A challenge for democrats

[hmkpoker]

This is for (lowercase)democrats, that is, people who believe in democracy.

Democrats like the idea of equality under democracy. One person, one vote. It doesn't matter how wealthy, poor, smart or dumb you are, everyone gets an equal voting power. That's why the status quo hails it universally as a good idea, unlike monarchy where decisions are made exclusively by an elite few.

When confronted with the notion that one vote doesn't matter, most democrats are quick to point out that while one vote may not matter, there is much more that one person can do than simply cast one vote; by becoming active, demonstrating and discussing politics, one can get people on to his side, start a movement, and sway the course of politics. One person, undoubtedly, can make a difference.

There is a serious problem with this. Are we to understand that if person A, through rah-rahing for candidate X, persuades person B to vote for candidate X instead of candidate Y as he was going to, then it is unreasonable to conclude that each person's voting power is equal. People are not islands. We interact with other people and are influenced by them. While the votes may be equal, the influence is not...and that is a critical problem with democracy.

You know that your actions in an election do not matter. You are not going to change the direction of the election. The same cannot be said of the elite. The executives of FOX News and CNN, on the other hand, can spin coverage any way they want to, and cause a very significant shift in the election. Luckily for them, when they do, what appears is the voice of "the people," who are just mindless lemmings that do what they're told.

All democracy does is mask the complete and utter futility of the everyman by giving him a meaningless vote between two pre-selected candidates. The elite control it just as they did under monarchy; it's simply a very good illusion to make "the people" think they matter.

Why do you think George W. Bush wants to force Democracy on every part of the world?




If people were autonomous enough to actually decentralize the voting influence enough so that democracy could actually be considered egalitarian, they would be too smart to have any use for democracy.

[ShakeZula06]

Great Op as always HMK. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Bremen]

The idea that individual votes don't matter seems wrong to me. Taken to the extreme this means no one's vote matters so no one shows up. We're than governed by the one person that did show up...

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
You know that your actions in an election do not matter. You are not going to change the direction of the election. The same cannot be said of the elite. The executives of FOX News and CNN, on the other hand, can spin coverage any way they want to, and cause a very significant shift in the election.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're also vastly overestimating the pull of cable news. Irregardless, I do not see this as a problem since people are not forced to get their news from these organizations.

[clowntable]

I'd like to add to this the following (as food for though):

Absolute monarchy is to be prefered over (time limited) democracy due to the fact thet the monarch has less incentive to take from the people because he will pass on the rule to his children thus it's somewhat comparable to an investment.
A democratic government that is for example limited to two terms however must use those two terms to gain the maximum for themselves. Afterwards it's the same for the next government and so on.

This is not my idea but was first mentioned by Hans-Hermann Hoppe I belive.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]

The idea that individual votes don't matter seems wrong to me. Taken to the extreme this means no one's vote matters so no one shows up. We're than governed by the one person that did show up...

[/ QUOTE ]
While he says meaningless, I'd imagine he means next to meaningless. I mean, I suppose hypothetically your vote could be the one that changes the election (though the odds has to be greater the one in a billion).

The meaning of your vote depends on both the amount of people voting, and your ability to influence other voters.
[ QUOTE ]
You're also vastly overestimating the pull of cable news.

[/ QUOTE ]
80% of all news in America is provided by five companies. Cable is not only a large amount of news, but it's also where those five companies dominate the most.
[ QUOTE ]
Irregardless, I do not see this as a problem since people are not forced to get their news from these organizations.

[/ QUOTE ]
They may not be forced, but it certainly presents a problem.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to add to this the following (as food for though):

Absolute monarchy is to be prefered over (time limited) democracy due to the fact thet the monarch has less incentive to take from the people because he will pass on the rule to his children thus it's somewhat comparable to an investment.
A democratic government that is for example limited to two terms however must use those two terms to gain the maximum for themselves. Afterwards it's the same for the next government and so on.

This is not my idea but was first mentioned by Hans-Hermann Hoppe I belive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is better, democracy or monarchy?

[Hoi Polloi]

Isn't this why we have parties and other organizations that seek to aggregate votes by providing a unifying compromise individuals can rally around? People organize whether it's Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes or the IWW.

[Woolygimp]

Personal attack deleted

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Greater than 1 in a billion? LOL. Retard.

More like 1 in 120 million.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whew! I feel so much better now, thx.