2 comments

• 

  zoolish

  2 years ago

  Not sure what you're trying to say here... But, the claim that the electorate is incapable and naive was is indeed the bases on which most representative democracies were built. And although many years have passed, and much has changed – this seems to remain valid. Modern democracy is much too complex to be simply understood as "rule of the people". People do not, and can not rule. It is a fundamental fact of administration (both public and private) that leadership is compounded by few and influential on many. From Michel's "iron law of oligarchy", to modern day political theory – there's no evidence to support the occurrence of "direct democracy" in any large scale modern democracy.
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  2 years ago

  Zoolish,
  I wasn't arguing about the ability of people to participate in the actual governing, or about "direct democracy", or even about the complexity of modern governments - Although you know that we disagree about the the conclusion derive from the agreed observation. What I was writing about, or mostly recommending reading, was about the reasons behind and the results of the various elections reform.
  The article that I referred to argues that :
  1. The motive, and practice, of the election reforms is to prevent access from political groups. And while modern democracy isn't about direct governing it is aiming to provide equal access.
  2. While the various reforms claim to prevent special interest groups (or wealthier groups) they are preventing participation of ordinary citizens - not only in the federal level but also in the local level.
  
  I hoped that I cleared the issue, and I really recommend reading the article.
  reply