What is a pure democracy?

[dimreepr]

Quote

 

We don't want a pure democracy. It would be a tyranny of stupidity. Basically, the film Idiocracy. Pure democracy is said to be the worst type of government alongside tyranny. The 2020 capital riot is an example of what "pure democracy" would look like in action. So is the French Reign of Terror.

There seems to be a tendency for people to argue in favor of the popular vote deciding the President coincidentally when it would lead to their preferred party winning the election, and I have a feeling that if the case was the opposite, people would suddenly be less in favor of it.

 

You seem to be conflating "pure democracy" with mob rule.

@Night FM What is your definition of a pure democracy?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

@Night FM What is your definition of a pure democracy?

It’s your thread, so how about you provide the definition for discussion. Even if it’s copying the one provided in the other thread, since one might reasonably assume Night FM was using it?

[dimreepr]

On 11/4/2024 at 2:20 PM, swansont said:

It’s your thread, so how about you provide the definition for discussion. Even if it’s copying the one provided in the other thread, since one might reasonably assume Night FM was using it?

Ok, so my definition is, 'everyone' gets a vote and will be required to submit it, even if they don't want to (unless they can't make a significant mark) regardless of age or ethnicity or any other excuse that limits their humanity.

As it goes, I think the electoral college system is an excellent way to limit the potential damage of a free-for-all witch hunt, based on the population density... 

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

As it goes, I think the electoral college system is an excellent way to limit the potential damage of a free-for-all witch hunt, based on the population density... 

So someone who lives in a sparsely populated state should have their vote count more than someone in a populous state? Is that consistent with “everyone gets a vote”?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

So someone who lives in a sparsely populated state should have their vote count more than someone in a populous state? Is that consistent with “everyone gets a vote”?

Yes, not everyone's vote matter, is not the same as no one's vote matters...

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

not everyone's vote matter

And to you that is a reflection of pure democracy?

[dimreepr]

Just now, iNow said:

And to you that is a reflection of pure democracy?

It's missing some context...

[iNow]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's missing some context...

Shall I chase it like some wild goose, or perhaps instead you could elaborate as a show of courtesy?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's missing some context...

And yet it’s YOUR THREAD, so whose fault it that?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Yes, not everyone's vote matter, is not the same as no one's vote matters...

So all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

And to you that is a reflection of pure democracy?

It's pure something...