DEMOCRACY: Overrated?

Is there any point to democracy anymore if it allows poor, illiterate and politically uneducated people to vote, including women?

Here they even let 16 year olds to vote and it's a complete disaster. The majority of people go to vote because they fear the sanction fees or other forms of punishment, not because they're particularly interested about making a better country or making their voice be heard.
Does modern democracy inevitably lead to corruption and power/political games? Is there a solid replacement for this outdated system?

Need to hear your opinions on this, Sup Forums.

>DEMOCRACY: Overrated?
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: modern constitutional democracy, in many cases, doesn't even make sense.
Think about it for a second:
>people democratically elect their representatives
>these representatives, enjoy short terms, although they can be reelected (most are), the legislative body they are in, often changes in shape, which can lead to constant reshuffling of governmental policies and unstable laws
>those supposed representatives of the people pass laws and bills, but those laws and bills are subject to a review by a non-democratic body (Supreme Court, Constitutional Tribunal, etc.)
In other words, non-democratic judiciary inspects whether law passed by the representatives of the people, doesn't infringe on freedoms of said people, who have elected representatives and by doing so, gave approval to their policies.
It makes little sense.
Wouldn't it be more thoughtful to reverse it: for government to be undemocratic (so that policies are long-term oriented, not made ad-hoc) and the body reviewing laws passed by government to be democratic (it would be in interest of the people to review if the law doesn't infringe on their rights)?

Every retard having a vote sucks ass.
Having to elect a representitive instead of having the option to have a direct say sucks ass.
Google liquid democracy

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.

People deserve a say in their government.

The problem with democracy is the same with ANY other form of government. The root problem with government: a monopoly of legal violence. This is the soul power of the state, its source of strength and weakness. There is no problem found in democracy unique to it than any other form of governance based on a monopoly of legal violence.

To rebut this point, prove that the monopoly of legal violence is moral.

nailed it

Democracy is fine so long as your country isn't stupid enough to allow women and non-landholders to vote. It's also necessary for the electorate to share a common heritage.

at least 45% of the voting base does not know what or who they're voting for, they submit to the consensus of the group

wouldn't that only be applicable on smaller nations with a more homogenous demographic?

>prove that the monopoly of legal violence is moral.

The state doesn't have a monopoly on legal violence. There are all sorts of scenarios where you can use violence against others legally. Maybe you mean that the government has a monopoly on deciding which violence is legal, but that's certainly not egregious. Some body has to be the supreme decision maker on the issue, call it what you may..

Said by a fucking Jew.

The democracy of ancient times would never consider letting barbarians, women and the low class vote

what we know of democracy when we have a global technocratic oligarchy?

Democracy to some extent is necessary, but universal suffrage was a mistake.

>more homogenous demographic
So it works for me.

No they don't. People scarcely ever know what they actually want, let alone what they actually need. The majority of the voting populace are idiots, and the ones that aren't are not equipped to make political and economic decisions that affect themselves and everybody else. They're only equipped to make decisions only for themselves, in which they can excel at.

Democracy is mob rule. It ensures the lowest members of society have the same influence as the best.

Actually long term I see the world going to cyberpunk style mega cities centered around councils or merchant kings sort of like ancient itally but across the world

They’ll wet over territory and influence until eventeually enough people live out in the rest of the solar system for a unified earth to make sense and hold together

This right here folks.
Also, checked.

This is accurate. I would add that ancient forms of democracy were practiced in small towns, and the electorate were only wealthy men who understood the local issues being voted on. Because of specialization and sheer size of our government, democracy doesn't seem practical anymore.

exactly
I've always wondered if it was possible to return to that system, by:
only allowing adults (+21) who are confirmed to hold a job and pay taxes
those who have finished their education or at least hold a degree or bachelor.
restricting old people from voting
let ONLY educated black people to vote (this in the case of america)
legal immigrants must wait until the've been naturalized for at least 10 years.

if that reduces the number of voters they'd bbe able to vote directly and personally

Why are those Greeks blonde? Fucking nordicists we wuz

Why aren't 1/3 of the men in this pic black???????

>Is there any point to democracy anymore if it allows poor, illiterate and politically uneducated people to vote, including women?

no, then it becomes a tool of the best manipulators which is why we have it in the west, also jews

Dumb autistic retard. The problem is not muh gubmint, it's people being assholes.

>trips

Large masses of people just don’t care and arent equips to vote about the state

Even in America where voting is like our national culture if more than 50% of eligable voters bother to vote it’s considerd a “huge turnout”

Literally half of people don’t even care when the have the ability to vote.

80% of the general population has no buisness voting.

Land owners and maybe “heads of households” should be allowed to vote at most

This would actually preclude me for now but I’d gladly give up my right to vote if he giant mass of swarming retards couldn’t either

>smaller nations
Larger could utilize representative body (elected with small single-seat districts) instead of direct democracy to that measure.
And if there is still doubt about constitutionality, after passing through that body, a petition from a significant amount of people could demand a referendum.
Anyway it's something to think about, at least.

The people should be voting on the laws, not the representatives

Representatives can and will push whatever bullshit, but the people's votes should be on the bills themselves.

We have representative democracy only because it used to be too difficult to have a direct democracy, so we elect a representative to vote for us. Well unfortunately those representatives are all corrupt scumbags and don't vote in our interests. So we need to democratize democracy and take power away from representatives and give it back to the people.

I think the next step in (((their))) plans would be to make revotes difficult, while making the wording of bills and laws as confusingly retarded as possible.

Also under a more direct-democracy system like this where people vote on the laws themselves, there wouldn't be the current problem with so much shit kept secret for 'national security concerns' (e.g. I need to cover my ass so no you can't see it) like the issue we're dealing with right now with the house memo by nunes.

Our democracies are basically corrupted or designed to be broken

>it becomes a tool of the best manipulators
This is exactly why the US has switched to supporting democracies over dictators in recent years. It's much easier to manipulate an electorate than it is to control a dictator.

The problem with democracy is that it was established upon the concept of all men being represented equally in a homogenous city-state.

Not all groups can be equally represented if each group wants something different.

Democracy isn't even really democracy today. It pretty much just ensures you get a somewhat fair trial and not lined up against the grave to be shot.

America is a constitutional republic yet democratic socialism is creeping in.


Say no to democracy.

Liquid democracy is better. I don't want to vote all the goddamn time. That shit is a fulltime job. I want to delegate my vote to a rep, until i want a direct say in a specific issue

Yes, it is a bad system. But, think of it as an evolution on our way.
The absolute majority of people vote for promises which aren't enforced by law. Therefore, meaningless. They choose between "red and blue", but in the end it's the same shit - an elite group of people given power to abuse all available systems, making themselves rich in the progress, changing laws if needed to protect themselves (and making deals with the opposition if the given law benefits them as well).
I think no human can properly be a ruler. No group of people can either, as they will only satisfy their greed. However, a proper AI, could be a true ruler. They wouldn't hate, they'd have no need for personal riches, no need for sexual success, but just concentrating on making their country better, concentrating resources on everything needed without the need to bypass factions seeking to block EVEN a good idea just because it's by an opposite faction.
So, cyber democracy - picking AI type most suited to current needs of the country.

I like the sound of that

yeah but who would control that AI? it could be easily compromised

It goes beyond that. There is no such thing as a "Democracy", or rather a "True Democracy". Rather, there are elected oligarchies. No matter what level, whether it be a national or local election, in order to be elected into office you need media attention, financial backing, and grassroots support. All of these, perhaps except the latter, require a good hunk of cash and connections. This always leads to legal corruption. Much like how corporations are at the will of it's stockholders, politicians are at the will of their donators. They have no need for carrying out their promises, so long as their donors are pleased. Democracy favors the Elite in that they, unlike, the working class, have the power to spread their influence into government

yep, it is. 20th century style democracies will not survive the 21st.

do you think there's a way to break that cycle/system?

>Is there any point to democracy anymore if it allows poor, illiterate and politically uneducated people to vote, including women?

No. America had it right in the beginning, when only landowning men could vote.

>talk to family about politics
>even though they watch tv religiously they can barely string together a full sentence about what they watched that night
>they unironically watch CNN
>my sister is literally high-functional retard who proudly votes
>none of them can debate their positions and they tell me I'm wrong but are unable to tell me why I'm wrong

I just gave up on voting at that point. And life in general. This existence is a cruel joke and the forces of darkness are welcome to it.

Why would you need to control it? That would defeat the whole point. No one can have control over the AI decisions, just make sure its logic process is developed well, so it doesn't, for example, find an underemployment problem to be deal with by killing all the unemployed people. Still, this is where people come in... at least they should - looking at the history of all the autocracies in the world, humans are no better then robots.

Pardon the meme flag

No, not in democracy, or even any form of elected government. To those with the resources, if you can be voted into office, you can buy power. That's how it is. You either make the puppet yourself, or buy it for a good cost.

The only viable option I see is an absolute monarchy where the head of state has no dues to anybody.

XD

Aristotle summed it up best.

AI could be hacked, or get stuck in a logical loop.
What then?

Pardon?

Lol, well put, sir.

It should be one vote per family/household imo

I can make unsustained affirmations too.
>Fascism is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

Democracy is a failure.
Strong leadership leads to strong nations.

It's not just overrated, it's the second-worst government system in existence, only before Communism.

We're talking about actual fucking AI. Not an imitation we currently have. That kind of thing would have numerous backups, on different servers, available only to them. Also, can you seriously believe a true artificial intelligence could be hacked by a human? With their processing speed billions of times bigger than a human, with specialized detection systems placed in as they seem fit...

democracy works up until the govt starts letting people vote for other peoples money.

what if we made separate parliaments for each group? one for men, one for women and other for immigrants/minorities. they all vote and debate with each other for what that group wants and their votes are delegated to a group of judges selected by the state to review

in order to participate in the parliament they must've at least have been a legal adult citizen for more than 10 years

democracy is one of the stupidest ideas humans have ever come up with, which is like being prize retard in the retard olympics

it is possible if the creator (or group of creators) of that ai is killed, extorted or bribed

>those supposed representatives of the people pass laws and bills, but those laws and bills are subject to a review by a non-democratic body
because this is not a democracy, but a mixed system, as the Ancients have perceived them

We don't live in a democracy, but in a mixed system, which has democratic and non-democratic institutions

>Is there any point to democracy anymore if it allows poor, illiterate and politically uneducated people to vote, including women?
You're looking at this backward, OP. You think the problem is that the masses are stupid. An examination of American history will show that on an issue-by-issue basis, the masses are actually quite reasonable. The elite, however, are thoroughly leftist and will do anything to get their way.

A few examples:
>Most Americans (like 80% iirc) opposed affirmative action when it was implemented. Government didn't care, did it anyway.
>In California, Prop. 187 banning welfare for illegals had widespread support and support from the governor at the time. A (Jewish) judge blocked it.
>Most Americans support vastly lower levels of immigration. Government doesn't care, does whatever.

Democracy just ends up being a messier way for the elite to get what they want, which is to keep moving left. It also has the downside of encouraging vote-banking with immigrants.

Mate. An artificial intelligence capable of ruling a country, is beyond the technological horizon. It can upgrade itself and find a counter to every move against it in mere milliseconds. Let me correct myself - the initial programming is meaningless - it's either a machine for doing the "most humane logical choices" or an actual synthetic ruler.

nigga you're not talking about an AI, you're talking about a magical genie that cannot exist

The path to benevolent AI dictatorship is fraught with extinction-level potholes. We're also under the clock because AI development will march forward independent of what's right or good. If AI is capable of "foom" it will happen eventually and at that point it's a dice roll as to whether we get eternal salvation, eternal torment or absolute obliteration so humanity needs to get in front of that.

At present even if we had superintelligent AIs we couldn't teach them how to be good leaders because the human race hasn't come to a consensus on what that actually entails. Attempting to do so unprepared could create the ultimate tyrant. And if you attach safeguards to stop a mad AI, you've attached safeguards for bad actors to stop a good AI as well.

All this isn't even considering that you'd need to overthrow the present order first.

The elites use the word "democracy" to imply that they're those of the purest intentions and that they're the closest to people and so they legitimize themselves in front of the "demos", so that the "demos" trust them as their representatives of purest intentions

So when Americans, Germans, Swedes, French, British, Italians hear "democracy" all the time, they thought that the elite has the best for them on their minds and that they have everything under control, which is why they didn't react to multiculturalism until it hit noticeable sizes

why doesn't the people go out en masse to protest when their voices are ignored?

>benevolent AI dictatorship
I spoke way too early about democracy being one the stupidest ideas, it isn't even in the same galactic cluster as this

And that AI could send you to death, like the emperors did with their youth in 1914. No thx, I'd rather have stupid humans instead of totally unpredictable AI

Changes happen slowly, so people don't notice. Besides, you could vote in basically whoever and the leftward slide would keep going, since the civil service and judiciary are the real power centers in the (formal) government. Just look at all the "conservatives" in government who are all making Principled Stands against Trump for wanting to deport illegal immigrants or saying mean things about Haiti or whatever. Of course we have the informal government too (media, universities, foundations).

Oh dear user, that’s retarded. Think it through mate. Having a democracy with one overall race of people doesn’t mean we stop trade with other races/countries, and we for a society to funcation it needs a family unit for moral values, traditions and to keep it going.

what if for whatever reason the masses attempt to overthrow the monarch? that would lead to a lot of social instability

Checked, and I'm pretty sure it's also the correct answer to the question. Maybe also restrict votes to whites as long as there are still nonwhites in the country.

>what if for whatever reason the masses attempt to overthrow the monarch?
this tends to be caused by upstart leftists and insecure power

>That kind of thing would have numerous backups
And would those backups be self-conscious too? What if AI feared replacement by a backup, and wanted to preserve itself, despite flaws it might have? Why would it replace itself out its own will?
>their processing speed billions of times bigger than a human
That it is smarter most of the time, doesn't mean it would be smarter all the time.
Processing power =/= safety.
The whole point of an AI is that it is self-learning. If a new breach within programming, was somehow found, it would remain unnoticed (at least for a short while), until used. "Ahh, so that's how I fucked up. Well, it's fixed now."
And what about logical loop?
What if it had to solve a problem, where its directives (I assume it would have at least some directions written to it, to what it actually tries to accomplish) are conflicting?

Pithy quote, but not true.
AI-managed technocracy is the future.

>poor, illiterate and politically uneducated people
they wouldn't exist in a genuine democracy

So basically, you're saying, that human emotion, that is fear and greed driven politics, which cause all of our misery, can't be replaced by an AI just because they'd suddenly do something like "making a misery free world by destroying everything living".
You're LHC-tier conspiracy theorist.
Those people are more unpredictable than a completely logical AI.

These past few years have gone a long way in discrediting protests. Almost feels deliberate.

>restrict votes to whites
you'd need a very solid and strict definiion of white possibly backed up by law or a judge for that
plus that doesn't leave out uneducated or poor white people who would do as much damage as a minority

look at the other dictatorships, they we're worse than democracy,

protesting doesn't go anywhere without backing from actual powerful people. Unfortunately in the US this tends to be leftists (Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Open Society Foundation etc.)

They're worse because the people in those countries are not so good.

In which book can I find this passage? I'm very interested in Aristotle, but haven't come across this one just yet.

>you'd need a very solid and strict definiion of white
"Free, White persons of good character"
>plus that doesn't leave out uneducated or poor white people
You'd combine it with the requirements of being a man and a landowner.

it will still only work in white countries. Militia service should be mandatory for voters.

>Those people are more unpredictable than a completely logical AI.
yada yada, are you another technology/science nerd?

Alan Greenspan thought that because markets are interconnected and run by computers, another financial crisis is impossible and yet it happened

AI wouldn't be "completely logical" because it would have to be given directives from people, it could transform them through self-learning, but nobody knows how etc.

If you say that this AI would be impossible to control, then how can you go as far to say that it would be completely logical? You simply don't know, you only believe that it would be like this

>Is there any point to democracy anymore if it allows poor, illiterate and politically uneducated people to vote, including women?

no. end of discussion.

I think that depends entirely on the type of dictatorship and the backing ideology.

Jesus, this is the last time I'm responding to idiot questions.
Backups, as in memory and system data. AI could use it to control if their current weren't manipulated - that is, AS I SAID, if it's even fucking possible at this level of advancement.
Certainly no human would have a chance and it's 100% of a time - you simply don't realize there's a limited amount of ways you an access a system, but I'd like to see you try access one that is aware of every single access attempt at every point, origin and having the intelligence to understand their reason for doing so.
The rest of your questions are unfounded, since like I said, this is not an emulation of human intelligence, but an intelligence that has surpassed a human - truly artificial. So, not bound by what we consider programming issues.

The whole concept of "equal rights" i flawed.
>When it comes to the justice system, it makes sense.
>When it comes to voting, not so much.

A poor wifebeating crackhead has the same power as a person creating jobs and working hard for his community when it comes to their votes.

I know a few things that will work and some that would be interesting.

>General intelligence being average or above to be allowed to vote.
This is a harsh one, and more people than you think are below that average line.
The problem is that a lot of smart pussy-cucks gets the power, and it will be a weak society.

>Adding power to votes.
Those contributing more for the society, paying more taxes, etc etc get extra points into their votes, up to a maximum of 2 pr vote. The 1% would not rule the country as their votes would be a total of 2%, so its a pretty safe system.

>Voting on individual cases
Instead of making voting "retard proof", let people give their votes in priorities from top to bottom.
Every instance of the government gets a minimum fund, while the rest gets voted in by the people.
If the police does a bad job, they dont get the support of the people and will most likely get less funds.
Then people cant complaint about politicians, as the power is directly int he peoples hands, while the politicians take care of the minimum budget.

that'd essentially re-enact I, Robot

We understand fear and greed at least, it's intuitive to us because its a part of us.

An AI would not think like a human at all because it's alien in nature. If it did think like a human it would inherit our worst flaws. It could come to horrifying conclusions or outwit every safeguard we program into it. Furthermore who's going to create the AI. Will the be corrupt? Will they corrupt the AI? Will they impose say radical muslim values on the rest of humanity? Will the AI see us and loathe us, or immediately desire death? Will the AI transcend wordly matters, shirk its duty and fly off in a rocket? Will it classify us as building materials and turn us into condominiums?

You can't just snap your fingers to will a perfect god into existence. But some day, something out there will wake up and we better hope it decides to be nice.

>subjective definition of morality (not universally applicable)
I'm the retard?

Only land owning white males (protestant at that) should be allowed to vote, this is why Democracy fails us.

Hair dye was quite common in the upper social circles (as portrayed)
also artistic interpretation

Not sure sorry mate.

>I'd like to see you try access one that is aware of every single access attempt at every point, origin and having the intelligence to understand their reason for doing so
It would require infinite processing power to reach that level. And frankly, I believe it to be impossible.
>an intelligence that has surpassed a human - truly artificial
>not bound by what we consider programming issues
You yourself admit that you don't have the knowledge how this thing would operate. If it can't be comprehended, how can you make judgements on what it will be bound by?

No... you think with human fear, and this is the problem of you lot. Everything "alien" causes fear in us. Be it aliens, AI, leftists, whatever.
What I noticed from this thread is that, no matter the system, no matter how advanced, none of you would be happy, because the only thing that conforms to your requirements is simply oblivion. There's always a reason for you to be afraid and the reason is because it's not YOU YOURSELF in absolute control.

it should give you a good head start to get into Aristotelian principes and his works.

This ^^^

lol
You're just an AI cultist. Fortunately this won't be a problem in our lifetimes because we're still far from genuine superintelligence.
Hell, we might not even reach that point. "Dumb" AI is plenty dangerous.

every single democracy in history has failed once people realize they can buy votes with public money. monarchies are most effective because the leaders are trained from birth to lead. the only time there is a problem is when the king doesn't sire an heir. constitutionalism on the other hand is a solid idea. a set of basic rules that everybody sits down and agrees to and can't be changed easily. a constitution can actually solve many of the problems associated with monarchy such as succession.

Well im not sure what is the % in the population , but you have a lot of blonde Greeks.

To be honest, I just gave an idea. People here are never happy with everyone, so why not try to forge something capable? But then, everything made by humans will be lacking, just as we are.
This is why it needs the capability to self-improve beyond our influence.
Anyway, yeah. My life philosophy is simply improving myself in all fields that interest me, at the same time avoiding politic statements, so then I can benefit from both camps.