
Is democracy a failure? (1861) - siavosh
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/14/news/is-democracy-a-failure.html
======
nostrademons
Democracy is interesting because it requires you to step outside your own
head, understand that there are people who hold different values and different
experiences from you, and then mentally engage with them, holding your own
doubt and revulsion at bay, until you can come to a consensus that's
acceptable to everyone. It's a thoroughly unnatural and uncomfortable
experience that can be both fatiguing and time-consuming. No wonder everybody
predicts that it will fail - by definition, a democracy requires occasional
subjugation to points of view that are alien to your way of life, and _which
point of view is often unpredictable and changeable_.

But I'd much rather have it than any system of forced social roles, where
there is one person or small cabal of people who make the decisions and
everyone else knows their job is simply to obey.

~~~
stevendhansen
"...until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone."

In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to
any consensus that is acceptable to everyone, but rather serves as little more
than a moral battering ram that the 51% can use to impose their will on the
49%. Perhaps one day people will realize that democracy, given its cultish
appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other systems are worse!?") is simply
barbaric.

Maybe technology will render nation-states obsolete within my lifetime. I can
only hope.

~~~
kashkhan
its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy.

The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be
legitimate.

~~~
afarrell
I've participated in such structures before. Honestly, very few people have
the time to go to 5-hour-long meetings on a weekly basis.

~~~
kashkhan
sounds like you were in the majority.

i have been in it also, and it works just fine. i certainly do not like to be
in a minority where the majority gets what it wants and the minority is
steamrolled.

------
hairy_man674
"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing
over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-
manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old
forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The
underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All
the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they
were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every
broadcast and editorial—but Democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian
sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of
soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly
run the show as they see fit."

 _Aldous Huxley_ , _Brave New World Revisited_ (1958)

~~~
urza
I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary.

However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..."
Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence
and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless
crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.

~~~
erikbye
It is often said that Huxley's Brave New World prediction was more accurate
than Orwell's 1984, but Orwell actually got the boot-stomping-your-face
prediction right: even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends
being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull. Police
murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. The mass imprisonment of
citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.

~~~
cortesoft
Are you saying that peaceful protests in the US are met with baton-swings to
the skull? That seems veritably untrue; there have been a large number of
protests recently that have not ended in any violence.

~~~
zanny
The Dakota Pipeline protestors have been getting maced and tear gassed this
past week. There are also reports of protestors being locked in dog cages[1].

[1]: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/11/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/11/01/dakota-access-protesters-accuse-police-of-putting-them-in-
dog-kennels-marking-them-with-numbers/)

~~~
mzw_mzw
The Dakota Pipeline protesters were actually _shooting at cops_ , and
committed millions of dollars worth of arson.

~~~
zanny
The Sioux tribe and other protestors claim he was a plant by the oil company
to intentionally turn public opinion against the protestors[1].

[1]: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-
pipeline-s...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-
shooting_us_5813b711e4b064e1b4b28f41)

That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something
_anyone_ managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the
leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors do what they
can to stop people from escalating the situation, they cannot be themselves in
the wrong.

It is a very common tactic to plant radicals in peaceful protests who will use
violence as an attempt to ruin the reputation of the movement, mainly by
distraction - "oh, someone shot at the police, they are all violent monstrous
scum now, and nobody should listen to their grievances anymore" was used
_constantly_ during the occupy protests, and _many_ of those offenders were
later found to be plants by either private or even police agencies to break up
the protests and destroy their message.

~~~
rixed
Sadly you have to have been a protester at least once to know that, otherwise
you just cannot believe how prevalent (and effective) this tactic is.

~~~
mzw_mzw
It sure is odd how these evil tools of the Man are never identified and
flushed out by the noble, gentle, peaceful protesters _before_ they start
committing arson and shooting cops. Nobody noticed that these agents
provocateurs were carrying guns? Nobody went up to them while they were
getting ready to burn millions of dollars of equipment -- something which
requires a lot more effort than just tossing a match -- and said "hey, don't
do that, we're all about peace"? The pipeline protesters knew damn well they
had bad apples, and they did nothing about it.

~~~
rixed
This is indeed not how it works. Provocateurs, not perpetrators.

~~~
mzw_mzw
"Mom, he made me do it!" isn't going to save you in a court of law. Actual
non-violent protesters, whom these people are not, would have taken someone
advocating arson and murder and flung them out the door.

------
capkutay
I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of
democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality
tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll
just start electing the most popular celebrities.

~~~
justinsingh
I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this
trend?

~~~
muad
Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Arnold...

~~~
humanrebar
Al Franken, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, Jerry Springer (though in reverse)

------
Aldo_MX
I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure,
not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a
properly-researched vote count the same.

I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one,
but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the
benefits and consequences of their decisions...

Having a majority of the population voting with the gut can lead us to
disastrous results...

~~~
adnzzzzZ
The uneducated who cannot properly express their gut feelings in an
intelligent manner have one day where they are equal to everyone and where
they can escape from the tyranny of the experts and of the well researched
individuals, who mistakenly think that they themselves act always within
reason when that couldn't be further from the truth.

This election shows more than any other that people will bend the facts to fit
their feelings. The well educated just have more tools at their disposal to
lie to themselves about it. Everyone works primarily by their gut feelings and
everyone rationalizes it after they've made their decisions internally and
unconsciously.

If after this election you can't step back and see this then this is further
proof to me that the system works and works well, because it keeps tyrannical
well researched experts in check from their own irrationality. It's not an
accident that an overwhelming majority of well educated experts who write the
policies that drive a country support free trade and globalization, while real
people who are not disconnected from the real world and who actually feel the
effects of those policies do not.

~~~
zigzigzag
The best argument against rule by 'experts' is the USSR's attempt to have
academic and intellectual 'experts' set 21 million prices before the New
Economic Policy.

------
ozy
There are two perspectives on democracy. You can compare it to some ideal
world that has never been, and easily see it falls short, by a lot.

Or you can look back on history, and look at countries who have done things
differently, and realize it is by far the best system we have had.

If you want to live a full lifetime in peace and security and health. Be born
in a democratic and capitalist country somewhere in the past 70 years, and you
maximize that chance. Any other time and place and the chance of a good life
drops quickly.

To other commenters in this thread, describing democracy or capitalism with
words like "disastrous" or "complete failure" or "elite rule", please some
perspective.

~~~
kobeya
When encountering a shortcoming of the world, there are two responses:

You can compare it to what has happened before and console yourself that of
observed past histories, this situation ain't so bad.

Or you can imagine what has never been, and try to create a society better
than has ever existed before.

There was once a time when democracy of modern form had never been tried,
outside of some rugged mountain towns in the Alps, and yet those in the face
of tyranny had the gall to try something new. Isn't _that_ an example we
should emulate?

~~~
ozy
We do not have democracies because people had the "gall to try something new".
We slowly grew into it because people demanded better and used opportunities
to move us closer.

And this is what we should continue doing. In no way did my comment indicate
we should just be quiet and think it is not so bad.

But at the same time, this is the best we ever had. Calling it a failure is
like calling an olympic gold medallist the worst athlete in history. Even if
this is the 1920 olympics and the times set there will be a laugh when
compared to the 2020 olympics.

Someone with so little perspective will not be able to change the world for
the better. "Imagine what has never been" does not do much unless it is well
grounded in reality. (edit: "Someone" here was not directed at @kobeya, but to
those refer to democracy/capitalism as failure)

~~~
kobeya
Failure does not mean "worst in history."

Failure simply means "my standards are higher than this."

There's nothing wrong with being so audacious as to have standards unmeetable
by any past accomplishment. I call that a progress-oriented mindset.

------
roenxi
We haven't yet found a decision making process that works better than
democracy, and a lot of people have tried. At some point, someone has to
evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus
are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group. If it
is a minority group, they are in a position of extreme moral hazard to funnel
societies resources to their benefit and lock out change.

It is worth reflecting that, although a lot of people complain that people are
'voting for a slogan' or similar, there is evidence (mainly the outrageous
success of democracies vs. non-democracies) that the average voter does
actually have some idea what is going on.

It is also a subtle and interesting fact that if a large group of people are
voting essentially randomly, then they will cancel out. In this way, a person
voting with no thought for policy will probably cancel out another person
voting with little thought. A 52-48 type margin can mean that 96% of the
population had no idea, and the 4% that knew what was going on voted
unanimously in favour. The point being that a vote can be sliced up
theoretically so that ignorant voters have less influence than might be
expected - and again, the practice of democracies suggests this tends to
happen more often than intuition suggests.

Democracies throw out some cruel decisions, but that usually means the
interests of the voters are being served rather than democracy failing.

~~~
Sniffnoy
> At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being
> made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average
> voter, or it is a minority group.

You're quietly assuming a lot there. Let's stop after the first sentence --
"At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being
made by the political apparatus are." Ah! So you're proposing monarchy?

But no, you're not, because you then introduce the fictional "average voter",
thereby fitting democracy into the "someone" framework.

I think this is a bad way of looking at it. Democracy isn't a "someone".
Democracy is an _aggregation mechanism_. You contrast having everyone vote
with only having a subset vote; but you don't question the assumption that the
only aggregation mechanism is the standard sort of voting.

If you ask me, there's one aggregation mechanism that looks like it could
actually improve upon democracy, and that's futarchy. Of course, it's untried.
But the point is that there are more degrees of freedom here than you seem to
realize.

~~~
marcosdumay
Well, that futarchy replaces hired experts with a panel of future bets. Future
bets aren't very reliable, but well, it's something that could be tried - who
knows, it may work.

Anyway, on this context you are just begging the question. There's no novelty
in there for the democratic process, just for the technocratical one.

~~~
Sniffnoy
I mean, the point is that it's a different sort of aggregation mechanism. It's
not one that makes sense for everything, though, so yes there is still a
democratic component. Regardless, like I said, it's just an illustration --
there are other sorts of aggregation mechanisms one could use, that are more
universally applicable. For instance, there's quadratic voting (not something
I actually endorse, but an interesting idea). Again, this is just an
illustration.

------
unclenoriega
The part that struck me the most:

> We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which
> shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry
> and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound
> like sacrilege.

Some things never change.

~~~
jayajay
This, which is also ironic considering what happened in the late 1700's. No
Government should ever program itself to be resilient to change. Such a thing
is a virus, not a Government.

"Ok kids, we're going to play a game called 'I get a unique power but you can
never take it away no matter what!' starting now!"

~~~
marcosdumay
> Such a thing is a virus

A badly adapted one. Every virus that gives us real trouble does that because
it changes.

------
nick0garvey
This was published less than a month before the Civil War started.

~~~
pinwale
add some more context, this NYT editorial was written a couple days before
Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office (March 4th, 1861).

The states had already voted to secede (or not to) earlier in the year. The
Confederates had even provisionally elected a president, Jefferson Davis, on
February 18th. The secession crisis started after Abraham Lincoln was elected
in November of 1860.

The nation really was falling apart, hence the lamentation of the republic
being just a collection of states in the editorial.

------
matt_wulfeck
The author speaks about the "provincial" partisans that exist between states,
cities, and areas of the Union as if it's the byproduct of a failing
Democracy. He or she points specifically to the different ways laws are
written and enforced, as one example.

This is, to me, perhaps one the strongest strengths of our Republic. Different
ideas and values can be thrive in different areas at the same time, and we can
test and experiment with what's true and right.

~~~
ianai
The house has me concerned though. It seems too easy for a minority to
overrule basic governmental functions.

------
Houshalter
Yes. Consider that attractive candidates get two and a half times as many
votes as unattractive ones. Consider that most voters have very little or no
knowledge of most policy and issues. Most voters can't name their
representatives even. Most just blindly vote for one party or issue.

It's still better than nondemocratic systems I guess. But that's a terribly
low bar to pass. That's not something to be proud of.

Everyone always says that it's the best system of government that has been
tried. Well maybe we aren't trying hard enough! There are other systems, and
here are a few that are my personal favorites.

My ideal system of government has no politicians. It forms a parliament or
congress just like normal, but the representatives are sampled randomly from
the population. Ideally they would be filtered for IQ or education, but this
is optional. And then they would debate and vote on issues, without having
party loyalty, and without having to pander to the general population. It's
sort of like direct democracy, but the random sampling lets it scale to much
larger populations.

I also really like the model of the supreme court. I have to say that every
supreme court decision I've looked into, they seem remarkably rational and
competent. They aren't perfect of course, but it seems so much better than
congress. Statistics show that even biased judges tend to become much less
biased by the time they retire.

I'm not sure how they accomplish this. My guess is the lifetime appointments,
and the structure of the court being to debate issues extensively, and for the
judges to at least try to weigh them objectively. I would love to try a system
of government modelled after something like the Supreme court.

There is futarchy, proposed by Robin Hanson. The idea is to use prediction
markets to make predictions about the future, like whether policies will
actually work. Then voters can vote on values ('I approve of Brexit,
conditional on it being predicted to increase median wages.') But they bet on
beliefs.

Another idea I like is the "Ideological Turing Test". In this case
representatives can vote on policy just like normal. But they have to pass a
test that proves they fully understand the other side's point of view. By
writing arguments for the other side of the argument, and blinded reviewers
not being able to tell if it's authentic or not. This would be complicated to
implement without people gaming the system, but I think it's worth a try.

There is also alternative voting systems. These are just small modifications
of regular democracy. They modify the voting system so you can vote for third
parties without being punished for splitting the vote.

~~~
zigzigzag
_Statistics show that even biased judges tend to become much less biased by
the time they retire._

Citation needed.

If judges were so great and neutral then why does the US have a collective fit
any time one needs to be replaced? It's taken for granted that the judges are
all extremely biased and the decision making of the court can be (and _should_
be) swayed by selection of appointees.

~~~
Houshalter
[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-
justices-g...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-get-
more-liberal-as-they-get-older/)

I never said that judges were perfectly unbiased, just that they tend to the
same opinions over time. Republican nominated judges tend to look
indistinguishable from democrat nominated judges by the time they retire.

------
jayajay
"51% of people want spin-up, 49% of people want spin-down, therefore we are
going to be a spin-up only society". That right there is the problem with
Democracy. Democracy finds controversy, but it does absolutely nothing about
it. Since the majority side is always favored, there's no incentive to
actually get past the disagreements; there's no incentive to grow. It's just
about mindlessly acquiring votes.

Democracy provides useful data: which topics society agrees on, which topics
they disagree on. For the ~51/49 (controversial) cases, instead of
enlightening ourselves, we just blindly take the majority choice. This is not
the way a scientific society should be approaching government.

~~~
rubberstamp
couldn't up vote enough. Also almost all decisions are voted into without
proper deliberations. If you don't like to deliberate, you are incompetent to
be elected in the first place. Governments have been turning into for profit
entities. And checks and balances being systematically side stepped.

------
rdtsc
Yes it is a failure, but everything else is even more of a failure. So we
settled for a lesser failure.

Also "democracy as a failure" is a common trope that is used by those who
perceive the election isn't going according to how they planned. "They are not
voting the way I like, therefore democracy has failed" or if the election or
polls go the expected way then "democracy and clear minds prevailed again!".

One interesting thing I found about the current election is the role the media
plays. To control people in a dictatorship is easier, you just make criticism
and dissent punishable, nationalize all the media and it is all simple and
easy. In a Democracy controlling is a bit harder, but is still done over the
media using sophisticated and not-so-sophisticated methods. Related to that my
favorite quote so far comes from CNN's Chris Cuomo talking about the emails:
"it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media.
So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." It is as if,
there was a tiny crack in the matrix and the underlying code was exposed for a
moment.

~~~
stenl
About controlling people in a democracy, there's a great documentary,
"Manufacturing consent" featuring Noam Chomsky.

See
[[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media\]\(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media\))

Seems to be available full-length on YouTube:
[[http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y](http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y)](http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y\]\(http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y\))

~~~
rdtsc
Good reference. I have the book as well!

The other book I like is "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of
Persuasion" by Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis

------
y80
Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not
defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies,
however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold,
and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing
legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion.
How can we claim to live in a democracy if the people we trust with developing
legislation must filter everything they develop through the approval filter of
an undemocratic, and unfairly powerful minority?

Fortunately we have options that aren't the failed states of the 20th century,
we need a democratic economy and a democratic workforce. Those are the only
solutions to this problem, and if you spend enough time looking at the
problems and their causes, it becomes readily apparent why this is so.

Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're
saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. The problem is
the structure on which modern democracy has been built.

~~~
gragas
>Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're
saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control
my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose
laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

~~~
y80
>I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life

Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a
feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. Democracy allows us to make
decisions that influence our own life, however we must obviously respect the
fact that we live in a society with other people, and they must be respected.
Beyond living in a vacuum, we have no real way to ensure absolute individual
freedom, however a completely democratic society is one way of reconciling the
thirst for individual freedom with the necessity of cooperation with others.

>The ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws
which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

This is absolutely a valid concern, which is why I believe in a rigid
groundset of rules on which all laws and rules must comply (consitutions/bill
of rights) which respect the rights and liberties of individuals to ensure
they have maximum freedom with respect to other individuals in society. This
isn't a groundbreaking idea, but I do believe we need to re-evaluate these
approaches in a modern context, as most countries were established in a time
before progressivism was dominant.

~~~
gragas
I've really become more and more for states' rights as time goes on. It's very
clear that most states (especially rural states) fundamentally disagree with
California, New York, and the other blue strongholds.

I want to preserve the culture I grew up in. I want everyone to contribute to
society. I want a culture where what you get is what you worked for. I don't
want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town
I grew up in.

Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how
Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity)
above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard
work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.

In my mind, it would be an absolute travesty to allow the distant majority to
vote for the destruction of the culture I grew up in.

~~~
sjclemmy
>> I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move
to the town I grew up in.

Yet you have moved to California? Can you hear the irony?

>> It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.

You don't have. You just have to accept other people think differently and
want different things to you.

~~~
gragas
Yes, I accept that other people think differently than me. But that should not
give the right for Californians to overthrow my community and my culture which
exists thousands of miles away from California.

------
randomsearch
(For clarity: I'm against Trump and voted against Brexit)

I'm so tired of this kind of thinking. It seems to come from people who don't
have much contact with a good cross-section of society, such that they can
maintain the illusion that things are fine, that (for example) Brexit or Trump
was a stupid decision.

These decisions are actually democracy at work, in a positive sense. A large
raft of society in the UK and the USA have been neglected, trod upon, bullied,
and exploited for decades. And they have finally had the opportunity to kick
back and they have taken that opportunity. It's destructive in one sense, but
you have to consider that without precisely this kind of upset, no-one would
pause to think about these people for a moment, and things would continue to
get worse for them.

These people aren't racist (well, no more than those who voted the other way),
they're not idiots, they're not some sort of cesspool of poorly educated
fools, they are making an informed rational decision to kick back. They're
furious. They want to be heard.

I think so many of my friends don't get it, because they don't realise that
the vote for Brexit turned out that way precisely because it was designed to
annoy them. If you don't get Trump, you don't get Brexit, chances are you are
exactly the beneficiary of decades of globalisation and free trade, widening
inequality, that have crushed the people below you. Try trading places with
them and see how you feel then.

If you're not grasped this by now, you should definitely make an effort to
broaden your social circles.

If you watch this video and think "wow, Michael Moore's lost it", then you
have a long way to go:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c)

------
known
In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count that
votes.
[http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/democracy/](http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/democracy/)

------
zkhalique
Democracy isn't a failure, you just need a better voting system.

If people could rank their preferences then people like Bernie and Bloomberg
would actually run without fear that they might "take away votes from Hillary"
and therefore help Trump. In fact, the two-party syste would give way to
something better. Only the party elites would NOT want this... but after this
election, even they probably do.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-
runoff_voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

------
WheelsAtLarge
It's not a failure but democracy is about to be tested like no time before.
With the ability for everyone to have a voice via social media single minded
groups are easier than ever to create. As we have seen many of these groups
are unwilling to compromise their ideas which makes it likely for chaos to
erupt over any hot issues. We saw an example with the Arab spring and Occupy
Wall Street. They erupted but yet have had no real results. Primarily because
there was no real leadership behind it to move it forward. In many ways you
can say that the revolution made matters worse.

When everyone is upset and there are many points of view there is no common
way to move forward but there are many hot heads that are willing to shoot
first and ask questions later. Imagine a million hot heads without a common
goal but the willingness to fight and we can see chaos with out results.

People get upset at the "do nothing congress" because they can't get X done
but people aren't willing to admit that the reason is that voters have sent
individuals with very diverse ideas to try to get things done. Voters are the
ones that are pushing them to not compromise any idea or be punished by being
voted out. I can see a future where one person that can use social media very
well can push people to vote in ways that we consider distasteful now. What
will happen then? Groups will erupt with opposing view and many will be ready
to fight.

We've heard allegations that the voting system is rigged but that's very
unlikely. We have laws and watch dogs that prevent that in any significant
way. We don't have the same for social media but we know that it's possible to
manipulate it, even by foreign powers, and that's not illegal worse yet it's
hard to impossible to prevent. It's hard to even contemplate how that effects
a democratic system.

The founding father created a representative government because they knew that
rule by majority can be as distasteful as government by a monarchy or emperor.
They thought a functioning government needs representatives that can sort out
what's needed. With everyone having a voice that's going to get extremely
difficult. Social media is about to let the US test out its governmental
system, lets hope it can pass the trouble ahead. Can the US stay together as a
nation?

------
hal9000xp
_Centralized_ democracy is _indeed_ a complete failure.

I really hate an idea that minorities must live as majority wants. The
assumption that majority is always smart and able to make wise decisions is
completely wrong.

Unlike others, I actually think that some form of democracy exist even in
authoritarian countries. I lived 22 years in Uzbekistan, then 9 years in
Russia. I can say for sure that almost every dictator appeals to _masses_.
Mediocre people (masses) is always their primary audience. For example, in
Russia, tzar Putin perfectly represents mentality of majority of people in
Russia. People actually love the style he speaks and acts. Dictator won't last
long if he looses support from majority. I wrote about this here:

[https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-living-in-
totalitarian-s...](https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-living-in-totalitarian-
states-love-their-dictators-1/answer/Eldar-Gaynetdinov)

(I was surprised this answer got a lot of upvotes)

Also, I noted that even when masses don't like their current government's
ideology, they jump to _another mediocre_ idea.

For example, the mob in Uzbekistan is attracted to radical islam as opposition
to current secular dictatorship. So if current secular regime in Uzbekistan
will fall, then masses choose to go back to 15th century as an alternative.
The mob in Uzbekistan certainly won't choose liberal market economy with
highly developed technology sector attracting international capital. The
backward silly ideas of islamic clerics are much, much, much closer to the
mob.

Another example, next after Putin'ism in the priority queue of ideologies in
Russia are: communism, and right next after communism is national-socialism.
So there are a lot of people who oppose Putin because he is not true communist
or do not fully support national-socialism. Again, there is no "liberal market
economy with highly developed technology sector attracting international
capital" in their queue of ideas.

I can't even imagine the masses go to the streets demanding relaxing
regulations for businesses, reducing government spending, attracting
international capital.

I guess in US republican party is relatively popular because of religion.
Remove strong support of religion in the GOP and after that their popularity
will probably drop 10 times.

In Europe, masses a bit smarter than in Uzbekistan and Russia but still they
are demanding nanny state, taking money from high earners.

I spent a lot of time and effort to escape poor government policies supported
by masses. I born and lived in Uzbekistan, then moved to Russia, then to
Sweden, then to the Netherlands. So I'm not afraid to say to entire society -
"f __k off, you are all wrong, I 'm leaving!". I already did it 3 times!

For example, I left Sweden because of ridiculously high taxes and really big
nanny state.

I see _decentralized_ democracy as a solution. For example, I would support an
idea of small federal government and pretty independent states. So that voters
can vote for laws only in their states (with rare but inevitable exceptions).
It would be competition between states and eventually people with certain
ideas would concentrate in particular states. Some states would be more
socialist, some more capitalist. Head of federal government should not be a
single person but rather a group of persons from each party.

I think Switzerland is closest example to this.

In such country, you can easily move between states with different laws,
taxes, ideologies. It's far easier than moving between countries if you are
disagree with prevailing political sentiment (what I'm doing right now).

~~~
urza
+1 for decentralization

Switzerland is a working example [https://fee.org/articles/the-secret-of-
swiss-success-is-dece...](https://fee.org/articles/the-secret-of-swiss-
success-is-decentralization/)

What I hope will take of is Seasteading
[http://www.seasteading.org/](http://www.seasteading.org/)

------
paulsutter
Maybe we should ask,

\- is representative democracy a failure (in contrast with direct
democracy[1])

\- is a two-party system a failure (in contrast with a multiparty system[2])

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)

[2] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-
party_system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system)

------
louithethrid
The success of democracy and its creations have stabilized dictatorships- a
constant even small surplus in a economy where the human individual matters
near nothing, keeps societys with a frozzen over public relatively stable for
a long time.

Dictatorship is what came most natural to our animal ancestors, so we tend to
rationalize it while condemning the "Zumutung der Komplexität".

But are they stable? Dictatorships tend to embrace the conservative point of
view, which produces usually overpopulation, raging nationalists (the bottled
up anger redirected against the guys next door) and religious fanatics. So if
this economic surplus, aka innovation is not imported (or even more dangerous
constantly produced)theey unravel rather fast, usually by the forces they
called upon to stabilize.

There is no inbuilt re-juvenation without weapons. So every new App - any new
product or production methode, disturbing the equilibrium, can blow up such a
social powder keg.

The seperate problem usually associated with democracys, is that the
fullfillment of all wishes in the wests way of life, is rather self-
destructive on society. <Anecdata Begin> I have several couples i know who
really looked forward to having grandkids, after raising (quite large)
familys. And in the west this just doesent happen any more. Nothing more
depressing then seeing those baby-boomers and there bottles all in tears about
"What went wrong with there kids?" <Anecdata End> It doesent make the
situation better, that democracys have a tendency to import large swaths of
people from dictatorships - mostly for economic and sociological reasons.

------
sjclemmy
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of
sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it
has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all
those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Winston Churchill

------
ezequiel-garzon
It's interesting to see that back then (I now checked that even before the
Civil War period) the term United States of _North_ America was used. To the
history aficionados, was USNA more commonplace than USA? If so, when did USA
become prevalent?

~~~
dredmorbius
USA since at 1776, no contest:

[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=United+States+...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=United+States+of+North+America%2CUnited+States+of+America&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1750&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2CUnited%20States%20of%20North%20America%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BUnited%20States%20of%20North%20America%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BUNITED%20STATES%20OF%20NORTH%20AMERICA%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CUnited%20States%20of%20America%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BUnited%20States%20of%20America%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BUNITED%20STATES%20OF%20AMERICA%3B%2Cc0)

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
Thanks, that's what I always thought, having found it always puzzling as "an
American from Argentina" :) That's why I always surprised this usage in a NYT
piece, and before:
[https://books.google.es/books?id=pVdDAQAAIAAJ](https://books.google.es/books?id=pVdDAQAAIAAJ)
.

------
muad
The problem isn't democracy, it is the republic.

We have the technology to make congress obsolete.

------
afsina
According "Democracy, god that failed" from Hans Herman Hoppe, it is failed
miserably. He sees it even inferior to aristocratic monarchies with good
reasons.

------
riffic
It never fails logging into a Hacker News thread near election season but to
find commenters yearning for literacy tests.

------
vasili111
Democracy and Capitalism are not a failure because they don't have better
alternatives.

------
happy-go-lucky
Is there a system of government that enjoys the most success? Just curious.

~~~
dredmorbius
The bureaucratic dynasties under the Mandate of Heaven ruled for ~3,000 years
in China, ~2100 BCE until 1912. Individual dynasties lasted for 100s of years,
the longest, the Zhou, for 790 years from 1046 BC to 256 BC.

The English royal system has persisted with relatively little discontinuity
from 1066 AD to present, some 950 years.

Unless you've other criteria for "success", in which case you might care to
consider what those might be.

~~~
douche
I'm not sure it is really accurate to lump 3000 years of Chinese history under
a single political system. That would be roughly analogous to saying the the
Egyptian political system was continuous from Thutmose to Cleopatra, because
the ruler still called themselves Pharaoh. Or perhaps saying that the Western
Roman Empire was continuous with the Franko-German Holy Roman Empire that
followed it.

There are extensive periods of discontinuity intermixed there, whether it be
fracture and civil war, invasion and synthesis with various steppe peoples,
the taking on of Buddhist Chakravartin mantles, etc.

~~~
dredmorbius
Actually, Egypt did come up when I was researching that question as another
instance.

The Ship of Theseus is a profound question.

------
chrismealy
The bond holders seem to like it, so it'll probably stick around.

------
thght
At least not in creating the illusion of choice for the individual.

------
saynsedit
Who wrote this?

~~~
fjarlq
By the editors of the New York Times, according to the 2013 book, "New York
Times: Disunion".

------
BorisMelnik
does anyone know who the author of this is? I couldn't seem to find it on the
article?

------
andrewclunn
So article asks if the fundamental idea of democracy and republics are flawed,
and concludes that we must impose a singular republic, without addressing
those initial concerns. Good to know that the mentality of the North Eastern
liberal hasn't changed since the civil war.

