While I think this would be amazing, it would also give 'entertainment' media complete control.

When vast amounts of power are held by a small elite, they will use this power to accumulate more. It doesn't matter whether it's political, social, or economic power -- one can always be exchanged for the others. As such, democracy (aka: political equality) cannot function in tandem with a system that creates economic inequality, as the rich will use their wealth to manipulate the political system to suit their ends. The problem is not democracy; the problem is capitalism; at least, hierarchical capitalism -- capitalism based on cooperatives (democratic capitalism) could work differently.

Inequality is the problem -- both political and economic inequality, and one will always cause the other. Democracy is the solution-- both political and economic democracy, and you cannot have one without the other. The problem with democracy is that we don't have enough of it; it's something that we relegate to a tiny corner of our societies, where the powerful can simply work around it. This is deeply flawed state of affairs, but it is still better than nothing -- and we shouldn't lose faith in democracy because of problems caused by hierarchy.

Just saying : democracy isn't just an electoral system, it's also a definition of citizenships, with a series of rights (civic, political...), and it's also the protection of a series of dispositives ensuring its functionning (education, press, etc).

Democracy isn't a binary feature, either. There are levels of democracy, and many official "democracies" have antidemocratic aspects (dubious freedom of the press, non-citizens, etc). Polticial scientists don't stop at labels defining what country "is" or "isn't" a democracy.

So, no. Democracy is actually underrated. But democracy implies a lot of things, in order to function, and I don't think many -if any- country truly meets all the requirements. All democracies are technically imperfect and dysfunctionnal, perpetually damaged and repatched. It doesn't mean we should be aiming at something else.

I think that would paralyze the country, the way the system is today has weakened leadership to the point they just have enough power to make some superficial changes.

Lol, it reminds me of Anachronox where they were on a planet where every minor descision had to be decided by popular vote.

Monarchy and dictatorship are shit systems, because a lot of power rests on the shoulder of one individual and individuals are less stable than a group of people (the larger the group, the greater the stability).

An individual can go mad, be a psychopath (about 1% of the population, you roll the dice each time a new dictator comes into power, pray) or be subject to intimidation from unsavory individuals (ie, "You'll rule the state like I tell you or I'll pop your wife and children").

The larger the body that makes executive decisions, the less you have to gamble with those things.

Also, ruling bodies have a tendency to get out of touch with the realities that various portions of the population lives and because of that alone, they often make a better judge of what would most benefit them than a lone ruler even if that lone ruler has a much higher intellect (I don't care how smart you are, nothing beats being in a person's shoes to make a good assessment on them).

Traditional monarchy is probably the shittiest of all systems, because you don't have any flexibility in picking a ruler, meaning the dice gets pretty random with each generation.

A freer form of dictatorship is somewhat better, because a dictator who isn't bound by monarchic tradition can actively chose an heir who might not be his child, though that would make for a pretty awkward conversation with his children (ie, "Son, I love you, but I don't think you have what it takes to rule this nation properly and you would drive it to the ground so I'll pick Josh here instead for that").

However, most people's judgment is off when it comes to their kids (no offense meant to parents reading this) so most dictators would end up picking their kid and the system would be just as crappy as regular monarchy.

Our current system of democracy (in Canada) is shit, but at the very least, we get to tryout dictators every 4 years each time we have a majority government which is not true democracy, but infinitely better than that "dictator for life" crap.

There are many ways the system could be improved as outlined in "Imagine Democracy" by Judy Rebick. Imho, if there were to be one mandatory reading for high school students in Canada, it should be that book.

Personally, it changed my outlook drastically. Seriously, if every Canadian read and understood that book tomorrow, I think Canada would be a much better country.

This. I think the view many people have on democracy is colored by their current system and that places an unfortunately limit in their mind as to what it could become.

Totally off topic; how do you feel about having a monarch on your money?

If it's for historical reasons, I don't mind so much, but I do reconsider the monarchy worship of royalists to be collective insanity.

Then again, the British Monarchy has very little power in Canada, but I do resent event the little power that they have.

In my opinion, they should have none.

:D Yeah, I was just curious. I agree with your take on monarchy 100% then again the historic aspect allows me to be not so sensitive about it. Just FYI I live on the border (technically) so I see a lot of Canadian currency and I've always just been curious about it.

Now that I think about it, I guess the historical aspect is why you don't mind having hockey players on your money since Canada once had that too. I'M JOKING!!!!! They are the defending gold medalist! I love them! Your pro teams just aren't that great. :P

I think that in paper most government systems are actually great, including communism, socialism or even feudalism.

The problems is us people.

Power corrupts and humans as a whole are selfish, petty, emotional and no matter what sort of government idea you come up with, there will always be people exploiting its flaws, trying to make a buck (or millions of them) while screwing everyone else.

The people in power don't do it out of selflessness. They always want something, whether it's just money, the adulation of their peers or simple fame. I guess bossing others around is ingrained into many of us as the de facto way of feeling good with ourselves.

So I wouldn't blame democracy at all, I'd blame ourselves. Any government system would actually work if there were no corruption and a genuine desire to advance and move one's country forward without thinking so much in oneself or falling for the vanity trap of feeling superior to your fellow man.

But that's a pipe dream. We're wired this way and we have to make do with what we can.

I think every and any system suffers from the same problem, "humans", as the elven introduction in "The Lord of the Rings" spoke..."and 9 rings of power were given to the race of men, because over all other creatures they crave power the most".
A system will be as good or as bad as those in charge of running it, doesn´t matter which one, as others claimed, democracy may be seen upon as the lesser devil, and it may be true, but it can become just a makeup of the real thing running behind.
So, Lord Sauron, that is omnipresent with his all seeing eye of corrupted power, corrupts those in charge of the masses, and those ally with those who have the power to reach the masses to help them corrupt them and so, the masses follow them unconditionally under a twisted banner................but some resist and the burden is onto them to open the eyes of the others ; P
It´s like the neverending cycle.

I agree i would be happy with communism or a monarchy or even a dictatorship if we could just take out the corruption and replace it with a desire to help the nation they are in.

The system where two drunkards have more power than one professor can't be that good.
Besides, in many parts of the world ochlocracy (mob \ mass of people rule) is wrongly called 'democracy'.

Speaking of Democracy, I just relaized it's President's Day in the U.S.. As someone who was named after a President allow me to wish you and yours a very happy holliday. Think I'll spend it playing Gothic!

I got a few thoughts. Hope they don't come of as too aggressive.

1) Your premise that democracy is propagandised is flawed, in my opinion there is rather a wide and deep current of anti democratic thought, of which your post is a perfect example. We are neither in the Cold War nor in WW2 anymore. Where is this pro democratic propaganda you imply we are brainwashed by?

2) You mix political power with economical power. For a political discussion you fail to properly distinguish Republic from Democracy. You use the economical aspects of social power inequalities as a strawman against democratic practices. You use the political aspects of totalitarian corrupt policies to argue against capitalistic liberal practices.

3) You invert priorities between economical power and coercive power, a disturbing inversion between positive and negative liberties which is ironically the best argument against populist democratic principles I can think of. This is at root what I believe leads you to see the corruption of politicians by "oligarchs" as worse than the "corruption" of capitalists by politicians.

As a conclusion, what you criticise is clearly fascism. It's not capitalist liberal democracy. I think calling it by its name is a must if we are to get anywhere in a discussion of what kind of political system we should have.

No dude, we can vote for whoever we want. We tend to vote for those people because we're apathetic and comfortable, on average.

Stop blaming a system that allows for peaceful revolution every two years for people not wanting to utilize it.