People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

[Bootneck]

It's not that the voters are too dumb it's that the system is broken in the first place. It is about money. Who can spend the most money on ads and their campaign and the media eats that **** up and spits it out, making voters think they can only vote for person A or B. If persons C, D, E never get exposed to the people (lack of money) and are flat out denied the right to debate in our undemocratic system obviously people aren't going to vote for them.

3rd party candidates are shunned from debates & the media in general and the propaganda machine typically labels them as either crazy or spoilers, the latter was the case of Ralph Nader who at one point (when Kerry was running), 35% of american's said they would vote for him if they thought he could win, but the media kept saying over and over he's just stealing votes, thus no one voted for him. Ironically if those same 35% of people voted for him he would have won. Additionally his name wasn't even allowed on the ballot in many states (which only further confirms how undemocratic and broken our system is).

the system is kinda broken as far as elections......

but if 30 second tv ads is how people decide who to vote for....... then the people are dumb.

[Bootneck]

Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they
Works for me.

the purpose of a democracy is not to elect the best leaders.

nor is it to prevent "lower than average candidates from becoming leaders."

the purpose of a democracy is to have the people decide who is in charge.

the u.s. form specifically also is designed to limit the power of who is in charge as well.

[Bootneck]

One way of confirming that they're not smart enough is that the candidates with the most money and amount of Campaign Ad's always seem to be the ones winning or in the frontrunner status.

Hence why you have Liberals who want Campaign finance reform and public funding. But why blame the money, blame the people for being influenced.

If the elections/voting machines aren't rigged in anyway that is.

you mean liberals like obama who i seem to remember last year made big news in raising more money than ALL the republican candidates at the time COMBINED?

if you want a statement to be taken seriously , don't inject your politics into it.


campaign finance is not a republican vs. democrat , liberal vs. conservative issue.


it's about politicians who want to keep their office. (incumbents generally get more campaign donations because 1. they are already in power 2. they already have influence or had influence on certain issues donators care about)

[Canelo Phresh]

im not sure if your trying to imply that some "informed" minority should rule or communism but those systems are severely deficient.

[Bootneck]

im not sure if your trying to imply that some "informed" minority should rule or communism but those systems are severely deficient.

talking to me? replying to my post?


where'd you get that from?

just stated what a democracy is.

a way for the majority of the people to rule or decide who is to rule.

also stated that the u.s. form is designed to limit the power of those in charge.


democracy was

[Canelo Phresh]

talking to me? replying to my post?


where'd you get that from?

just stated what a democracy is.

a way for the majority of the people to rule or decide who is to rule.

also stated that the u.s. form is designed to limit the power of those in charge.


democracy was

no the ts. in the article he cited it said that democracy was only slightly better for keeping out the despots and dictators. i said that works for me.

[siablo14]

The people are to blame for letting elected officials usurp national constitutional laws and principals.

It would be somewhat good to return the power back to the people. BUT! The constitution has been nullified, and the rights and powers originally intended to be under the people's control is now with the ruling authority.
A complete reversal of the dictates implied by the constitution.

It is too late for the so-called voters to do anything to change the CURRENT political climate, short of total revolution and an uprising against tyranny.

The statement "People aren't smart enough for democracy to flourish" is accurate, but conditional. No one is asking the question "SHOULD DEMOCRACY FLOURISH" for if democracy leads to corruption and a political system that serves itself, rather than the people, then it is just as evil as those who come to govern within it.

IMHO, a Monarchy is quite possibly the best way to rule a nation -- not a Monarchy as we have seen in the past and in other countries, where bloodline dictates ruling lineage but a Monarchy where ascendancy is earned by serving the citizens of the country.

As far as the here and now, in these United States .... we are screwed!!!!!

The power is still with the people. Politicians get away with passing and changing certain laws because some people only take a look at politics when it's election time.

[arraamis]

The power is still with the people. Politicians get away with passing and changing certain laws because some people only take a look at politics when it's election time.

In what capacity do US citizens have power or control to alter anything???

Like I stated ... short of a complete uprising against tyranny, the citizens of the US have been thoroughly neutered and neutralized.

[siablo14]

In what capacity do US citizens have power or control to alter anything???

Like I stated ... short of a complete uprising against tyranny, the citizens of the US have been thoroughly neutered and neutralized.

They have the power to change the leaders. The leaders do not put themselves in they get voted in, unless you think they are manipulating the votes.