this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
399 points (90.8% liked)

Memes

53066 readers
816 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bobbyfiend@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ie this take sometimes but I don't know what the alternatives are. When you win your revolution, what system will you put in place?

ITT I've seen "random elections", and plenty of people saying "socialism", plus someone (I hope) is thinking "anarchism", but how is it managed? What takes the place of elections for public office?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Democracy has as a necessary precondition that people are intelligent enough to differentiate good candidates from bad candidates.

The real question therefore is whether the people are intelligent enough. That decides their fate.

[–] TipsyMcGee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The prevalence of your type of reasoning is why democracy doesn’t work.

The problem is that the whole point of democracy is to align decision-making with the will of ”the people”. That puts the impetus on citizens to actually manifest a will and constitute their interpretation of who the people are. Politics and culture.

That is, people need to actively engage in public discourse about their respective interests. Such discourse demands a lot of things, freedom of speech for one, but most importantly it requires all participants to frequent avenues for discussions among those that share interests outside narrow social groups like friends and families (i.e. in spheres of the ”public”). For example, in political party organizations, trade unions, business groups, pubs and town squares, and, possibly, virtual spaces for disembodied discussion, such Lemmy (however, the disembodiment is more likely to result in discussion for the sake of discussion between people that don’t actually share living conditions or other froms of unity of interest, but I digress).

If such discussion takes place – an increasingly rare thing – there is no need to individually ”differentiate good candidates from bad candidates” and each voter’s intelligence certainly isn’t of consequence. In a functioning democracy, who to vote for, should follow naturally from your participation in public discourse.

It is clear that the scale of the political project complicates the formation of public opinions – though Pete Hegseth no doubt would like to try, you cannot run a country of 300+ million people on spirited bar stool banter – however, the principles remain the same. By definition, you can’t approach democratic decisions like a consumer does choosing a brand of toothpaste – the core principle of democracy is to eliminate any individual’s power, in favor of the collective (e.g. majority).

Democracy is a high effort process that terminates in the poll booth. Voting is foremost a formality that should not be fetishized.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 week ago (9 children)

The world and society have explicitly gotten far better since and because of the advent of serious representative democracy.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Democracy can and will work once a simple rule is implemented. Namely: no one who wants the power to rule should ever be allowed anywhere near power. Of course the rich won't allow such a law to be passed, and enforcing it is the stuff of thought crime dystopic nightmares, but I'm sure we can overcome those small issues.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PillowD@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago

I have never heard the word electoralism in real life.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›