Give me ONE argument against Direct Democracy which isn't "stuff I don't like might get voted"

Give me ONE argument against Direct Democracy which isn't "stuff I don't like might get voted".

Other urls found in this thread:

davidlepee.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/socrate_contre_la_democratie_directe.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Do you really want niggers and spics and abduls without high school degrees to make your legislation?

good luck implementing it with the jews in power lol

People are retards
Gove me a reason against a 1 party state with no democracy that isn't "muh corruption"

In my country? That's easy - 52%.

If you go to an off-season election in the US, you might not see anybody else voting at the polling place. Or maybe you'll see one old guy there.

In other words, it wouldn't be a direct democracy even if you wrote it down somewhere that it technically is supposed to be one.

what would stop the people in power from being the retards themselves?

mob rule inherently disregards the will of the minority. For instance if a bunch of elite fucks from the coastal cities used mass media to brainwash the population into voting to replace every white man in the nation with a bunch of moronic third world shitskins. There wouldn't be much a rural population could do against the tyranny of the majority. Thank god the fathers of our great nation took head at the words of alexander hamelton and founded a REPUBLIC to prevent this exact scenario from playing out.

Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) refers to an inherent weakness of direct democracy and majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.[1]

Potentially, through tyranny of the majority, a disliked or unfavored ethnic, religious, political, social, or racial group may be deliberately targeted for oppression by the majority element acting through the democratic process.[2]

Threat of execution or deportation

American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential election system, and the phenomenon of faithless electors allowed for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government.[3] As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".[4]

The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:

Centralisation excess: when the centralised power of a federation make a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle.[5] Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority and supermajority rules.
Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".[6] The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.

In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem.[7] A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.[7]

I like direct democracy

The public is awful at making good decisions.

Many do not know or care about important things to running a successful country but demand a say anyway.

The public is very susceptible to media manipulation and implanted opinions.

It slows down important decisions.

Rather than listening to experts in particular fields politicians are forced to rely on the public.

It forces politics to dumb itself down to the lowest common denominator so everyone can understand.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realise half of them are stupider than that"

Take your pick

Coming from whom? The establishment itself? Are you this delusional?

>It won't always defend your interest
>It will fade into uncompetence
>It won't try doing stuff anymore

Mob rule doesn't generally end well for those not part of the "in" group.

If anything 2017 proved that the media lost its power over people, and the internet is making mass interactivity even easier.

Referendums, elections etc. actually cost a lot of money

Democracy can be unstable when people vote in a different party every few years.

And like other anons mentioned, people can be retarded.

>One person one vote
The people who don't pay taxes or never payed taxes should't be allowed to vote.
The people who broke the law shouldn't be able to vote.
Every single not 100% mental capable individual shouldn't be able to vote: this exclude not only retards but elders and women.

Democracy is a veiled dictatorship with the biggest flaw of all of them: the premise that all the persons are equal.

Instability leading to anarchy and death as an emotional shorted sighted public just goes with whatever the media tells them that day, typically a leftist communist type agenda as they are better at the victimization/emotional manipulation game.

Direct democracy = you have elected a small oligarchy of the media.

The media is powerful enough already and any reasonable system needs to be designed to counter sensationalism.

I really appreciated Cloudshare's comments about the visibility and transparency of Due Process even over the first amendment when they kicked Daily stormer off of their service and I believe any well designed modern government needs a high visibility of Due Process as its "First Amendment"

With a very highly visible and strict Due Process the current destabilization would not be a thing.

Charlottesville - WN would have had a clear right to protest that the whole country new of and wouldn't have been thrown on top of Antifa. I don't like WN but to deny them a voice just breeds explosive hate that is going to come out somewhere like an inbred retard running down a crowd. Due Process of his prosecution everything should be public related to crimes etc.

We can come up with examples going farther back, and would have squelched factors leading to BLM cop slayings, followed by Due Process of prosecuting the people that did it and their links to BLM etc.

>Being frightened by "tyranny of the majority"
Are you Jewish?

In Switzerland you get a lot of weird shit voted through because small but determined groups go out in force to vote for "their" question while most people don't give a shit. On the other hand it stops politicians from taking decisions that go against the will of the public.

Or think of it like this: Imagine your current political opposition, your nemesis. Your Corbyn or your Thatcher or your Merkel or your Orban. Now imagine their whole parties toe the line and control your country. They don't have to submit to the tyranny of the majority, so they can just take care of running the country in the most efficient way, without any influence from their own biases either innate or developed over decades. Right?

It's the best political system in the world.

easy Franco... actually, you are right...

Highly susceptible to corruption and it failed in Athens anyway

From what I witnessed, people become irresponsible when they know they don't have any power.

With direct democracy, voters would first start doing shit the first weeks/monthes, then when they realize what mistakes they made they would become more careful and would educate themselves more on the matter.

Look how disciplined the Swiss are, I think that is a consequence of direct democracy, among other things.

The funniest thing about this in my country is that the women sufrage was delayed in the Republic by the Socialist party because they knew women were more religious and will vote for the right.
They said it openly that women should be "changed" before they could vote.

>He hasn't heard of hetaireiai
laughingwhores.jpg

>Centralisation excess: when the centralised power of a federation make a decision that should be local
federalism is more important than direct democracy, most likely even a requirement for the latter.

Besides. There is no direct democracy, just more or less direct democratic tools like the initiative and referendum, which in turn maybe configured in many ways...

you retards need to be beaten in the head and forced to work on farms

you never address the scale of federalization, scope of the franchise, legislative powers

you people are idiots. get fucked

Meritocracy>Democracy is why.
Reminder that Ayn Rand and Objectivism is our most powerful tool. I do not exaggerate. Hers was the strongest attack on commie and Nazi Statism ever witnessed. Every movement needs epistemological validation and metaphysicao defining and Objectivism provides this and then some. Do not write of one of the greatest philosophers to ever walk the face of the earth just because you've been ingrained with some maymays about her.
Our glorious Constution, the document that set the engine that is humanity free, is completed by Ayn Rand in what it lacked, the ONLY thing the US founding fathers lacked; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism.
I would add Objectivism, whose essence had been stated in "the right to the pursuit of happiness". But only implicitly. Objectivism states the amazing advent that is the American morality explictly.
Cultural Marxists and 'Nazis' are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commies have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy.

Yeah, that's why she married a fucking Jew.

she was a jew you idiot. she was an ashlenazi from russia

She WAS a Jew

There hasn't been direct democracy since greece. You need a slave economy to make it work and you need a managable population.

I didn't say she wasn't a Jew. How do you expect to answer the JQ when you get baited this easily?

We use only Ius sanguinis and no Ius soli. So most niggers and spics will never able to vote.

>Look how disciplined the Swiss are, I think that is a consequence of direct democracy, among other things.

Your logic makes sense but I hate pulling a small homogenous culture as an example.

The problem in big business is the same as big nations, you need a solution that scales.

We can't even approach a proper solution in the US right now after decades of uncontrolled border policy and illegals with zero investment in the culture though so Trump is doing the right thing.

Everytime.
Just imagine if the biggest anti-zionist is someone named Shlomo Goldshekel-Bergenstein.
Not quite but it was someone named Alisa Rosenbaum. Reminder that all these smear attempts by commie, cyrpto-commie, and NatSoc shills of Ayn Rand are borne out of their gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. ALL of the andversaries she descibes in her novels are EXACTLY what Sup Forums describes as the sterotypical kike. Kikes exist but Rand is quite literally the most based jew to ever live. I do not exaggerate.

me too ueli

even the damn greeks (and not just sokrates and plato, those play a wholly different ball game) knew it came with a lot of trouble.

for it to be sustainable you'd need to implant a nationalist feeling that impelled people to do the best for their countries and not for themselves at all times. you'd also need to heavily educate the populace and also to create the means and ways for them all to be fully independent individuals, professionals with potentials instead of slackers who just studied something and feel entitled to get paid for their petty occupations forever.

by the time you get such populace, it's rather irrelevant the way in which the country may be governed since most of the population would be actually sane and life would be cool.


is that enough of an argument? like, when you get to the point where it could work you don't necessarily need it anymore?

>self-hating kikes are based
k

To be fair, the only ones that can rightfully disagree with immigration in USA (and Canada/Australia/NZ) live in reservations.

>even the damn greeks (and not just sokrates and plato, those play a wholly different ball game) knew it came with a lot of trouble.
You are aware that these Athenian elites sold their city to the Persians, right?
>for it to be sustainable you'd need to implant a nationalist feeling that impelled people to do the best for their countries and not for themselves at all times.
It already exists, as family values and tribalism. Direct Democracy would give a chance to let this worldview expand, as interests would replace the state. Private interests at first, then family interests, ethnic interest and finally national interests in the long run.

Yes that is what I'm saying.

I am Joe Schmoe. I work a 40 hour job. I come home, go shopping, cook food, make sure my kids do their homework, have food with them, and then we go to bed because I have work tomorrow morning. On the weekends I clean the house and go for a jog or hike.

I am good at my job. I know my stuff there. But how do you expect me to be able to make an informed decision when I am supposed to vote over the question of how much foreign goods we should import, whether or not we should ban burkas and mosques, curb immigration, apply to host the next Olympic games, ban the import of genetically manipulated food, build a huge tunnel to improve railway that would cost billions, and other such issues?

I vote politicians into office. It is THEIR job (like...literal job, thats what they get paid for) to make these decisions. If I am supposed to make them, why keep politicians in the first place? If our decision turns to suck and stuff goes wrong, the politicians will say "well, your fault, you voted for this policy, we dont take responsibility" and done. Look, I dont have time to inform myself about all this and do the politicians' job for them on top of my 40 hour job. Thats retarded.

You expect intelligence, responsibility and good decision making skills from the mob but the mob mentality is fickle. They can be easily agitated and goaded by fear mongering and whatnot into making the wrong decision.

There. That's my argument for why direct democracy SUCKS.

Direct democracy would result in highly populated states determining elections.

Also, a bunch of apartment dwellers and renters would determine elections and not property owners, who, by definition, own the actual land which makes up the country.

Ever thought that part of why some politicians are complete retards is to cater for specific electorate interests?
Representative democracy gives us package deal - elect the party that is protecting your interests in certain areas, but may be completely retarded in others. Thus it is common that legislature is, in some areas, acting against the will of absolute majority of people. In direct democracy this is impossible.
Example - leftist parties in Europe and immigration. The majority of people voted left because of social services etc. And got open borders as a package deal.

Because most people are retarded. For example: you.

Why? They were never part of our nation, which was founded "For Ourselves and Our Posterity".

Any idea what that means?

probably works fine in a small country of a few million where the years biggest decision is something about the tax on importing cows or something inane like that

Do you even know what Nation means?

>sold their city to the Persians
can't see how that matters, but yeah I rememberd being amazed at the weight of philo-persian thought at the time.
>in the long run
wrong approach. you need to do the homework first, get the degree later.

most swiss people I've met were all condescending, holier-than-thou cunts.

they also tend to be cancerous around here

51% versus 49%
Socrates was executed by direct democracy
Most people can't male decisions for themselves
Confucian merit systems are more stable and provide better politicians than the average Joe
Democracy only really works well in very small homogenous groups with lots of common "skin in the game" as Taleb puts it. That's why you find it in small tribes sometimes.

only works in homogeneous high iq societies. replace the individual voting system with a family based voting system and it could work quite well.

that's because your cousins here are utter cunts and useless small time criminals.

are we redpilled ?

Democracy is a failed project, the French revolution was a mistake.

Can't do it in places that are filled with spics and niggers. All they'll vote for is welfare.

Only works with a responsible, high-IQ population. Otherwise they're only going to vote for more short-term gibs for themselves, ruining the country long-term.

So not applicable for at least 90% of the planet.

Hamilton was black you retard did you not see the play?

Mob rule/tyranny of the masses.

You know how stupid and fickle most people are. The celebrity phenomena.

You'd be able to vote in a full fledged dictatorship on the first go.

Plus destruction of individual sovereignty.

T H I S

That's an argument for why (direct or not) democracy sucks.

You're advocating a technocracy.

>40 hr job
good goy!

One argument? Okay:
Direct democracy is based on an all-informed individual. One, that has read the facts and has the ability to understand the rational difference between both arguments.

In Switzerland it works to an extent, that it is easier to target the voting people, because they are few, therefore making a debate of ideas easier.
The more people there are, the more you need simple ideas to be sent out for all people to be understood and thus is becomes a problematic image of politics, which is rarely simple.
So, the more people there are, the harder it becomes to have all people educated enough to have a complex mind on a topic, so they rather vote for false-and-simple rather than true-and-complicated.

Democracy is possibly the worst form of government ever conceived by man. It always leads to tyrannical rule because tyranny is inherent in it. Whether it's mob rule or an executive branch that over-extends, it's unacceptable.

It's a system that says "what 51% of the people think is right is right" and ignores objective moral truths and fundamental human rights.

Direct democracy is just that shitty system but instead of people whose entire job is to make these decisions attempt to think through the long-term effects on the whole of society, we just get a stupid populace making decisions based on what they read on Buzzfeed or Infowars last night.

Direct Democracy IS the homework. It is representative Democracies that look like memorize-only schools.

>democracy is the worst because it leads to tyranny
So tyranny is the worst, but Democracy leads to tyranny? Why does this make Democracy worse than Tyranny?

indeed it is, and im not even a racist
it works the way people want

>choosing a fake individualists instead of a real one wew

You think Democracy started with the French revolution?
Poor boy

>Direct Democracy IS the homework
no, it's great opportunity for fucking up for good. you can't build a house starting by the roof.
>It is representative Democracies that look like memorize-only schools.
that's wrong. memorizing was basically already extinct when I studied in highschool (like 10 yrs ago) so imagine how lost it's now. plus, politicians don't want people to remember how two years ago they said they wouldn't do what they're doing today.

I know you didn't mean to imply that but the reply seemed witty enough while I typed it. plus, I didn't mention represenative democracies at all. I might be talking for myself but if the peoples of my country were literate and hard-working enough to make actual democracy work, we wouldn't care much about what kind of goverment we have since life would already be much better. it's a simplistic idea but I'm pretty sure it would apply.

pls to be investigated the 17th amendment to the us constitution and why that change put the whole world in trouble.

No, I don't, it was obviously practiced in Greece long before that.

The French Revolution began the downfall of the monarchies, that is why it was a mistake. It was the great enabler of democracy.

>implying uneducated cunts vote here.

Most people have no clue on what they are voting about besides UDC or hippie slogans

Well, the classic argument is that "the people are too stupid and cannot be trusted with such responsibilities".
That argument is in fact correct much of the time and especially in societies with low IQ populations. Since we are increasingly living in proposition States where our leaders sell us out for more power and money, and the make-up of the population changes ethnically at breakneck pace, direct democracy becomes a real menace.

But ultimately it doesn't really matter anyway: if the people vote for something that the Jews and the cosmopolitan elite do not like, then they will simply refuse to enforce it and use the media to manufacture consent within the population. This is EXACTLY what has happened in Switzerland with regards to a vote we had on limiting immigration into the country.

When identity politics becomes a serious thing in Switzerland (which is destined to happen if you look at the trajectory of European nations now) you can bet the various demagogues will call upon our filthy Albanian or Turkish minorities and other Muslims to band together and vote. This is the case in the UK and in France and in Germany. We simply haven't reached the critical mass in Switzerland yet, but it is literally only 5-10 years away.

Direct Democracy 2.0 Now !

Vote for the SPP and you'll be safe. Comfy Swiss nationalist libertarian agrarianism the best!

Isn't Basel being thoroughly BLACKED and BROWNED as we speak? I know most swiss muslims are from the Balkans but I heard it's pretty bad there

Mob rule is tyranny itself. But on a long enough timeline, it'll morph into a more obvious tyranny.

Because the majority in any country doesn't even know how economics and financial markets work

ITT: Enlightened despots

It killed Socrates.

The masses are fucking retards and so are you

/thread

Good riddance
>davidlepee.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/socrate_contre_la_democratie_directe.pdf

>The people who don't pay taxes or never payed taxes should't be allowed to vote.
>Every single not 100% mental capable individual shouldn't be able to vote: this exclude not only retards but elders and women.
Can't we just keep the first one? The second would be mostly redundant.

>A fucking rectangle.

GTFO with your normie geometry.