[noemon]

Could a direct democracy survive with a largely uneducated public? A public that can be manipulated easily?

No.

Direct democracy requires a very high level of education in the classical liberal arts:

Math, grammar, logic, rhetoric, geometry, music & astronomy. But that is the easy part.

It requires people to be able to discern logical arguments over popular arguments but more importantly it requires the ideology of excellence over money and the ideology of beauty over popularity. It requires people to hold excellence in word and action as a higher ideal than convenience. We can stop right there, as there is no ideology or religion available in the market that puts excellence at the top.

Current modern society is totally incapable of democracy and forget about the idiots, not even the smart ones are capable of it. Hence why the representative system is collapsing.

Narcissism prevents even the educated ones from conceding an argument.

Representative liberal democracy in the modern era started in the English trade & masonic unions among peers who used Greek democratic systems to handle claims within the trade unions among equal peers. They then expanded that franchise to create the US constitution as they discovered that they don't need a higher power to govern themselves but only when adequate justification had been provided. These types of dudes no longer exist, neither among the many, nor among the few.

The biggest concern is not how to educate the polloi, but how to educate the few. This is quite a substantial problem because possibly for the first time in history, nations do not even have a tiny honour bound elite inside them but are instead totally hollow. From where would the plenty take example from?

Developed nations are in a downward trajectory towards autocracy. Technocracy is just another form of autocracy.

The new democracy of the future is far more likely to develop in Saudi, Iran, Taiwan, Singapore or Africa than it is likely to develop in the west.

They are closer to the starting point of collectivizing their decision-making than we are. We are moving away from it still and have a long way to go before we hit rock bottom and our innate humility starts working again so that words like honour, integrity, oath, etcetera start have meaning again.

[Rugoz]

Could a direct democracy survive with a largely uneducated public? A public that can be manipulated easily?

People don't make informed decisions, they use heuristic cues.

In a representative system you have to pick a representative/party that will decide in your interest for the next 4 years on issues yet unknown.

In a direct democratic system you have to pick a representative/party/expert/journalist who "decides" in your interest on a single, known issue.

It's a much easier problem, just one occurring more often (multiple times a year on various issues instead of once every 4 years).

In any case, there are different forms of direct democracy. I think the veto referendum is pretty much a non-brainer. Initiatives are more problematic, especially constitutional ones, because anyone can propose them. This is where you get the crazy stuff.

[QatzelOk]

People forget that democracy is not about just electing something but about having the entire government run by everyone.

This is a good definition of democracy, and if it is "direct," that means that there is no indirect representation of essentialized needs and wants.

The First Nations - lacking literacy and most of our modern technologies - had this. And in First Nations democracy, if 3 out of ten vote to "not go to war," they don't have to go to war. This is real democracy, rather than gang-dominated democracy like ours.

Math, grammar, logic, rhetoric, geometry, music & astronomy. But that is the easy part...

Developed nations are in a downward trajectory towards autocracy. Technocracy is just another form of autocracy.

Advanced education is required in a democracy ONLY if that democracy is technologically advanced. And we have reached such a level of techno-complexity that democracy is impossible. We have outsmarted ourselves.

In my opinion, direct democracy is essential to human survival, as we shall soon find out. The hard way.

[Negotiator]

Representative democracy is prone to elitism and corruption. The rich buy off the politicians etc and the masses are not fully in control.

Uh-hu.

Try "has no measureable control whatsoever".

Scientific studies for both the USA and Germany showed that the lower 90% of incomes has zero influence on what politics does.

ZERO.

NONE AT ALL.

The only times things went their way would be when by sheer coincidence the upper 10% would share the politicial will of the lower 90%. Thats the only "democracy" the vast majority of people get in our current system. A complete illusion.

I mean hopefully its a bit better in countries like Switzerland, France, or Sweden. I down know. I havent heard of scientific studies of these countries about this question.

How much direct democracy is practical in a democratic system? The argument i've heard against direct democracy is that regular working people don't have the time to invest in learning the issues or the details of legislation etc. I suppose a reason why so many politicians are lawyers.

That would be easily manipulateable as well, with the same methods as they are used in our current system.

We need to democratize not just politics, but also our economy, because it is the control of the economy with which the rich can blackmail society.

Well, that, and they control mainstream news.

Or, in case of the USA, even the central bank. The health system is captured. Etc.

[Unthinking Majority]

Uh-hu.

Try "has no measureable control whatsoever".

Scientific studies for both the USA and Germany showed that the lower 90% of incomes has zero influence on what politics does.

ZERO.

NONE AT ALL.
...
The only times things went their way would be when by sheer coincidence the upper 10% would share the politicial will of the lower 90%. Thats the only "democracy" the vast majority of people get in our current system. A complete illusion.

Nonsense. 90% of any population controls the vote outcomes, so they do have significant control if every election they have the power to fire or hire/re-hire any politician and those politicians have to cater and pander to them. If the majority of a population is stupid with their voting choices that's their own problem.

Americans had the choice to nominate Bernie Sanders, they didn't. They nominated Hillary over him and then voted for Trump. Whose fault is that?

Obviously wealthy interests are able to donate and lobby and have influence on policy etc and lots of corruption absolutely exists, but the argument that 90% of the population has zero impact is obviously false, despite whatever alleged studies you claim exist.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nonsense. 90% of any population controls the vote outcomes, so they do have significant control if every election they have the power to fire or hire/re-hire any politician and those politicians have to cater and pander to them. If the majority of a population is stupid with their voting choices that's their own problem.

Americans had the choice to nominate Bernie Sanders, they didn't. They nominated Hillary over him and then voted for Trump. Whose fault is that?

Obviously wealthy interests are able to donate and lobby and have influence on policy etc and lots of corruption absolutely exists, but the argument that 90% of the population has zero impact is obviously false, despite whatever alleged studies you claim exist.

Why?

As a rich person, it would make sense to donate money to all the candidates to ensure that I bought the winner.

This way, I can make sure I get what I want no matter who the plebes vote for.

As a Canadian, do you really have a viable candidate or party that will (for example) radically reduce fossil fuels, or defund the police, or give land back to Indigenous people? No.

So the rich have already won those debates and you never even got a chance to vote on it.

[Unthinking Majority]

Why?

As a rich person, it would make sense to donate money to all the candidates to ensure that I bought the winner.

This way, I can make sure I get what I want no matter who the plebes vote for.

As a Canadian, do you really have a viable candidate or party that will (for example) radically reduce fossil fuels, or defund the police, or give land back to Indigenous people? No.

So the rich have already won those debates and you never even got a chance to vote on it.

Canadians can vote for the NDP or Green Party or whomever else they want. Members of the public can join any party and can vote to nominate whatever leader they want. The CPC members voted for Pierre Poillievre as leader instead of someone like Michael Chong because they are dumb, but that's just my opinion.

Wealthy people can donate and influence elections to a degree but the votes are up to the people themselves. If voters only vote for the candidates with the most commercials and lawn signs yes that can point to a democratic problem, but the voters are also pretty dumb for not doing any research.

[Pants-of-dog]

Canadians can vote for the NDP or Green Party or whomever else they want. Members of the public can join any party and can vote to nominate whatever leader they want. The CPC members voted for Pierre Poillievre as leader instead of someone like Michael Chong because they are dumb, but that's just my opinion.

Wealthy people can donate and influence elections to a degree but the votes are up to the people themselves. If voters only vote for the candidates with the most commercials and lawn signs yes that can point to a democratic problem, but the voters are also pretty dumb for not doing any research.

Yes, and none of this contradicts the fact that a rich person can buy all the candidates that stand a reasonable chance of being elected and thereby ensure that their interests will be served.