Its not democracy that fails, its democracy and the current free market system that is failing.

you will still need a system that decides the qualifications and who qualifies...this doesn't bypass the issues of democracy I don't think, and there is still the issue of who is intelligent in their field and what proficiencies etc. should be used to measure the leaders.

could easily be another related thread I think.

:|

yes I think its many related things that when you separate there is no solution

What's with everyone saying how Democracy doesn't work because of today's climate? Youse do realise that today's Democracy is but one manifestation of Democracy, right?

It's like buying a hammer from a particular company that keeps breaking; after the 4th time of buying it, the person reasons that all hammers break and don't work

I didn't read thread so didn't know what you guys were talking about, you mentioned though morons getting equal votes, the exact mechanics of a Technocracy would have to be heavily scrutinized but the idea seems solid; some demographics, on average will have "better" voting standards. It wouldn't be hard to determine who to give it to; base it on one's experience in the field, and one whatever it is directly effects them.

you don't have to read the thread... this doesn't solve the problem it just re arranges it, you still have to have a decision process to decide how people get picked etc. it sort of makes it 1 vote early on but the vote is really really important....

i was suggesting democracy has an inherent flaw that makes it corrupt from the outset...a flaw the can be intuited or something like that, not saying based on our society its wrong, I'm saying it can't work, its a trick.

Oh I got the governmental systems all messed up, meant Meritocracy :s

I think I could come up with a decent criteria for most things, although governmental leadership would be a tough one; as a rough sketch, make everyone=1 vote, but than make the vote worth less if they're perhaps <22, IQ <70, than increase it if their IQ is >130 and based on their education/employment training(manager would get slightly more than the worker) Maybe courses can be done to increase their score, like research some sort of political related thing.

Of course that opens room for many nuances to occur, but I don't think a person's vote should really ever be higher than 3, and this is, in theory, replacing a more flawed system with a less flawed one. This system more works to Democratizing more specific avenues but, allowing people to have more control over stuff like industrial funding and perhaps how those industries operate.

But it's not like this would work in today's society; it'd need a educational system that actually educates, rather than train to be blindly obedient.

Was more directed at the guys saying "it's not democracy it's free markets + democracy lol arnold is governor DEMOCRACY FAILS!!!"

There is nothing wrong with voting that more voting can't correct.

Lolz....every single law is written, passed and deemed constitutional exclusively by rich people. If you are getting screwed by the government it's because you aren't rich enough not to be.

That said I totally disagree with the OP. Modern society in places like the US/western europe etc are basically proof that democracy is the way to go given the present state of man. That may change in the future, but I see no reason to scrap the entire system.

Here's the thing: Power will always go to those who desire it, and those people will always use it to their own ends, typically for the purposes of maintaining power or obtaining more of it.

Welcome to the human condition, that's just how it works, and it always has.

Even if we could invent some system of government where we forced people into power who didn't want it, there would have to be someone there choosing who to put into leadership, and they would have the real power.

Democracy gets the nod simply because it limits the power of leadership more than other forms of government. No matter how corrupt a democracy gets, it's still less corrupt than one corrupt guy sitting on a throne making all the decisions himself.

This effect already occurs. People with IQs <70, under 22, less educated, lower wage etc are much less likely to vote than their compliment

Exactly, just like cigarettes!

Isn't your proof just that its the best system out there? I'm surprised you can say you see no reason at all. But before we look at the world it creates we have to look at how flawed it is from unintelligent masses getting a say, the system has no protection vs marketing etc. Isn't it just our education and condition that make us defend it?


Sometimes I wonder if the saying 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' was a trick and the real law is 'Any power corrupts'


As far has history remembers, but again I think that our conditioning. We believe it can't be fixed, much like having a king or a pharaoh. In this sense I think democracy and religion play the same role, it can't be fixed, put your faith in God, voting etc.



Isn't this just thinking in terms of power. Just re arranging democracy. I don't think we have proved a better way doesn't exist in science etc, I think we haven't searched for it. With everything else we put out a theory like 'A better way exists' and then we look for it. Our education system doesn't support this, obviously democracy doesn't support it.



Maybe it does, but maybe it just gives the impression that it limits powers.

Maybe, unless its just a way of making people feel free, then it could be as bad or worse.

To the contrary, it's just like thinking.

Three-fifths of a vote sound about right?

Democracy is the worst except for all the rest imo.

aaaaah interesting; in Australia it's illegal not to vote and one will be greeted with a fine if failed to comply -_-

Isn't the states heavily religious? Surely many of those guys, even if poor/no education/low IQ/whatever would vote for whatever godsend their church advocates?

If either of these things are your belief, it seems like it's on you to defend it. It seems pretty obvious to me (and most people, I think) that leadership in modern democracy has less power than a dictator or a king or a Pharaoh.

Take for example the dictatorship in North Korea. There is literally nothing Kim Jong-Il could have demanded of his people that wouldn't have been complied with.

Compare that with modern democracy (at least in the U.S.) where something as simple as getting caught having an affair typically ends a political career.

Personally I think suggesting that a person holds just as much power in a democracy as a dictatorship is absurd.