saying this, but a leader like Marcos (sans corruption) would probably do the country a whole lot of good.

Now, with Russia moving closer and closer to becoming a dictatorship, should we let Putin take control, or intervene somehow?

Yeah, you're right about the popular people always getting voted for election. Movie stars like Arnold Schwarzenneger.

But come on. Practically everyone in the Phillippines hated Marcos after Aquino got assassinated.

Maybe leaders should be put through a test or something... I don't know.

No comment on Putin. Don't know anything about him. Dictatorship always has an "aura" of "evil" in it... I don't know why; perhaps because of history.

I mean Demcracy has it flaws (look how did bush get elected twice) But I don't think a total dictatorship is key. Some people let power run to there head and then we get cases Like in cuba. Not that the U.S helped that workout any better than it did but you get my point

...............

That's a huge elipsis.

Democracy isn't the best policy, but its the best we have available. I don't know how governor elections work, but for US presidency the people don't actual pick who is up for election so the odds of someone famous becoming president is slim. You are right, it doesn't work for everyone. There has to be just the right elements in the people and the elected.

At least a willingness to step down from power (see George Washington's presidency and denial of a crown). Dictatorship is what happens when democracy fails. You don't have a way for the people to remove someone with absolute power.

I don't think the mass of the people have the understanding to elect their own leaders. Ruling a country is more than you're view on abortion, your religion, or how many babies you kiss. Its like Student Council elections in high school. The most qualified tends to lose to the most charismatic.


Sorry my ideas are a bit choppy, but am I understandable?

and ideal situation would be one in which democracy was uneccessary, a system which peaceably produced no flaws, and therefore had no need for change. however, this is probably entirely unattainable.

and therefore, each regime will nedd some form of change. and that change should be in the hands of the people. therfore, i think democracy is, generally, the best option.

but then, it depends on the system of democracy. britain's parliamentary system of first past post system results in distorted representation, and the possibility of elective dictatorships, in the manner of margaret thatcher, who only suffered one policy defeat during her 11 years in office as prime minister


power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. could we achieve a dictatorship without

democracy is evil.

Cincinnatus.

Er, the United States isn't really a democracy. We're more of a republic. I don't understand why people call it a democracy.

Democracy is impossibly with a large amount of people. It was wonderful in its origin, Athens, but thats because it only contained roughly 5,000 people. However, with a population such as in the United States, true democracy is impossible.

Thus, democracy is a completely unreasonable system (unless in a small population).

Note: In a true democracy, everyone takes part, on every issue. Nothing is between a citizen and the law. We have representatives for us, and we don't directly come in contact with anything but voting for leaders.

in democracy the majority is law.

hence the whole two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

indeed. britain has representative democracy. not direct.

direct democracy is just sloppy and inpractical



cincinnatus' life is so twisted in legend that exacting clear accounts of incedents is almost impossible.

plus, he only assumed the role of dicator twice, and then for short periods of time to put down revolts, after which he resigned his post. this is more akin to having a set of emergency powers for elected officials, rather than a true dictatorship. the first time he took on this role, he was only a dictator for 16 days. he didnt have he time to show overt corruptness

He resigned after two weeks, it takes time to corrupt people.

Well we did the first time, so I guess we could always do it again.

Yes, Democracy has its "flaws". Communism, Dictatorships, and Socialism looks good on paper, and in ideas. When it comes down to it, they are really not a stable foundation for forming, and ultimately running a government/country.

How would we intervene?

Well, we could send marines to Archangelsk and lend jeeps to the white army like we did last time.

maybe voters should be put through a test

Well, sometimes, the plurality is law. That's a problem.

well that's worse.

that's a wolf and two sheep voting on dinner, and the wolf winning.

I'm not sure I follow the analogy. The plurality is still the option with the most votes winning, it just means that less than a majority (or less than or equal to 50% of the voting population) voted for it, yet it still one because no other option received more votes.

Here's a convoluted, but correct analogy.

Actually, it would be two (mutton loving) men, a wolf, one lamb and five turtles (named after renaissance artists) voting for dinner. Whatever the turtles vote for would be the majority, but the lamb would be eaten anyway.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote."
-Attributed to Ben Franklin

i think that for the rest of this decade, and maybe part of the next, china should remain the way it is now. over half its population is illiterate, and if democracy was instigated, corruption would be much worse than it is now, since it would mean that over half the population can be bought over.

even in taiwan, there is still vote-buying going on. and so, i feel that it really does depend on how "far along" the country is.