CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Democracy is really a ferry tale because it’s never a TRUE thing. We have the technology to allow everyone instant access to a vote. At least general elections should be a direct individual vote not the stupid rig we have.
Exactly--the current system is nothing more than a sham .
Also, it should be more than just general elections which are a direct vote. If there are major decisions in the country, it should be put to direct vote. The fact that it is not currently, is the reason poll results show we have policies implemented that go against majority public opinion as well as majority public opinion that goes ignored/disregarded. That is not Democracy
Generally, I think Democracy works very well when the group involved is of similar abilities. However, when the range of abilities varies significantly in the group, Meritocracy is the superior system.
Democracy is SLOW for one. Second, the majority of population are stupid! That means our laws are designed by the bottom, not top heads!! The smartest 10% should rule. Or at least there should be some intelligence prerequisite.
I think you made some good points, though I would like to zoom in on the final point you made regarding intelligence.
(A) The smartest 10% may very well not be the most qualified in particular areas, then is it not more important to have specific knowledge in a concentrated area rather than 'general intelligence' in order to make policy decisions?
(B) The top 10% may in fact prove a much rougher grouper than perhaps you intended, as the top .2% making the most substantial contributions to the advancement & understanding of human knowledge (Note: this translates to standard University Professors level of intellect). The people who just make the 90th percentile is on par with a standard History/Political Science major at University. Then, we can see, the .2% would encounter essentially the same problem from the 10% as occurs in a Democracy. Thoughts on this?
In the past, aristocracies were incredibly abusive of the powerless underclasses. Is there any reason to believe that creating a ruling class, based on any criteria, will not result in rampant abuse of power comparable to that of the past?
There already is a softer version of a 'ruling class' in our current system. One that, once elected, is able to proceed with any policy positions they choose, regardless of public opinion (which is, in fact, what they mostly do). A true Democratic system would operate on public majority vote
"There already is a softer version of a 'ruling class' in our current system. One that, once elected, is able to proceed with any policy positions they choose, regardless of public opinion (which is, in fact, what they mostly do)."
They rely on the public for re-election and thus cannot abuse their power too much. As for second term presidents, they are kept in check by the house and senate who rely on the public for re-election. This is in part why people like myself caused an uproar about Bush and Obama's expansions of executive powers (there are other reasons, such as the fact that it centralizes power to a larger degree).
"A true Democratic system would operate on public majority vote"
I'm sure that you don't believe that direct democracy is a good form of government (at present) considering your criticisms of representative democracy. I'm sympathetic to direct democracy as a future system if we manage to cultivate a well-informed citizenry, however very few people understand statecraft, let alone geopolitics.
I'm sure that you don't believe that direct democracy is a good form of government (at present) considering your criticisms of representative democracy
I prefer Direct Democracy to our current system--although, I do not view it as the most preferable provided our current situation.
Generally speaking, I think direct Democracy works very well when the group involved is of similar abilities, however once the abilities of the group becomes very greatly differed (i.e. the range is significantly different from top to bottom), then Meritocracy is the superior system. I find this holds true not just for formal 'Government' but also for business; hence, why I support Worker Cooperatives under certain conditions.
Why? While I hate the corporate and special interest group influence over our current system, these could be removed by simple amendments to representative democracy. Further, it seems the case that the majority of people's minds are mostly shaped by propaganda from establishment media sources, which would in theory mean that the same groups would control the choices. As I say, I'd prefer direct democracy if we had an intelligent well-informed populace.
"I think direct Democracy works very well when the group involved is of similar abilities, however once the abilities of the group becomes very greatly differed (i.e. the range is significantly different from top to bottom), then Meritocracy is the superior system."
The abilities of those within any group will always be greatly different, unless ability level is a determining factor of group membership.
The abilities of those within any group will always be greatly different, unless ability level is a determining factor of group membership.
This is not true; hence why many Worker Co-ops do so well. Rather, as you have pointed out already, a severe lack of educational standards is the largest impediment to the healthy functioning of a (direct) Democratic system.
I just gave you the example of Worker Co-ops--have you looked into them before?
For instance, I know a guy who owns a Co-op Bookstore along with about a dozen other owner-workers. They all Democratically vote on how the business with be run, who works when, for how long, budgeting, ect. ect. Frankly, there isn't anything all that complex involved in running a book store. Thus, there is no need for the top-down hierarchy.
When I attended local Community College, I worked at Pizza Hut as a second job to help pay for living expenses. Now, there was a top-down hierarchy, though no need for it--as, again, there was nothing very complex about running/managing a Pizza shop. Then, I submit, it would work more smoothly if it were a direct Democracy (i.e. worker co-op).
This example doesn't disprove that "The abilities of those within any group will always be greatly different, unless ability level is a determining factor of group membership."
"have you looked into them before?""
I have, yes.
"Frankly, there isn't anything all that complex involved in running a book store. Thus, there is no need for the top-down hierarchy. "
Is it perhaps also related to the fact that the people who invest in co-ops have an entrepreneurial nature, and above average IQ? This also links to the fact that book-shop workers are generally relatively intelligent.
"When I attended local Community College, I worked at Pizza Hut as a second job to help pay for living expenses. Now, there was a top-down hierarchy, though no need for it--as, again, there was nothing very complex about running/managing a Pizza shop. Then, I submit, it would work more smoothly if it were a direct Democracy (i.e. worker co-op)."
Why would it work more smoothly? I appreciate that companies should accept bottom-up influence and doing so is often beneficial. An example of how companies already do this is by actively seeking feedback and suggestions and (if not anonymous) rewarding the best ideas with promotions. However I don't agree that, for example, most pizza shop workers understand how best to run and budget a business. More importantly, the financier would simply be running a charity for the benefit of his workers (unless everybody contributes financially, as with the bookstore co-op).
This example doesn't disprove that "The abilities of those within any group will always be greatly different, unless ability level is a determining factor of group membership."
Perhaps I should rephrase slightly; I am referring specifically to the required abilities of the group, not whatever other abilities they may or may not possess.
Is it perhaps also related to the fact that the people who invest in co-ops have an entrepreneurial nature, and above average IQ? This also links to the fact that book-shop workers are generally relatively intelligent.
It is certainly within the realm of possibilities, yes
Why would it work more smoothly?
For instance, we better understood our personal schedules/hours available better than the 'manager' in charge of dictating the schedules (which would often have to be revised). We knew the minor details of who is performing efficiently at what tasks, while who is not, or otherwise 'slacking'. Then, organizing duties accordingly would have worked better if it were not dictated from above; as well as who best works with who. ect. ect.
"For instance, we better understood our personal schedules/hours available better than the 'manager' in charge of dictating the schedules (which would often have to be revised)."
Swapping shifts is incredibly common in regular jobs.
"We knew the minor details of who is performing efficiently at what tasks, while who is not, or otherwise 'slacking'... as well as who best works with who"
You can inform your employer of this in a regular job. As aforementioned, accepting bottom-up influence is key to running a successful business.
You mean the person that both finances and administrates the business? To finance and administrate the business. If a group of people want to collectively do this I have no problem, as long as they provide the funds to do so.
Without being rude, do you understand just how much work goes into managing a business?
So, you think an aristocracy would work better than a meritocracy? How is this? Just because you're intelligent, does not mean you should rule the country.
Or at least there should be some intelligence prerequisite.
There are some intelligence prerequisites. You have to be able to read and write, and you have to be 18 years old. I'm not saying that all 18-year-olds are geniuses, but do you really think that brainlets are leading democratic countries?
Yeah sorry I couldnt give a very profound answer last time, I had tests and stuff to do
Democracy clearly isnt working out in my country, after the monarchy fell we have been through a succession of regimes that just dont work out. A clear proof of this is that todays republic is the 5th (and there are talks about making a 6th one)
Having a hereditary ruler would give us a continuity in our political agenda, because currently each time a leftist president does something, the next rightist president cancels it, and vice versa.
France isnt like the US where people vote for one party and stick to it for years, they vote for one side and then the other, which is bringing us nowhere
There is also another problem: since nothing is happening in french politics people became completly uninterested in them, in the last presidential elections 43 million people could vote and 35% or 40% didnt, this has been happening for years and is getting worse, each president is getting more illegitimous than the last
The people have no idea who to vote for, they just follow the media blindly, the candidate who was going to win last years elections was destroyed by the media for a minor fraud, while he was an accomplished man with experience.
Our actual president is a kid who won the elections without even presenting a program!!!!! At the time if you asked people who they were going to vote for they would reply Macron, and if you asked them why they said it was because he was young and dynamic
I could talk about this subject for hours, but here is my conclusion: the french people are too fkn dumb to vote
