Democracy doesn't work

thecoder said:
Democracy doesn't work, it just divides the society, creates enmity within the country --> cf. USA.
So, what other realistic alternative is there for the US?
More...

There's really no perfect political system that will satisfy all. Thus, whatever alternative there is...there will be a minority of people that will not approve of it.

Worst, that alternative political system will have changes in its population as the world changes over the year in that one day...that alternative political system could change from the minority to the majority of the people disliking it.

The U.S. can not change Democracy but it can create alternative parties to compete against Democracy. Yet, we've seen that done a few times and its highly unsuccessful.

The closes change was the "Socialist Party" back in 1912 in which it won +3% of the popular vote and the "Free Soil Party" in 1848 that won +4% of the vote.

Yet, the only way an alternative party can gain access to the highest office in America is via as a Trojan Horse to a current strong party but that in itself has been a disaster via Donald Trump (reform party).

Simply, if another alternative party ever develops...it will need to gain office the way Donald Trump did it...as a Trojan Horse.

wrbtrader
 
thecoder said:
You say "America - Love It or Leave It".
But, do you think it's realistic to force 50% of the people out?
I don't think so. So, your system isn't working :) What's your next best alternative? :)
More...
There is none. This is the best system ever devised by man.
 
thecoder said:
Democracy doesn't work, it just divides the society, creates enmity within the country --> cf. USA.
So, what other realistic alternative is there for the US?
More...

There will always be division. Democracy works as well as anything else, it's just less bloody to change rulers than other forms.

Obviously once one side starts cheating on a large scale, they've basically decided they don't want democracy anymore and we end up with no choice but to make it bloody again every time we need to change rulers. We all know this election is being stolen and unless the illegal ballots are thrown out or our election is fixed with voter ID and/or non-anonymous voting, I reckon within 1 generation there will be blood. Could be as soon as next year, but as long as 30 years from now, but it will happen. Thieves and crooks can only destroy a country for so long before good men will stop putting up with it.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
A Republic which is what we are.
More...
A democratic republic. Did you vote? If yes, that's the democracy part. Was your vote for specific issues, or for a representative? If the latter, that's the republic part.

Edit
 
Last edited:
One party rule tends to be a bad thing. The US system (and other democratic systems) basically ensure(s) that that won't happen. Contrary to popular belief, having divisions in government is not necessarily a bad thing. Divisions tend to keep everyone honest. Divisions lend themselves to compromise. If you have a system where all have a voice, that would imply division, would it not? The problem here is allowing all to have a voice (I am thinking of "cancel culture").
 
kandlekid said:
One party rule tends to be a bad thing. The US system (and other democratic systems) basically ensures that that won't happen. Contrary to popular belief, having divisions in government is not necessarily a bad thing. Divisions tend to keep everyone honest. Divisions lend themselves to compromise. If you have a system where all have a voice, that would imply division, would it not? The problem here is allowing all to have a voice (I am thinking of "cancel culture").
More...
True. (Also think of "stop the vote" culture.)
 
kandlekid said:
One party rule tends to be a bad thing. The US system (and other democratic systems) basically ensure(s) that that won't happen. Contrary to popular belief, having divisions in government is not necessarily a bad thing. Divisions tend to keep everyone honest. Divisions lend themselves to compromise. If you have a system where all have a voice, that would imply division, would it not? The problem here is allowing all to have a voice (I am thinking of "cancel culture").
More...

Just FYI. a liberal Democrat would never talk like this. Anyone care to venture why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top