Magic Magnum said
The main difference between Monarchy and Democracy is that a person is put in charge due to blood, not personal merit.The position is leader becomes a title of inheritance, something that a few lucky children 'deserve' no matter how rotten they are. Rather than a title/responsibly that one must earn.I will agree that Democracy is far from perfect, it has many flaws, and gives too much voice to people who either don't care or don't know crap about the world in comparison to those who do know or care about the world. But it is definitely a better system that systematically raising the most ultimately spoiled/entitled brat of a child you could ever imagine and then letting them lead.

Actually, thats wrong. Several european Countries (notably the Holy Roman Empire) had an elected king. Admitedly elected by the rich and important, and in the case of the HRE it devolved to the point where it may as well have been hereditary

The trouble with what your saying is that "Monarchy" and "Democracy" are broad and sometimes overlaping terms. You can have hereditary monarchy, you can have appointed monarchy etc. Democracy is the same, you can have republics, you can have communes (obviously there are no soverign communes, because they simply dont work as a national system.).
Hell, you can even have both monarchy and democracy at the same time (Constitutional monarchy with an elected governing body, or a monarch voted in by the people)

Saying the two concepts automatically equal one thing, or that the two are mutually exclusive, simply arent true. Hereditary monarchy suffers the problems you suggest, but monarchs can actually be appointed as well which can circumvent said problems. Likewise, democracies can still be dominated by rich brats who brought their way to the top or had more money to spend on a political campaign, and in the past it was common to restrict voting to the well off anyway, or they would be the only ones literate enough to vote.

And while some claim republics are better than monarchies, some republics can in fact be less democratic than monarchies, depending on how the two are run.

Monarchy is the wild card really, it can overlap with both Democracy and Dictatorship, which are probably better suited to the discusion than "Monarchy" and "Democracy", or even "Ways of new" and "Ways of old" because the concept of democracy has been around for thousands of years. While the two still cover a range of government types, they do not really overlap as you cant have a "Democratic Dictatorship" by definition.

I agree, however, with a certain gentleman
"Democracy is the worst type of government, except all the other types which have failed."

Magic Magnum said
The main difference between Monarchy and Democracy is that a person is put in charge due to blood, not personal merit.The position is leader becomes a title of inheritance, something that a few lucky children 'deserve' no matter how rotten they are. Rather than a title/responsibly that one must earn.I will agree that Democracy is far from perfect, it has many flaws, and gives too much voice to people who either don't care or don't know crap about the world in comparison to those who do know or care about the world. But it is definitely a better system that systematically raising the most ultimately spoiled/entitled brat of a child you could ever imagine and then letting them lead.

Besides a monarchy, I would say that a diverse authoritarian government could also work if done right

Protagonist said I think the answer to this question is simple: the power vested in the state should be exactly proportional to how much you can trust its leadership. Theoretically, any system can be corrupted by stuffing it full of enough bad people, and any system can work if stuffed with enough good people. Ideally, the best governmental system would be a totalitarian system (hear me out) led by an infallible despot. However, since people are very, very fallible, despotism invariably fails. So, you just cut back on their power and make them a bit more accountable, and eventually you end up with a constitutional republic.

If only Mr. House was real.

Yog Sothoth said I say human beings are meant to have hierarchies every culture in history has, hell even animals. I don't believe in idealistic thinking because normally it leads to disappointment, depression and anger. Me personally I believe in monarchy and I think democracy is overrated and chaotic, humans are too stubborn to all work together. I say bring back the old ways.

You mean small city states with no real connection to each other besides maybe confederate agreements, a manageable population, Athenian Democracies, single transferable voting, economies backed by currency with actual value, and personal relationship between people and small, generally syncretic governments?

Oh, if only.

Magic Magnum said The main difference between Monarchy and Democracy is that a person is put in charge due to blood, not personal merit.The position is leader becomes a title of inheritance, something that a few lucky children 'deserve' no matter how rotten they are. Rather than a title/responsibly that one must earn.

I will agree that Democracy is far from perfect, it has many flaws, and gives too much voice to people who either don't care or don't know crap about the world in comparison to those who do know or care about the world. But it is definitely a better system that systematically raising the most ultimately spoiled/entitled brat of a child you could ever imagine and then letting them lead.

I think a type of democracy is ideal, taking into mind size of the population, size of the territory, neighboring countries or autonomous zones, agriculture, economy and general level of technology. I think an Athenian Democracy ((OPEN TO EVERYONE), with some bits thrown in from Communist Marxism, Anarchism and Socialism) would be great on a city and town level.

darkwolf687 said Actually, thats wrong. Several european Countries (notably the Holy Roman Empire) had an elected king. Admitedly elected by the rich and important, and in the case of the HRE it devolved to the point where it may as well have been hereditary

You know you're grasping when the Holy Roman Empire is your notable example. Not only was it not even really a country-- it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. But that's just a personal bias against the HRE.

darkwolf687 said The trouble with what your saying is that "Monarchy" and "Democracy" are broad and sometimes overlaping terms. You can have hereditary monarchy, you can have appointed monarchy etc. Democracy is the same, you can have republics, you can have communes (obviously there are no soverign communes, because they simply dont work as a national system.).
Hell, you can even have both monarchy and democracy at the same time (Constitutional monarchy with an elected governing body, or a monarch voted in by the people)

Yessss, communes ftw.

darkwolf687 said Saying the two concepts automatically equal one thing, or that the two are mutually exclusive, simply arent true. Hereditary monarchy suffers the problems you suggest, but monarchs can actually be appointed as well which can circumvent said problems. Likewise, democracies can still be dominated by rich brats who brought their way to the top or had more money to spend on a political campaign, and in the past it was common to restrict voting to the well off anyway, or they would be the only ones literate enough to vote.

And while some claim republics are better than monarchies, some republics can in fact be less democratic than monarchies, depending on how the two are run.

Monarchy is the wild card really, it can overlap with both Democracy and Dictatorship, which are probably better suited to the discusion than "Monarchy" and "Democracy", or even "Ways of new" and "Ways of old" because the concept of democracy has been around for thousands of years. While the two still cover a range of government types, they do not really overlap as you cant have a "Democratic Dictatorship" by definition.

What do you think about The Crown's basically 'Ceremonial Monarchy'?

darkwolf687 said I agree, however, with a certain gentleman
"Democracy is the worst type of government, except all the other types which have failed."

lel

Yog Sothoth said Besides a monarchy, I would say that a diverse authoritarian government could also work if done right

Wouldn't every type of government ever work if 'done right?'

Posting this response to OP because for some reason I spent the time writing it all out.

---

TJByrum said Everybody wants to be free, but is freedom to dangerous to be left in the hands of citizens like us?

TJByrum said What if we had the ability to track each citizen? If a kid is kidnapped we know exactly where they are, we know where they're going, and we know who has them. If we could control the population we could make sure that kid never gets kidnapped, and even they are kidnapped we have a very effective way of rescuing them. Imagine if that kid was a little girl who was about to be sexually abused by the kidnapper; isn't it better that we CONTROL the population to ensure these sick things never happen?

TJByrum said What if we had a system that told us when someone was doing something illegal? What if we knew when someone was drinking and driving? We could save the life of an innocent child, or perhaps an entire family.

TJByrum said Drugs don't always make you do bad things, but drugs will ALWAYS lead to violence, and we need to control the population to ensure violence is contained.

TJByrum said What if our law enforcement had the ability to search whatever they wanted? They need no warrant. Why do you want a warrant anyway? Do you have something to hide? If you're an innocent person you have nothing to hide. In my eyes, if you request a warrant then you're hiding something.

TJByrum said Imagine if we had the ability to immediately flag and arrest potential terrorists.

TJByrum said How many people live in poverty and continue to spend taxpayers money on drugs?

TJByrum said Why are people against drug tests for welfare and food stamps? Why would you deny a drug test?

TJByrum said Are you spending the money that you supposedly don't have on illegal substances?

TJByrum said I believe a BETTER world is a SAFE world, but a SAFE world is only possible through CONTROL, NOT FREEDOM.

---

Sometimes you just need to do things without any purpose.

Indeed, the holy roman empires name could not be more misleading. It was closer to a ramshackle confederacy than an actual empire. Regardless, it still had an *ahem* "Elected" Emperor... And it is very notable, being one of the top powers in Europe at one point. Maybe the Roman Kings would be a better example, seeing as how they were elected by the senate at one time.

As for the ceremonial monarchy, I'm a Royalist who believes that the Queen is a symbol of unity and would rather my country stay a Constitutional Monarchy. To nick a saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a monarch whose pretty much just a ceremonial icon at this point is fine by me, in some ways I think its quite a nice thing to have and regardless of how many tourists mistakenly believe that she dictates my life I'd rather have a monarchy than a republic, if I'm honest, I view the monarchy as more of a source of pride. Figures say she makes more than she costs, so its not like she isnt paying her way... Plus "United Republic" just sounds a bit silly really...

darkwolf687 said Figures say she makes more than she costs, so its not like she isnt paying her way... Plus "United Republic" just sounds a bit silly really...

She makes waaaayy more than she costs.

---

EDIT: fix'd, also link

Moral of the thread is that humans are terrible at governing other humans.

ASTA said Moral of the thread is that humans are terrible at governing other humans.

/thread

Derp, I forgot that I had made a post here that people might have replied to. :/

darkwolf687 said Actually, thats wrong. Several european Countries (notably the Holy Roman Empire) had an elected king. Admitedly elected by the rich and important, and in the case of the HRE it devolved to the point where it may as well have been hereditary.

True, though it was not the norm.
Plus the added flaw like you said, it devolves to the point of basically being hereditary anyways.

darkwolf687 said The trouble with what your saying is that "Monarchy" and "Democracy" are broad and sometimes overlaping terms. You can have hereditary monarchy, you can have appointed monarchy etc. Democracy is the same, you can have republics, you can have communes (obviously there are no soverign communes, because they simply dont work as a national system.).Hell, you can even have both monarchy and democracy at the same time (Constitutional monarchy with an elected governing body, or a monarch voted in by the people).

I know that, the UK is living proof of that.
I was making the comparison of when one system is directly compared to another though.
Plus, cases like the UK are a special case.
They are not a Monarchy that holds any political power (Other than signing laws, but they never deny a proposed law. It's a formality, one they can very easily be thrown out over if they try using it to deny a law).
By all intents and purposes they are a tourist attraction, employee's who are hired to be something for tourist to come and look at. That's why they manage to co-exist with a Democracy. Because the Monarchy is a Monarchy in name only, it holds none of the legal effects or powers that most Monarchies used to (Including UK's in the past).

I should clarify though. I do not hate Monarchs, I'm not going to look at a Monarch and go "You're a Monster!" simply because they are a Monarch.
You can definitely get some good Monarchs, but simply because Monarchy does have some good eggs doesn't mean the system is not prone to creating bad eggs.
Which to be fair, so is Democracy. But generally Democracy produces less bad eggs than a Monarchy does.

darkwolf687 said Likewise, democracies can still be dominated by rich brats who bought their way to the top or had more money to spend on a political campaign, and in the past it was common to restrict voting to the well off anyway, or they would be the only ones literate enough to vote.

True, but it's harder. And is still reliant on getting public approval.
While all a Monarch needs to do is be born, or simply out sprint the other on sitting on the throne and make one sneaky power play.

darkwolf687 said however, with a certain gentleman "Democracy is the worst type of government, except all the other types which have failed."

Which is basically what I'm saying here.

Yog Sothoth said Besides a monarchy, I would say that a diverse authoritarian government could also work if done right

The issue with those is they don't really allow freedom of speech or independent thought.
So if someone goes bad/wrong, you can be very badly punished for disagreeing.

And all systems that rely on trying to kill/silence opposing thought are systems that history has slowly been eradicating.

Darcs said I think a of democracy is ideal, taking into mind size of the population, size of the territory, neighboring countries or autonomous zones, agriculture, economy and general level of technology. I think an Athenian Democracy ((OPEN TO EVERYONE), with some bits thrown in from Communist Marxism, Anarchism and Socialism) would be great on a city and town level.

Your main issue there is that it restricts it to men voting.
Yes this can be fixed by letting women vote, but then it's honestly not much different from normal democracy.
And I doubt the argument here is "A system where women can't vote is better".

So I'm assuming you mean some sort of system to prioritize more eligible voters.
Which might seem nice on paper. But in practice, it's far too open to abuse. Essentially turning a democracy into a "Only those who agree with me can vote" sort of system.
As much as I admit a big flaw of democracy is that anyone can vote, even if they care nothing at all for the world around them I do realize implementing a system to address it is very risky.

Magic Magnum said Your main issue there is that it restricts it to men voting.

That's why I followed it with the 'OPEN TO EVERYONE'

Magic Magnum said Yes this can be fixed by letting women vote, but then it's honestly not much different from normal democracy.

It's a much more simplified version where people vote directly on issues that pertain to them as oppressed to a senate or system fro representatives.

Magic Magnum said And I doubt the argument here is "A system where women can't vote is better".So I'm you mean some sort of system to prioritize more eligible voters.

See: 'Athenian Democracy ((OPEN TO EVERYONE), with some bits thrown in from Communist Marxism, Anarchism and Socialism)'

Magic Magnum said Which might seem nice on paper.

Doesn't it all?

Magic Magnum said But in practice, it's far too open to abuse.

Sure, if you can manipulate LITERALLY EVERY MEMBER OF A CITY-STATE.

Magic Magnum said Essentially turning a democracy into a "Only those who agree with me can vote" sort of system.

But that's not how a classical Athenian Democracy would work at all. It'd be what people think America is today. Giving people the full power to vote on anything and everything relating to them, removing the gridlock of the senate and the HoR, and granting the people more power. In fact, today's 'Democratic government' is more of a '"Only those who agree with me can vote" sort of system.

Magic Magnum said As much as I admit a big flaw of democracy is that anyone can vote,

Wait, that everyone can vote isn't a flaw, it's like the best part about democracy.

Magic Magnum said even if they care nothing at all for the world around them I do realize implementing a system to address it is very risky.

America isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic with Oligarchial and some Democratic themes and origins.

Nobody actually believes in democracy. Would you want to live in a system where 51% of people could vote the other 49% should be shot, and the whole apparatus of government would be obligated to carry out the grisly mandate? If you tried to accomplish that in the United States even in its current lawless state, the government would not carry it out. And that's why governments are instituted among men. Not to "get stuff done", or to give you stuff, but to stop me from clobbering you over the head and absconding with your phone. Any government which cannot do that should be altered or abolished.

Sure, if you can manipulate LITERALLY EVERY MEMBER OF A CITY-STATE.

You only need more than half, a la Julius Caesar. Or less, if people are apathetic.

Darcs said It's a much more simplified version where people vote directly on issues that pertain to them as oppressed to a senate or system fro representatives.

Ah I see what you mean.
Don't hold an overall election, just vote on each issue as it pops up.

Once again, great on paper.
But it holds two main flaws that I can think of from the top of my head.

1) It requires constant voting
It demands constant attention and focus, which can have one of two (most likely both) effects.

a) People invest large portions of their day into voting. This can lead to time taken away from work, family or simply relaxing before the next day of work. Thereby helping to contribute to more stress build up, thereby more burn-outs, and reduced performance in all aspects of life.

b) A lot of people might just say "screw it". Voting is demanding and time intensive. Yes, this does help fix the "Unmotivated/caring citizens vote" issue that typical democracy might hold. But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things. Which is fine, great even if you're in school and learning about something. But disastrous when expected to help make a decision on a matter you know nothing about.

2) It essentially rules out the expert/advisors.

Granted, the government is hardly experts on most matters. But they do tend to consults experts and advisors when making decisions. But would most citizens? Probably not.

---

And this is on top of democracies current problems with stuff such as "Majority rules".
Where people might vote for something like "All people must pray in schools" even if it violates the rights of those not religious, or of a different religion.
Just because most people agree with an issue, doesn't mean that's the right answer/opinion to be having.

Now, could I just be overly negative? That's rather likely.
I do honestly rather like the idea of voting on specific matters, it can host some benefits such as people potentially only voting on stuff they know about.
But it's still something that needs to have it's flaws pointed out early. And just because some people might use it right, doesn't mean all people will.

Darcs said Sure, if you can manipulate LITERALLY EVERY MEMBER OF A CITY-STATE.

Note I argued that when under the impression of what you were saying was "Only privileged folk may vote".
In which case, it would be rather easy since you've already narrowed down the demographic that votes.
And on top of that, have a monopoly and whose allows to vote to begin with.

But, that was a misunderstanding on my part. So this part is honestly irrelevant.

Darcs said removing the gridlock of the senate and the HoR, and granting the people more power.

And instead you have a gridlock of citizens.

Darcs said Wait, that everyone can vote isn't a flaw, it's like the best part about democracy.

It is because you get people who may enter an election with a sole focus.
Some self centered such as "Mah Guns" or "Mah God must be forced on all the children".
Some based on certain feelings/prejudices "Gays shouldn't marry", "Screw the Cops! Treat them like they're all assholes!".
Some more selfless such as "Will the government help my autistic son?".
And will focus on said issue at the exclusion/neglect of all others.

Or you may get people who vote for whatever their friend says.
Or those who pay zero attention to the election or candidates and simply go "Hmm. Liberals? Yea, I'm a Liberal. I don't care what they say. I vote for them".
Essentially our current system allows for people to vote based on biases, prejudices, or worse yet people who could not care about it in the slightest.

So Boerd said Nobody actually believes in democracy.

[citation needed]

I am an anarchist and I totally believe in democracy.

So Boerd said Would you want to live in a system where 51% of people could vote the other 49% should be shot, and the whole apparatus of government would be obligated to carry out the grisly mandate?

You're cherry picking a possible outcome based on little evidence.

Why would a council suggesting issues to be voted on bring up the issue of killing 49% of the population? In fact, typically in history mass genocide only happens within the governments run by dictators.

So Boerd said If you tried to accomplish that in the United States even in its current lawless state, the government would not carry it out. And that's why governments are instituted among men.

How pessimistic.

How did the hunter-gather societies survive? Or the small agricultural communities that came about because the advent of farming? Or the Paris commune? Or the Spanish Civil war era Catalonia? Or any other instance of successful communes? Slab city today?

So Boerd said Not to "get stuff done", or to give you stuff, but to stop me from clobbering you over the head and absconding with your phone. Any government which cannot do that should be altered or abolished.

"Getting stuff done" is exactly why governments were created, to help organize the will of the people into an efficient manner. The government isn't some nanny-- it's a worker that's supposed to be hired by the people for the people.

And as it stands, current governments are very bad at this job. We should try a different strategy.

---

So Boerd said You only need more than half, a la Julius Caesar. Or less, if people are apathetic.

That's why we take size into account.

Also, we don't allow someone to try and seize full control and strike needless fear and corruption in his wake and quest for more land and power.

---

Magic Magnum said
Ah I see what you mean.
Don't hold an overall election, just vote on each issue as it pops up.

Once again, great on paper.

And in practice, see: North America pre-colonization, Australia-pre-colonization, the first few million years of human history, City states: (Hong Kong, Macau, etc.), tiny countries and thriving island nations, Catalonia, Paris, other experimental societies.

Magic Magnum said But it holds two main flaws that I can think of from the top of my head.

1) It requires constant voting
It demands constant attention and focus, which can have one of two (most likely both) effects.

This is bad? I'm asking you to consider size of the population and the state as a significant factor in the success of this. So no, it wouldn't be the American population, consider the population of a town, exclude children, and remember to take into account that this voting would be voluntary, so theoretically no one could vote-- this would just mean that nothing changes.

If you'd like to argue about population sizes, I think it's safe to say the level of technology we posses is sufficient to allow relative ease when voting on this. These are issues that directly effect the population, so yes, they should be expected to deal with them.

Magic Magnum said a) People invest large portions of their day into voting. This can lead to time taken away from work, family or simply relaxing before the next day of work. Thereby helping to contribute to more stress build up, thereby more burn-outs, and reduced performance in all aspects of life.

Except it totally wouldn't? Voting would be fluid to fit with the population-- especially considering it's RUN by the citizens.

Magic Magnum said b) A lot of people might just say "screw it". Voting is demanding and time intensive. Yes, this does help fix the "Unmotivated/caring citizens vote" issue that typical democracy might hold. But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things. Which is fine, great even if you're in school and learning about something. But disastrous when expected to help make a decision on a matter you know nothing about.

These are issues DIRECTLY affecting the population, education on these issues is expected to be a community precedent. They'd either know what they were voting about, or they wouldn't, that's par for the course-- the only issue I see is people with mental illnesses, and then it simply becomes an issue of better understanding the type of mental illness and their limitations in regards to decision making.

Magic Magnum said But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things.

I wouldn't want to address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing are voting," issue. If they're citizens and they're of age and they want too, they have a right to vote. The goal is to get as many people informed as possible.

Are knowledge and motivation really all that different?

Magic Magnum said 2) It essentially rules out the expert/advisors.

Granted, the government is hardly experts on most matters. But they do tend to consults experts and advisors when making decisions. But would most citizens? Probably not.

Who do you think is suggesting the voting in the public forums? It's syncretic, so it could vary and differ based on what the citizens want, but what I see as the ideal scenario is a council of elected representatives who would be "experts" viewing problems and organizing the votes on what citizens request and what needs to be fixed.

Magic Magnum said And this is on top of democracies current problems with stuff such as "Majority rules".
Where people might vote for something like "All people must pray in schools" even if it violates the rights of those not religious, or of a different religion.
Just because most people agree with an issue, doesn't mean that's the right answer/opinion to be having.

There is no "right" or "wrong" opinion to have. Never was, never will be.

Magic Magnum said Now, could I just be overly negative? That's rather likely.
I do honestly rather like the idea of voting on specific matters, it can host some benefits such as people potentially only voting on stuff they know about.
But it's still something that needs to have it's flaws pointed out early. And just because some people might use it right, doesn't mean all people will

Yeah, nothing's going to be without flaw. That's existence for you!

Magic Magnum said And instead you have a gridlock of citizens.

Citizens in a gridlock about things that directly effect them-- they'll either figure it out for the greater good, or remain gridlocked and experience the direct effects of that.

Magic Magnum said It is because you get people who may enter an election with a sole focus.
Some self centered such as "Mah Guns" or "Mah God must be forced on all the children".
Some based on certain feelings/prejudices "Gays shouldn't marry", "Screw the Cops! Treat them like they're all assholes!".
Some more selfless such as "Will the government help my autistic son?".
And will focus on said issue at the exclusion/neglect of all others.

Or you may get people who vote for whatever their friend says.
Or those who pay zero attention to the election or candidates and simply go "Hmm. Liberals? Yea, I'm a Liberal. I don't care what they say. I vote for them".
Essentially our current system allows for people to vote based on biases, prejudices, or worse yet people who could not care about it in the slightest.

I'd much prefer these people be allowed to vote than there being some awful standard of "passion" or "political knowledge" implemented. Bias, prejudice and apathy are jest as legitimate as whatever label you put on why you vote-- no only that, they're pretty much human nature. We all have a little of them all, more or less.

To answer Darc's question about how Hunter Gatherer Societies survived: They might very well not have. The hunter gatherer life-style tends to be very brutal. It's really not a pretty picture.

Protagonist said To answer Darc's question about how Hunter Gatherer Societies survived: They might very well not have. The hunter gatherer life-style tends to be very brutal. It's really not a pretty picture.

[citation needed]
History says differently!

Also, we don't allow someone to try and seize full control and strike needless fear and corruption in his wake and quest for more land and power.

How will you stop them? Caesar had the will of the people. Peisistratus of your lauded Athenian democracy was chosen by the people to be a tyrant and established a three generation dynasty.

In Syracuse, tyrants like Dionysus I were established by democracy and then cast democracy aside.

Obviously we should bow to a diarchy forged at the head by two god-monarchs who are immortal and sun and moon kings. Such figures being able to balance security and freedom with such magic.

But in the meantime we should invest all the power with whoever has the most nanomachines in their blood.

Dinh AaronMk said Obviously we should bow to a diarchy forged at the head by two god-monarchs who are immortal and sun and moon kings. Such figures being able to balance security and freedom with such magic.

Solar plebs gonna pleb.

I'd rather worship the one true crystal god-monarch like nature intended.

Darcs said And in practice, see: North America pre-colonization, Australia-pre-colonization, the first few million years of human history, City states: (Hong Kong, Macau, etc.), tiny countries and thriving island nations, Catalonia, Paris, other experimental societies.

So past systems? Those we grew/evolved out of? Suggesting that there a tried and tested reason for moving on to Democracy.
Mainly for the reason you admit to below, population. We are no longer in the age of small towns and communities, we're in the age of giant cities, giant countries, hell when even have a United Nations.
Humanity has simply grown too large and wide to operate on such small scale systems anymore.

Darcs said This is bad? I'm asking you to consider size of the population and the state as a significant factor in the success of this. So no, it wouldn't be the American population, consider the population of a town, exclude children, and remember to take into account that this voting would be voluntary, so theoretically no one could vote-- this would just mean that nothing changes.

If you'd like to argue about population sizes, I think it's safe to say the level of technology we posses is sufficient to allow relative ease when voting on this. These are issues that directly effect the population, so yes, they should be expected to deal with them.

And theoretically we might just not vote for a government or president, but it never happens.
And I don't even see how smaller population is a counter for constant demand. If anything, it makes my constant voting issue an even bigger flaw because now if you don't vote it's much more sizable chunk of the community not being represented. So not only is it far more constant/demanding, but it's far more required now.

And technology get's hacked, get's manipulated. There's a reason voting stations still get set up that you have to go there and vote in person.
If Technology was a viable alternative, we have already made the switch like we did with almost every other field of life.

Plus, keyword = expect.
You expect people to follow through and make it work, but you have nothing helping ensure it will.
Other than some faith that everyone will be loyal and honourable to your system.

Darcs said Except it totally wouldn't? Voting would be fluid to fit with the population-- especially considering it's RUN by the citizens.

You mean like our current government is run by citizens?
Or do they not count as citizens anymore because they were advanced to a high position of power?
In which case, wouldn't your system be impossible too, because once said citizens start running stuff we stop seeing them as citizens?

Believe it or not, leading a community isn't an easy job. It's not something you can just do on the side while leading another working life.
If you want to lead your people, you need to invest your time into it.

Darcs said These are issues DIRECTLY affecting the population, education on these issues is expected to be a community precedent. They'd either know what they were voting about, or they wouldn't, that's par for the course-- the only issue I see is people with mental illnesses, and then it simply becomes an issue of better understanding the type of mental illness and their limitations in regards to decision making.

And many wouldn't know, and vote anyways.
Simply going "Well yea, you're perceived flaw will be a thing" doesn't eliminate it as being a flaw, it's actually the reverse.
It confirms my perceived flaw is spot on, in which case ignoring it is the worst thing you can do.

Darcs said I wouldn't want to address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing are voting," issue. If they're citizens and they're of age and they want too, they have a right to vote. The goal is to get as many people informed as possible.

And how do you plan to inform them?
Do you have a method to help make sure everyone is informed.
Or are you just hoping that people will be informed?

Darcs said Are knowledge and motivation really all that different?

Yes? Is this seriously being asked?

Knowledge is possessing the mental information and know how about something. Experience, expertise, understanding.

Motivation is simply caring or wanting to help.

There's actually an article I find is very relevant to this.
Specifically his first point of "The world only cares about what it can get from you". In it, he makes an example of someone on the ground bleeding out.



Now, the author in this case uses this example in regards to romantic relationships, and how simply being a "Nice Guy/Girl" isn't enough.
But I feel it also applies here, where when voting on specific issues simply being a "Motivated Guy/Girl" isn't enough, you need to actually know what you're making a decision about.

Darcs said Who do you think is suggesting the voting in the public forums? It's syncretic, so it could vary and differ based on what the citizens want, but what I see as the ideal scenario is a council of elected representatives who would be "experts" viewing problems and organizing the votes on what citizens request and what needs to be fixed.

What kind of experts? One engineer? One Doctor? One Teacher?
Some nice, in theory. But in practicality, it basically becomes a matter of most of the experts stay quiet when it's not their field, and then the one expert speaks up when it is their field.
Or the other experts wanting to feel involved speak up, even when they may know nothing of the matter at hand.

There's a reason experts stay in their current fields, and then make the propositions. And why when government decisions are made they find people to advise and make arguments.

Darcs said Yeah, nothing's going to be without flaw. That's existence for you!

Therefore, we should simply ignore the flaws and bring in any system we feel like?
Yes, flaws are always around. Thats life.

But it's also important recognize the flaws, combat the flaws, minimize the flaws.
Or you get screwed over. That's life.
Otherwise what's stopping us from being Facist? Or Communist?
Sure there's flaws of mass genocide, but nothing is without flaws... right?

Darcs said Citizens in a gridlock about things that directly effect them-- they'll either figure it out for the greater good, or remain gridlocked and experience the direct effects of that.

You mean, like our current system?

Darcs said I'd much prefer these people be allowed to vote than there being some awful standard of "passion" or "political knowledge" implemented. Bias, prejudice and apathy are jest as legitimate as whatever label you put on why you vote-- no only that, they're pretty much human nature. We all have a little of them all, more or less.

Yes all hold some, this is true.
But it doesn't mean it comes in extremes.
And it doesn't mean it makes everyone viable for every decision.

I find it bizarre how when it comes to certain fields we only trust trained/specialized experts to be making decisions.
But when it comes to making a decision about who is responsible for your country, everyone has a say.
Or with your system, when making a decision about any matter, no matter how complex or serious, everyone has a say.
People go and get trained/educated for a reason. It's not just to have a fancy paper to put up on a wall.