1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    cis.joshb's Avatar
    January 2011
    1,873 Posts
    This is a debate of almost metapolitics, not about how government is run, but how the system of how government is run should be selected.

    Degrees of Democracy:

    Non-intervention
    Nothing should be done to create a state, let everything happen naturally for the greatest level of majority rule. Ex: Anarchy/Assassin's Creed Ideology.

    Complete Democracy
    There should be no constitution limiting what laws can be passed and literally anything should be accomplishable through a majority vote, even removing democracy.

    Democratic Constitution
    The only amendment limiting what laws can be passed in the constitution should make it impossible to remove democracy, but otherwise anything should be possible like above.

    Amendable Constitution
    There can be amendments limiting what laws are passed, but they can be repealed. Ex: Most governments.

    Un-Amendable Constitution
    The Constitution has democracy, but it limits what decisions democracy can make. Ex: A socialist government with a constitution that democratically decides how socialism is run (like what they teach in public schools), but does not allow socialism to be removed.

    Authoritarian
    No Democracy. Ex: A dictatorship or military junta.

    I'm all for an Un-Amendable Constitution that follows my ideals, but when I remove myself from the issue I really don't know what the best would be.

    Of course there's the thought that non-intervention is going on anyways, because whatever happens happens whether or not there is a constitution in place, but that's too meta for us normal humans.

    So, what is your opinion, to what degree should we have democracy?

  2. Post #2
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,124 Posts
    Amendable Constitution, provided changes to the constitution are done through a national referendum. Although your average joe may lack the political train of thought, usually a referendum is enough to represent the opinions of the public, and that is definitely an aspect of democracy. This system would prevent representatives and lawmakers making big decisions on behalf of the public without its (the public's) consent.

    However, referendums shouldn't be used too often for bills that fit within a constitution. As said, your average joe may lack understanding of politics and what the public may see as evil (such as increased taxation) may be more beneficial if implemented, for example increased taxation may increase government income without causing too much of a negative effect on the economy, but no one likes taxes.

  3. Post #3
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,790 Posts
    non-intervention.

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,889 Posts
    Amendable constitutions have proven to be quite stable and as a result seem like the best system.

    Overall I think you should rather focus on if the constitution is rigid or flexible as opposed how much can be amended or not.

    Overall you really only have 2 kinds of governments out there right now. Amendable constitution vs authoritarian.

    So the more important differentiatior is how easy it is to make amendments. Which defines the rigidness of the constitution.

    Also there's essentially no difference between an amendable constitution and a democratic one, at least according to what you write. The difference lies in what a nation defines as basic democratic principles which vary - european countries tend to have a somewhat broader range, though not as absolute for instance.

  5. Post #5
    I'M A MASSIVE FAGGOT AND LOVE COCKS
    DrBreen's Avatar
    June 2007
    4,991 Posts
    those are not true democracies that you mentioned, true democracy is direct democracy

  6. Post #6
    Viking Chest hair simulator 2012
    TheDestroyerOfall's Avatar
    June 2009
    2,419 Posts
    Technocracy all the way!

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    those are not true democracies that you mentioned, true democracy is direct democracy
    This. Most things on this list are republics in nature.

  8. Post #8
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    those are not true democracies that you mentioned, true democracy is direct democracy
    I find that everything mentioned there so far is just another name for plutocracy.

  9. Post #9
    cathal6606's Avatar
    August 2009
    2,750 Posts
    Technocracy all the way!
    I'd like to see how that would work out.

    Edited:

    Im guessing it would be similar to theocracy.

  10. Post #10
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    those are not true democracies that you mentioned, true democracy is direct democracy
    He never said anything about elected officials, so it could be a direct democracy. But I agree, those are the best.

    Edited:

    I'd like to see how that would work out.

    Edited:

    Im guessing it would be similar to theocracy.
    I think it would work great, except for one thing: who picks the Technocrats?

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,889 Posts
    those are not true democracies that you mentioned, true democracy is direct democracy
    Technically they are democracies, but representative democracies.

    The issue with full democracy - aka everyone has voting rights and everyone has the power of proposal is that everyone gets swamped by an insane amount of legal proposals, no one has time to actually figure out what said proposal will be about and there would be just so many of them that people would get disinterested.

    As a result you tend to have representative democracies with a number of direct democracy principles worked into them. Referendums on important things for instance.

    A republic and democracy are terms that handle different things though.

    As to technocracy - it's often proposed to use a random pool of the people inside of the profession to be chosen.


    I find that everything mentioned there so far is just another name for plutocracy.

    No one mentioned anything even close to a plutocracy. As those tend to require elections limited to a social group, no elections at all or other direct ways of controling who gets inside of the governing body and who does not.

    In some cases you can have a faux plutocracy where funding the campaign of becoming a member of the legislative body is incredibly expensive, but legally that is still a democracy as the elections aren't closed to candidates who can't put that money on the table.