Democracy is fucked up

[Zenith]

I disagree. Sorry, but I don't understand how that could work (I only read a few lines from the article). If people just guess, then that's basically just as people throwing dices. And if one guy throws one dice and decides on that, or he throws the dice a dozen of times and averages out, or a bunch of people throw the dice, I don't see how there could be a difference among them, how the odds could change for the better.

The way I see it, democracy can improve a country as best as the average citizen can. You may have brilliant and extremely competent people in a country, but since the best make up less than 5%, they have little to no chance to make a difference - the average people make up 60-90% of the people and they think differently. (and yes, the average people can be idiots)

To make an alegory:

Let's say there is a cat in a room, and the cat needs a surgery because of a health problem.
You select 20 people (1->20), who have a knowledge about surgering a cat, like this:
1,2 - "what's that a cat?"
3->6 - "Yeah, I know what a cat is. What is surgery?"
7->14 - ordinary people who know what surgery is and what a cat is, but have no idea how to treat a cat.
15->18 - inexperienced veterinarians and ordinary medics.
19,20 - experienced veterinarians, who can do surgery on cats.

Now you go to each in his turn and present him the problem - the symptoms the cat experiences. And you give each a piece of paper and tell him "write there what you think should be done, and if it needs a surgery, how it should be done."
Then you pick the notes from everyone, average out the result, or find the most common response.

In this scenario, what chances do you think the cat has to be healed?

That's quite how democracy works. And yes, if such an experiment were to be attempted by hundreds of groups, I suppose some of them would be able to heal the cat.

It doesn't matter if you don't think it would work, it does work. People in large groups play as a grandmaster. 50,000 people on plurality vote played a very close game with Gary Kasporav, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World Also the thing about the Jelly beans is a repeatable experiment that's been done hundreds, if not thousands of times. People make more accurate decisions in large group votes.

I took the time to read the article (diplomacy.edu). It found it interesting.

There was a deficiency in my allegory, which was intentional. The people to perform sugery on the cat were to give their answers independently from one another, rather than stand and discuss it as a group. So in my allegory I don't think we can talk about "collective wisdom", since the individuals were isolated. And this, I believe, corresponds pretty well with how society is - people usually stand in their own silos, i.e. with people who think like them, agree with them, and are thus isolated from the rest.

Now, if I leave that allegory aside, in politics I fear you still do have other deficiencies also. One is "herding", and as such, lack of "a) true diversity of opinions; (b) independence of opinion" -- lacks that are also heavily influenced by propaganda.

So, your statement,
> That's why even when individuals make it seem like democracy is just a collection of dumbshits making decisions, it works very well.

Perhaps it would work well in democracy / politics if:
a) people understood the matters as much as the politicians do, or at least one could rely on honesty and transparency from the politicians and the media.
and
b) people discussed their views with others of differing (and even opposing) opinions.
and
c) the knowledge & understanding that people have about the subject at hand goes beyond a minimum.

[downbeatplumb]

TL;DR

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

I think Churchill also said "The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter"

[Kosh]

What your currently seeing in America is what happens when the most dimmest, dullest, and scared humans pick a leader.  This will turn out to be a cautionary tale for generations to come, or until humans are extinct.. Whichever happens first.    I give us until 2100.

Sit back and enjoy the shit show folks.  

I would weep for the future, but my wife and I happily have no children.  Anyone with children or grandchildren need to rethink what kind of future world they want for their progeny.  Unlike the 19th Century when nationalism and tribalism were viable options, we live in a world of instantaneous communication where the extinction of the species is a button press, a misunderstand, or misinterpretation away.  The environment that supports all the worlds living organisms is at the mercy of our now 7.5 Trillion individuals.  We are literally a virus gone unchecked upon mother earth.

If you haven't read Arthur C Clarks Childhood's End, I recommend it.   From my perspective, intervention from overlords is the only thing that will save humanity..  At least for a little while.

[Zenith]

For everything I heard that Trump did or did not, the anti-Trump guys laughed at Trump and his supporters how idiots they are, while the Trump supporters laughed back, because for them, the same event was obvious evidence that Trump is great and that the anti-Trump reaction is retarded.

Right, because some people think that racism is retarded, but racists think it's just swell and non-racists are retarded.......?

Nope. It's because, according to them, Trump never said nor did anything racist, never mocked a disabled person, and so on. And those who claim otherwise are oversensitive mentally unstable SJW-s and snow flakes who call anything "Hitler" and see racism and intolerance even where there is none. So you can laugh of them that they're racists, but they'll say to themselves that they're not racists, and laugh of you back calling you idiot and snow flake and probably SJW, because according to them, they see the world the way it actually is while you are fucked up.

It's just like, I remember, some time ago I came across the title of an article about Meryl Streep who said something about Trump that was like, "Wow, she said THAT! There's no way to defend from such a statement". But then, no more than two days, a picture comes on my fb wall, from someone on my contact list.



We could discuss now how that is not actually an appropriate response to what she said about Trump, and how Obama is not the devil in this world. But my point is, there are people out there who live in a different reality than you and I do (just like christians live in a different reality than atheists), who live in their own bubbles, with their own set of news, and understanding of what happend, what that means, and thus importance they assign to details in those events.

[Zenith]

The problem, Tonus, is that in a scenario where 10% of the population go to vote scenario, it is not the smart, knowledgeable ones who go to vote, but the gullible.

How smart can they be if they're leaving their fate in the hands of a small group of gullible people, whose influence they could negate by taking the simple action of voting?

It's complicated. And, I believe, most people who don't go to vote - even smart ones - don't feel like their fate lies in the hands of the people who go to vote.

I have observed beliefs such as:

• Nothing ever changes. - imagine how it would be like if you were to vote between Obama and Hillary Clinton, or worse, between Trump and Kim Jong-un. Would you bother go to vote? (I'll assume here that Kim Jong-un is no worse than Trump, only the former happens to live in a dictatorial state).
  
• My vote doesn't make a difference - imagine how it is like if, every time you vote for your state or have polls for the president, the candidate you favor earns maximum 5%. So it always happens that other candiate wins or you have to choose between two candidates you hate both the same. And you never get the chance to put in power someone that you consider to be appropriate, because you are but one in... how many millions?
  
• All politicians are the same - if all are the same, then why does it matter who wins?
  
• "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." - if the system is as such that it gives the people the impression that they rule, in order to keep them appeased and not rebel / turn to riots, then there is nothing you win or earn by going to vote.
  

The point it, the act of voting involves emotions and prejudices and other deficiencies which makes us human.

Even smart people are prone to errors in their reasoning - I believe the word smart means "able to understand, learn, and think things easily" rather than "be right all the time in all the aspects that concern your life"

[dyresand]

The US isn't a democratic country it functions as a Oligarchy we have been for a long time.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's the crucial thing as I understand it: democracy can only work if the electorate are educated enough to know what the Hell they're doing. Is it any wonder that the recent failures of democracy have been spearheaded by the low-in-education and the rich demagogues willing to exploit the hell out of them?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If you don't play stop whining. It's annoying.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Democracy is the worst possible political system, except for all the others we've tried." Winston Spencer Churchill.

[Anomalocaris]

"Democracy is the worst possible political system, except for all the others we've tried." Winston Spencer Churchill.

Time will tell.