Lee Duna@lemmy.nz to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 months agoDemocracy in decline worldwide, new report sayswww.politico.euexternal-linkmessage-square57fedilinkarrow-up1154arrow-down10
arrow-up1154arrow-down1external-linkDemocracy in decline worldwide, new report sayswww.politico.euLee Duna@lemmy.nz to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 months agomessage-square57fedilink
minus-squaresailingbythelee@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·8 months agoChurchill’s point is that stupid things can still happen in democracies, but no one has come up with a better alternative. What would you suggest as the better alternative? If you don’t have one, then you just helped prove Churchill’s point!
minus-squareSemi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·8 months agoEvery human knows and has used a superior system from the time they first started playing with other people: Consensus.
minus-squarephotonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 months ago…which is basically what democracy is, but systemitized such that it can be applied at scale.
minus-squareSemi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·8 months agoIf we had a consensus based government I wouldn’t have a fascist as a representative
minus-squarephotonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 months agoThere are more people than just you in your district
minus-squareSemi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·8 months agoYes and we should all agree on who is going to represent us. Otherwise the losing party is disenfranchised.
minus-squarephotonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 months agoYou’re not going to get unanimous approval for anything when your group size is several thousand people
minus-squareSemi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·8 months agoMaybe the groups should be smaller then
minus-squarephotonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·8 months agoAlso, smaller groups mean more representatives, which means unanimity/consensus as you say would also be unlikely at the national level.
Churchill’s point is that stupid things can still happen in democracies, but no one has come up with a better alternative. What would you suggest as the better alternative? If you don’t have one, then you just helped prove Churchill’s point!
Every human knows and has used a superior system from the time they first started playing with other people: Consensus.
…which is basically what democracy is, but systemitized such that it can be applied at scale.
If we had a consensus based government I wouldn’t have a fascist as a representative
There are more people than just you in your district
Yes and we should all agree on who is going to represent us. Otherwise the losing party is disenfranchised.
You’re not going to get unanimous approval for anything when your group size is several thousand people
Maybe the groups should be smaller then
Also, smaller groups mean more representatives, which means unanimity/consensus as you say would also be unlikely at the national level.