Democracy – is there something better?

Posted on by Opher

I do have some view on democracy!

I don’t like democracy.

But I reckon it is probably the best way of governing. It certainly beats being ruled by a hereditary King, President or any other kind of supreme leader with all the tyranny, corruption and nepotism that usually goes with that – the hierarchy and social division. It beats party rule by undemocratic political parties and it beats the hell of the tyranny of theocracies.

So, even though I don’t like it I’ll settle, reluctantly, for democracy.

I used to favour direct democracy, rather than representative democracy, but recent events with Brexit and the division of the country into two hate-filled warring tribes, coupled with previous US referendums that I was privy to when living in California, where the population voted not to pay as much tax (and thus ended up with shoddy education and public services), has led me to favour representative democracy.

It is incredibly unPC to say but I do not think that the majority of the population are intelligent enough to deal with complex issues. 50% of the population have an IQ below 100. Some of the issues are incredibly complex and require extremely deep thinking and understanding. I have listened to some of the reasoning for voting for or against in Brexit and was not at all impressed by the level of understanding or reasoning on either side. This issues need thinking through with a high level of intelligence. It is beyond most people.

Secondly, the access to unbiased information is extremely suspect. Most of the media has bias and the propaganda sites on the web are busy feeding peoples prejudices.

I have therefore moved more towards the representative democracy that we have in both the UK and USA. We elect intelligent representatives who have the time and reasoning power to deal with complex issues. We vote for people who represent our political views.

Of course, this is far from perfect. Where do you find any representative that fully represents your own views? How can we tell who to vote for when the candidates lie in order to get elected, there is widespread corruption and the media, who have vested interests, misrepresents the information?

It seems to me that the whole system is flawed and desperately needs improving, but even so, it is the best I can think of.

I think Democracy requires a lot of work to make it work.

23 thoughts on “Democracy – is there something better?”

      5. Actually that post is complete nonsense because 100 is the mean (or would be under correct calbration) but since IQ scores are not quoted as decimal points, it is still wrong to say that 50% have less than 100 because a proportion has exactly 100.

      6. something else to consider is the impact of immigration and emigration. this has tended to mean that the ‘average’ IQ of a country with high net emigration has downward pressure. it has also resulted empirically in teh UK having something like a mean of 107 to 109

      7. Simon – are you splitting hairs? OK – I’ll slightly modify what I said – more than 50% of the population have an IQ of 100 or below. How’s that?
        The principle is the same. There are many millions of people who would find it very hard to understand the intricacies of complex issues. That is why I am veering towards representative democracy – even though I can see the problems with that as well.

      8. Simon – this does not in any way alter the premise. A very large percentage of the population would find it hard to understand complex issues – or don’t you think that is true?

  2. “I used to favour direct democracy, rather than representative democracy” … but then you realised that other people didn’t share your viewpoints so you droopped that?

    1. No Simon – I think the whole issue made me realise, from comments on both sides, that the issues were simply beyond most people.

      2. No – I wouldn’t go for a technocracy so much as intelligent elected individuals with a great range of expertise who represent the views of the electorate. As long as they are clever enough to understand the issues the hard work can be done by the specialist civil servants. The trouble, as I see it, is electing the right people.

  3. “This issues need thinking through with a high level of intelligence.”

    This issues?

    You mean THESE issues?

    Or just this one issue?

    So much for intelligence….You know, you are the perfect example of the stereotypical liberal: an advocate of “equality” and opponent of “hierarchy” with absolute disdain for the lower class. Bear in mind, this “unintelligent” lower class makes up 90% of the population. You claim to know better and want better for the average goon, yet your ideals are unsustainably inconsistent, clearly biased toward your own tiny perspective. Less than 10% of the population shares your views. By supporting this intellectual elite, you disrespect the vast majority of your fellow humans. Just admit that you oppose direct democracy because you want protection from us dirty savages. We shouldn’t be allowed to make our own choices, because we might make choices you don’t like.

    Goddamn elitist.

    1. Whoa Edith – who said they were the lower class? I worked as a road sweeper and many of the people I worked with were the most intelligent, switched on people. I, if you read what I have written, include myself and most other people in those not able to have access to information or understand the full intricacies of many of these issues. I do not think that is elitist at all. It is more a statement of fact. Perhaps you have misinterpreted?

  4. By the way, IQ is a notoriously inaccurate judge of overall intelligence. IQ tests only consider a very select range of skills and abilities. There are many different expressions of intelligence, from athletic prowess to mathematical mastery, and they can’t all be tested on paper or in a classroom. Anyone who uses IQ to justify intellectual elitism is probably much less intelligent than they claim.

    1. As an educator I would thoroughly agree with you. IQ is a very slippery customer. But the premise still stands, whichever way you judge it. I do not think many of us are capable of understanding the intricacies of these decisions.

      1. Nor should anyone understand such intricasies. And even if they were, they still should have no right to govern the masses. The masses, the individual, should be free to make their own choices. Wherever that should lead.

        There is no political solution that won’t trample on the wants or needs of millions. At the very least, remove all additional legal protections from politicians, police officers, and other special interest groups. Murder is murder.

Comments are closed.