The closest system to actual democracy that there is, is direct democracy...

The closest system to actual democracy that there is, is direct democracy. However I would make 2 additional rules to introducing the new system, but first the pros and cons of it.

Pros:

Trust in the government and politicians is declining steadily, things aren't getting better with the current system.

Cons:

As you've seen, modern politics are mostly about the tyranny of a minority. (((special interests))), liberals and…other… shrill groups who enforce their world views on the majority under the guise of social justice and so on.

I understand the concept of "tyranny of the majority" but I can't help but think of comparing it to: "In a family of 5, one of the daughters wants to burn the house down. She is clearly the minority. The other 4 members of the family disagree and stop her." Are they being tyrannical?

There could be safe-guards put in place against violations of human rights.


Now, to address the "uneducated people voting" issues.

I believe direct democracy can only work if there is a vetting process in place to earn your voting license. We have to study for exams in school, college, hell even to get a drivers license. Yet the most important civil right we have - the vote - doesn't require any qualifications. You are deciding the fate of a nation, I'd say that is enough responsibility to warrant a test and the fulfillment of some criteria (for instance, people on welfare don't get to vote).

The test could consist of some basic politics, basic economic knowledge and so on.

If people say "but muh basic human right" - my answer is "you have the right to drive, but that doesn't mean you can just hop in a car and go for it. You have the right to EARN your drivers license". It is your choice whether you want to or not.

The second implementation that direct democracy would require is another type of voting system. I personally am for online voting, where you vote using your webcam, and holding up some form of ID. Everybody has a smartphone with a camera so it would be easy. No voting lines, no lazy/apathetic voters, less voter intimidation, faster results.

The votes would then be sent to a government agency as well as a few private companies for independent tallying.

That having been said, I understand the arguments for the vote to be anonymous, but it's in that anonymity that the fraud occurs. I for one am not ashamed of what I believe in, and when asked, would answer who I vote for and why.

As an European, I've been thinking of inter-country vote counting. For instance a highly corrupt country like Greece, or Spain or Romania (where voting is laughably fraudulent) would send out their votes to disinterested parties like Switzerland to count the votes, ensuring the least amount of voter fraud.

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kI9c_Cm0WiQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Democracy is cancer

/thread

"REAL DEMOCRACY HASNT BEEN TRIED YET!"

…all of which would be ignored via distraction and misdirection, or subverted from their original intention

Either you have a strong benevolent leader or you're degenerate

This has some merit but the test should be about recognizing Trotskyist & Marxist tactics, not basic bitch shit

I don't even know any of the shit they'd ask on a basic political test, I'd just put "None of this matters because it doesn't account for real power intervening" and I'd be right

You guys realize Hitler was democratically elected, and before him most "kings" and "queens" were in the jews pockets for most of the 1800s right?

If there was no democracy (it's far from what it should be) the jews would literally own your asses.

If we go by power alone - they own all the banks, the media and the entertainment industries.

So good luck with that.

This meme needs to stop

...

Most kings in medieval times were elected, democracy is rule of the poor, rule of the ignorant masses, rule of demagogues who can manipulate the masses for their own ends. Democracy always ends up in tyranny. Nothing wrong with assemblies, but the upper class needs to have power and respect above the masses. Democracy needs to be mixed with aristocratic and monarchical institutions. This was understood since ancient times. Mixed government is better than full-on democracy. Democracy is a necessary evil that needs to be as close to non-existent as possible.

Hitler didn't have millions of shitskins and modern mind control to deal with, democracy's ship has sailed

Maybe we can try again when all of the kikes are dead and campaigning for immigration gets you jailed or killed

Because the current way is perfect, as evidenced recently in Austria.


It worked brilliantly in Switzerland where they voted not to join the EU, not to legalize gay marriage, and so on.

The point is letting the people decide for themselves be it good or bad instead of being fucked over by minorities.


I have no problem with elites, or what you call aristocracy. Which is why I mentioned that the right to vote would have to be earned not given. Most idiots wouldn't pass the requirements to begin with.


He did have bolsheviks, which are the modern day Marxists and sjw's to go against. And he won.

Germany had been run into the fucking ground by kikes.

And he still won.

Then you aren't talking about democracy anymore, are you?

Polls tests can so easily be manipulated in order to only allow voters with the "right" ideas to vote that it would only be a matter of time until only the (((right))) people could vote.

You imagine that you'd manipulate it to support YOUR ideas, and eliminate people with alternate ideas who you see as too stupid to vote, but trust me, it would be just as likely to go the other way and result in you losing your vote and the people you despise as stupid being the only ones allowed.

...

No, not as it is now, but it still gives the masses a choice (which keeps them docile). The vote is there to earn, if you can't it's your own fault.


The tests are knowledge tests, not policy tests. They are like math/history etc exams. They aren't those watered down bullshit "no wrong answer" tests.

You either have knowledge of the current political system or you don't. Same goes with economy.

Additionally, there would be some prerequisites: like not being on welfare. Just like people with criminal records can't vote.

Have you heard of Rhodesia and their voting requirements were?

Give them assemblies as a means to blow off steam. Do not give them a real choice, ever.

Reading up on them now.

The idea is that even if you give a monkey a choice, it's incapable of making it.

To make the choice, they would no longer have to be monkeys.

How about we have a government system where you earn the right to vote and hold public office.

Lets take Starship troopers as a quick example. You gotta serve in the military to earn citizenship, and thus vote and or hold public office.

The novel mentions that this is because you risk your life for the state, thus proving that you have the responsibility to have the power that voting entails.

It's pretty much Nationalist Democracy, really. If you get rid of all the jews and subhumans, I believe it would work splendidly. Any other options?

youtube.com/watch?v=kI9c_Cm0WiQ

People with a criminal record cant vote? Brilliant. I have a criminal record because I said in an article that blacks have lower iq, the court said that it didnt matter if it was true or not, it was still offensive and hateful. So in your system the government just needs to make laws that target people they dont want voting.

Thanks for that video, watched it and bookmarked it.

I would wholeheartedly back up a system which requires certain standards of its citizens in order for that citizen to earn the right to vote.


This hate speech shit has to go away once and for all. There is nothing in the constitution about it, so I don't see how they can arrest you for saying something, or even fine you.

It's either freedom of speech or freedom of feelings.

I see your point about the government just inventing new crimes to create criminal records in order to stop people from voting, but I think you see my point as well about putting in filters to who can or can't vote.

and btw the question with political systems is not "which is best" but "which is best for what".
Anyone on this board that doesn't support aristocracy / trial-based monarchism (as in the king is elected if he can pass some tests) should honestly leave.

my nigger

As long as people don't confuse aristocracy with the richest because these days we know who are (((the richest))).

Aristocracy literally means: "Rule of the best"

What I'm proposing is a system that does away with the "gibs me dat" mentality.

Oligarchy is rule of the richest. Jews are some of the finest oligarchs but the worst aristocrats.

indirect democracy would be much better if turning politics in a profession is made harder. and by this i mean that citizens should not be allowed to run for the same office twice.
and that would apply to position of power inside political parties.

Very much agreed on this. Oligarchy/plutocracy is the way of decadence and of the jews.

Perhaps you are right. If professional politics would be a much harder position to attain, and the terms would be more strictly limited.

If this applied to the average citizen as well, in the sense that the right to vote should be earned instead of just having it by default - indirect democracy would be better.

I would add a rule that a requirement to vote is that the citizen cannot be recieing any type of government support. It will give all the people who actually PAY into the system a oice on how the money is used, rather than a bunch of lazy niggers voting for more free shit.

i agree.

Democracy is shit with or without jewish influences.

Democracy is retarded.

...