Is democracy actually alive in the USA?

Edward Flores4 said:I have to disagree here!

Look, a democratically elected government is made up of human beings, not gods. If people are inherently good, then nobody needs to rule them in the first place. But if they’re fundamentally flawed? Well, then any government chosen through democracy is going to be flawed too. It seems pretty clear to me that even on paper, democratic rule doesn't quite hold water.

Sure, we can use democracy to decide things like whether shops should stay open on Sundays or whether we should join NATO. But using democracy to elect a handful of semi-clueless, wildly ambitious careerists—people who will inevitably break every single campaign promise they made—only to have them ignore us entirely for the next four years? That doesn't sound particularly good to me, even in theory.

there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain ideas of justice and democracy on a global scale.

I don't see it that way... there are plenty of critical thinkers out there, they just aren't interested in playing the political game. Most democratic governments use the media to sideline intellectuals—and if they do happen to ask an expert for their opinion, it's usually just for show, so they can claim they "consulted the experts" before doing exactly what they planned to do anyway.

Plus, there's this fundamental clash between actual ability and raw ambition. The most capable people generally have zero desire to sit at the same table as thugs like boss, Đapić, Rojs, or Čehok—those kinds of caricatures whose IQ you could probably calculate just by multiplying their shoe size by two.😁

I don't think it's quite that black and white. Even decent people run into disagreements and organizational messiness that require some kind of authority to sort out. In that light, a democratic framework seems like the fairest approach because it's supposed to give everyone an equal shot—at least on paper. should be the goal.
Of course, if people are inherently corrupt, any system run by humans will fail, whether it's a democracy, communism, a monarchy, or something else entirely.

Personally, I don't buy into this whole "good vs. evil" binary; most people fall somewhere in the middle. Still, you have to wonder if the system designed to be the most fair is actually the most effective one.

@Robert Booth65: Don't just spit facts without backing them up. 👎

I'm with Edward Flores4 on this one.
Look at the US... Bush pulls off two wins by leaning hard into terrorism paranoia and other nonsense. He loses the coasts (where the educated folks live), but those rural voters in the Midwest carry him. Honestly, if uneducated people weren't allowed to vote, things would never have gone down that way.

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, I'm not sure if they do.

though it feels like the sheer amount of paperwork involved in a setup like that would be an absolute nightmare...

But wouldn't it work? Think about it—testing happens during those gaps between elections (so, every four years, basically) and only applies to adults. In high school, you already take standardized tests like the SATs, which essentially cover the basics, so there'd be no need to re-test every single new generation from scratch.

It’s kind of wild when you think about it—to get a driver's license in the US, you have to pass a medical exam, show a decent IQ, nail a psych evaluation, complete driver's ed, and then pass both a written and practical exam before a board...
...yet when it comes to deciding the fate of our entire nation and its political direction, we don't even require people to be literate.🙄

If the bureaucracy and the whole procedure for getting behind the wheel works this smoothly... I just don't see why we couldn't implement a much simpler, yet infinitely more vital, process for casting a vote.🤷

It seems pretty obvious that we go to great lengths to keep idiots off the road, but we're perfectly fine letting them call the shots for the whole country!?

Perfectly put!👍

Gary James88 said:I don't think it's quite that black and white. Even decent people run into disagreements and organizational messiness that require some kind of authority to sort out. In that light, a democratic framework seems like the fairest approach because it's supposed to give everyone an equal shot—at least on paper. should be the goal.
Of course, if people are inherently corrupt, any system run by humans will fail, whether it's a democracy, communism, a monarchy, or something else entirely.

Personally, I don't buy into this whole "good vs. evil" binary; most people fall somewhere in the middle. Still, you have to wonder if the system designed to be the most fair is actually the most effective one.

So, you really think we all get a fair shake when once every four years we just pick who gets to fleece us for the next four?

Democracy has basically been boiled down to this trivial choice between a tiny handful of shady characters—people who pull millions in "donations" from sketchy sources just to fund their campaigns. Then, once they're in office for those four years, they spend their time paying back those donors, handing out government contracts to their cousins, or looking for half-million dollar kickbacks from foreign investors. They’re out there buying their wives designer handbags from $33 and then have the nerve to laugh right in our faces because they think we're oblivious enough to ignore it all while still pretending to believe in democracy. 😠

I don't really subscribe to that whole good versus evil thing—most people are somewhere in the middle. But, I suppose we could ask ourselves if the model aiming for maximum fairness is necessarily the best one.

The only system that can actually be considered somewhat decent is one that accounts for the possibility of power being abused and builds in "fail-safe" mechanisms to prevent it. Any model that strives to be the "best" inevitably slides into totalitarianism or dictatorship; the second you start believing you know what's best for everyone, you lose any chance of self-correction.

You only have to listen to how a certain old classmate of don Kaćunko—that wonderful Prime Minister Sanders—used to respond to any criticism from his peers:
"The voters have spoken, and they've entrusted us with the task of running the country exactly how we see fit."

It probably stems from that religious seminary education he had—he thinks he's infallible and carries himself with all the arrogance of the devil himself.

Brian Moore45 said:@Robert Booth65: Don't just spit facts without backing them up. 👎

I'm with Edward Flores4 on this one.
Look at the US... Bush pulls off two wins by leaning hard into terrorism paranoia and other nonsense. He loses the coasts (where the educated folks live), but those rural voters in the Midwest carry him. Honestly, if uneducated people weren't allowed to vote, things would never have gone down that way.

Perfectly put!👍

Spit blindly without an explanation? If something is self-evident, you shouldn't have to overexplain it. In his post, he claims he isn't a fan of how the voting system works in a democracy—which is fine—but then he takes this weird turn with his metaphor, only to circle back at the end and simply restate that he doesn't like it. That’s where the paradox lies. He clearly doesn't realize it, and honestly, neither do you.
Here is a little hint for you: pay attention to the metaphor.

@shamantrixx, post #43, something like this:
You only need to listen to a few key politicians to see the pattern. Every time they face criticism from their peers, they basically say:
"The voters have spoken, and they've entrusted us to run the country exactly how we think is best."

That bolded we right there? That's the issue. If they said you, we might actually have a democracy.

steelridge58 said:Then again, there's the whole "Americans are different" thing. 🙂 I'm joking... mostly, but my point is that democracy is a slow, messy process, a journey, and you can't just jump onto a metaphorical subway car labeled "Democracy" overnight and suddenly find yourself fully part of it; you can't just change the outward shape of things and expect the actual substance to follow automatically.

As for the USA, we'll just have to wait and see how they voted and whether those choices were actually wise, but it seems pretty undeniable that the shifts signaled by these recent democratic elections are indeed a reflection of a genuine change in the people's mindset...

I find that highly debatable, honestly; we’re stepping into the realm of pure philosophy here. 🙂
Do you seriously believe that in the mere four years since Bush took office, the collective mindset of the people has undergone some profound positive transformation? Ever since Obama was elected, I’ve lost count of how many times I've heard claims about some grand "leap in consciousness" among the American public—likely just a reaction to his race... 🤷
It makes me wonder, what percentage of these supposedly "enlightened" Americans actually know who Obama's inner circle even consists of? The man behind Obama
There has certainly been a change in the public psyche... if anything, they’ve just drifted into an even deeper slumber.

Dennis Rogers6 said:I find that highly debatable, honestly; we’re stepping into the realm of pure philosophy here. 🙂
Do you seriously believe that in the mere four years since Bush took office, the collective mindset of the people has undergone some profound positive transformation? Ever since Obama was elected, I’ve lost count of how many times I've heard claims about some grand "leap in consciousness" among the American public—likely just a reaction to his race... 🤷
It makes me wonder, what percentage of these supposedly "enlightened" Americans actually know who Obama's inner circle even consists of? The man behind Obama
There has certainly been a change in the public psyche... if anything, they’ve just drifted into an even deeper slumber.

I knew someone was going to latch onto that specific word! 🙂 Honestly, I spent way too much time overthinking which phrase to use just to avoid sounding so uncertain. 🙂
Anyway, regarding everything else you mentioned, I can really only fall back on that old cliché that an optimist is just a pessimist who hasn't been properly briefed yet, so for the time being, I'm still holding onto my optimism... at least until further notice...

Edward Flores4 said:I think you might be taking things a bit too far there... personally, I feel like any vote from someone with an IQ over 120 should carry equal weight. Most political and economic issues aren't exactly rocket science or quantum physics... I really don't see how a person with an IQ of 140 holds a significant advantage over someone with an IQ of 120 in those arenas.

The real issue lies with people whose IQ is below 90—for them, almost everything besides tying their shoes is rocket science, and they make up a pretty large chunk of the general American population.

If we were being honest, ballots should be designed in a way that prevents illiterate or semi-literate individuals from filling them out correctly. When you look at it realistically, people who struggle with basic literacy are informationally disadvantaged; they simply don't have the foundation needed to make informed decisions. Just implementing a selection process based on literacy alone would be a massive leap forward.

We could take correctly filled ballots and sort them into three IQ categories: below 100 (below average), 100 to 120, and over 120. A vote from the below-average group would count as 1, the average group as 2, and the above-average group as 4. We should also track the results separately so we can see exactly which groups are represented by which outcomes.

Of course, voters who refuse to take the test would be removed from the voter rolls. This would likely cause a good number of the illiterate, uninterested, or intellectually underserved folks to opt out of testing entirely, effectively lightening the load on the election by removing their own handicap.

This would fundamentally change how pre-election campaigns work. It’s very possible that voters who are easily swayed by free sausages, cheap wine, Taylor Swift, or other campaign gimmicks wouldn't actually get a say—either because they won't show up for testing or because they can't manage to fill out the ballot properly. Most of those voices would end up stuck in that below-average category.

Political campaigns would turn into something resembling a "double-blind" study. Politicians wouldn't be able to afford to ignore relevant questions, marginalize experts, or try to buy off the masses with free food, patriotic rhetoric, roadside rallies, or concerts by pop stars.

I believe this would dramatically shift the landscape regardless of the actual voting outcome. A significant number of current politicians would suddenly realize that cheap handouts, backyard BBQs, and Taylor Swift aren't adequate tools for reaching the "average" or "above-average" demographics, and that they'd essentially be unable to play politics anymore.

In other words, changing the criteria itself would change the supply side of the equation. Very few candidates would dare to risk running a campaign targeting "below-average" voters if they knew they wouldn't gain anything—or would gain next to nothing—from the other categories.

So, IQ could be one component, but certainly not the only one. What else is there?
And should every single person have the same weight when voting on any given issue?

Given everything I just laid out, I’m honestly convinced that if we simply prioritized literacy and IQ- 140 during the selection process, we would see MASSIVE results almost immediately.

How exactly would you pull off a reform like that? I highly doubt the average or below-average people—who make up the vast majority—would ever agree to a weighted voting system. Their ego wouldn't allow it. Clearly, a reform like this couldn't happen through democratic means.

Besides, it would violate one of the core democratic principles: "one person, one vote." By definition, that wouldn't be a democracy.

It’s insane that to drive a car, you need a medical exam, a basic IQ and psych test, theoretical and practical training, plus a board exam...
...but when it comes to deciding the fate and politics of the country, there isn't even a requirement to be literate.🙄

If the paperwork and procedure for a driver's license works... I don't see why a much simpler, yet infinitely more important, voting procedure wouldn't work too. 🤷

We obviously don't want idiots behind the wheel, but we're fine with idiots deciding national policy!?

Exactly. That's how democracy works. It’s not about expressing knowledge or expertise; it’s about expressing will. That's why so many people hate it.

frozenotter232 said:How exactly would you pull off a reform like that? I highly doubt the average or below-average people—who make up the vast majority—would ever agree to a weighted voting system. Their ego wouldn't allow it. Clearly, a reform like this couldn't happen through democratic means.

Besides, it would violate one of the core democratic principles: "one person, one vote." By definition, that wouldn't be a democracy.

It’s insane that to drive a car, you need a medical exam, a basic IQ and psych test, theoretical and practical training, plus a board exam...
...but when it comes to deciding the fate and politics of the country, there isn't even a requirement to be literate.🙄

If the paperwork and procedure for a driver's license works... I don't see why a much simpler, yet infinitely more important, voting procedure wouldn't work too. 🤷

We obviously don't want idiots behind the wheel, but we're fine with idiots deciding national policy!?

Exactly. That's how democracy works. It’s not about expressing knowledge or expertise; it’s about expressing will. That's why so many people hate it.

Now, I know I’m getting a bit too deep into the weeds here—and frankly, it might be a moot point right now—but there actually are solutions for this. See, voters don't really *know* the true weight of their vote. And it's not just about "ego"—because let's be honest, refusing to admit you're uninformed isn't self-respect, it's just arrogance and ignorance—it's also because we don't want to give voters a reason to belittle one another, or give politicians a direct line to run targeted propaganda against specific groups.

It's kind of like how you don't get handed your IQ score or a psychological profile during a routine physical for a driver's license, or when you're going through the hiring process at a place like Google or JPMorgan Chase.

The concept isn't some radical new idea, either; it's been used successfully in all sorts of other fields for years. The system is tested, reliable, and well-established.

Quinn:

Besides, doing that would violate one of the most fundamental democratic principles—"one person, one vote." So, it wouldn't be a democracy.

Even what we have right now isn't truly a democracy, because everyone gets one vote every four years, and then a tiny handful of those votes decide the direction for the next four years until the next election cycle. So, no matter how you slice it... this proposed idea would actually be more democratic than any existing version of democracy we've seen.

Quinn:

Exactly, that's how democracy works. It’s not about expressing knowledge or expertise; it’s about expressing will. That's why so many people can't stand it.

I don't quite get why everyone gets so hung up on that big word, "democracy." It feels like people act as if the label matters more than the actual mechanics of governance and control. What really matters is the results the system produces—and right now, the results are a disaster. Honestly, who cares about the "sanctity of democracy"... unless you're living off the benefits it provides.

What you actually need is a roof over your head, food, water, healthcare, the right to work, job opportunities, and a fair wage for the work you do. You can't eat democracy, and you certainly can't use it to wipe your backside—unless you write the word on a piece of paper... and even then, it won't do much good. 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:Now, I know I’m getting a bit too deep into the weeds here—and frankly, it might be a moot point right now—but there actually are solutions for this. See, voters don't really *know* the true weight of their vote. And it's not just about "ego"—because let's be honest, refusing to admit you're uninformed isn't self-respect, it's just arrogance and ignorance—it's also because we don't want to give voters a reason to belittle one another, or give politicians a direct line to run targeted propaganda against specific groups.

It's kind of like how you don't get handed your IQ score or a psychological profile during a routine physical for a driver's license, or when you're going through the hiring process at a place like Google or JPMorgan Chase.

The concept isn't some radical new idea, either; it's been used successfully in all sorts of other fields for years. The system is tested, reliable, and well-established.

Quinn:

Besides, doing that would violate one of the most fundamental democratic principles—"one person, one vote." So, it wouldn't be a democracy.

Even what we have right now isn't truly a democracy, because everyone gets one vote every four years, and then a tiny handful of those votes decide the direction for the next four years until the next election cycle. So, no matter how you slice it... this proposed idea would actually be more democratic than any existing version of democracy we've seen.

Quinn:

Exactly, that's how democracy works. It’s not about expressing knowledge or expertise; it’s about expressing will. That's why so many people can't stand it.

I don't quite get why everyone gets so hung up on that big word, "democracy." It feels like people act as if the label matters more than the actual mechanics of governance and control. What really matters is the results the system produces—and right now, the results are a disaster. Honestly, who cares about the "sanctity of democracy"... unless you're living off the benefits it provides.

What you actually need is a roof over your head, food, water, healthcare, the right to work, job opportunities, and a fair wage for the work you do. You can't eat democracy, and you certainly can't use it to wipe your backside—unless you write the word on a piece of paper... and even then, it won't do much good. 🙂

I don't see how a lack of transparency in this system would appeal to citizens. Nor do I see why they'd agree to an electoral system where their vote potentially carries less weight.
(Though, maybe they could be talked into it since most people are just average or mediocre. 🤣 )

Quinn:

Just like you don't get your Intel scores or psych eval results during a standard physical for a driver's license, or when you're getting hired by a firm that requires testing. The concept isn't new; it's been successfully used in various other fields for years. The system is tested, reliable, and well-established.

But an individual isn't forced to drive or work for a company that demands psych testing, so they aren't obligated to take a test that might yield negative consequences for them. However, political decisions, like laws, bind you whether you like it or not—under threat of force. And those laws apply to the idiots, the average people, and the geniuses alike. That’s why it’s fair for everyone's votes to carry equal weight.

Quinn:

What we have now isn't even democracy, because everyone gets one vote every four years, and then a handful of people get to decide things for the next four until the next "election."

What we have is representative democracy (with a poorly developed political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with other well-known flaws).

Quinn:

So, no matter how you slice it... this would be more democratic than any current version of democracy.

Direct democracy would be more democratic, where everyone simply has one vote. A plural vote definitely falls outside the bounds of democracy and the current zeitgeist, especially when it's based on innate traits like Intel.

Quinn:

I don't get why everyone is obsessing over the word "democracy." It shouldn't matter what you call the system or what the specific mechanism of control is. What matters is the outcome, and right now, the outcomes are a disaster.

That really depends on which country you're looking at.

Quinn:

Who actually gives a damn about democracy...

Maybe people who want to engage in politics without being crushed by it.
Or those who just see political involvement as one part of a decent life.
Or maybe folks advocating for equality because they actually have a conscience.
There are plenty of reasons. 🤷

Quinn:

You need a roof over your head, food, water, healthcare, the right to work, job opportunities, and a fair wage for your labor. You can't eat democracy, and unless you write the word down on a piece of paper to trade it, it won't do you any good either. 🙂

There's definitely a correlation between democratic systems and material prosperity, but I'm convinced there’s more to it than just a coincidence.

frozenotter232 said:I don't see how a lack of transparency in this system would appeal to citizens. Nor do I see why they'd agree to an electoral system where their vote potentially carries less weight.
(Though, maybe they could be talked into it since most people are just average or mediocre. 🤣 )

Quinn:

Just like you don't get your Intel scores or psych eval results during a standard physical for a driver's license, or when you're getting hired by a firm that requires testing. The concept isn't new; it's been successfully used in various other fields for years. The system is tested, reliable, and well-established.

But an individual isn't forced to drive or work for a company that demands psych testing, so they aren't obligated to take a test that might yield negative consequences for them. However, political decisions, like laws, bind you whether you like it or not—under threat of force. And those laws apply to the idiots, the average people, and the geniuses alike. That’s why it’s fair for everyone's votes to carry equal weight.

Quinn:

What we have now isn't even democracy, because everyone gets one vote every four years, and then a handful of people get to decide things for the next four until the next "election."

What we have is representative democracy (with a poorly developed political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with other well-known flaws).

Quinn:

So, no matter how you slice it... this would be more democratic than any current version of democracy.

Direct democracy would be more democratic, where everyone simply has one vote. A plural vote definitely falls outside the bounds of democracy and the current zeitgeist, especially when it's based on innate traits like Intel.

Quinn:

I don't get why everyone is obsessing over the word "democracy." It shouldn't matter what you call the system or what the specific mechanism of control is. What matters is the outcome, and right now, the outcomes are a disaster.

That really depends on which country you're looking at.

Quinn:

Who actually gives a damn about democracy...

Maybe people who want to engage in politics without being crushed by it.
Or those who just see political involvement as one part of a decent life.
Or maybe folks advocating for equality because they actually have a conscience.
There are plenty of reasons. 🤷

Quinn:

You need a roof over your head, food, water, healthcare, the right to work, job opportunities, and a fair wage for your labor. You can't eat democracy, and unless you write the word down on a piece of paper to trade it, it won't do you any good either. 🙂

There's definitely a correlation between democratic systems and material prosperity, but I'm convinced there’s more to it than just a coincidence.

If you look back at what was said above, you'll realize I was really just answering a hypothetical question about what a "more efficient" political structure might look like compared to our current one.

Beyond that—and this is my main point—the issue isn't actually designing a better system; the real hurdle is whether people are even willing to trade our current system of total unaccountability for one where they’d actually be held responsible for their own actions within their means.

See, you can demand accountability from someone who lacks the capacity for it—you can even try to bake penalties for irresponsibility into the law—but a fool is never going to be truly accountable. If you don't see that, and you keep pushing for responsibility from someone incapable of providing it... well, then you're arguably being even more foolish than they are. Responsibility is a product of an individual's intellectual capacity, not something that can be conjured up by your "demands" or through some legal sanction against those who refuse to comply.

Laws are, in many ways, just a written admission that we failed to solve a problem. When we run into a problem we don't know how to fix, we write a law to physically suppress the symptoms. A law isn't a solution—it just adds another layer of complexity to the original mess.

Honestly, maybe a system like that could be slipped past the public since most people are either mediocre or just plain dim.

Unfortunately, the statistics don't support your optimism. Most Americans sit right on that razor-thin line between being functional and being completely incapable—the average American IQ is hovering around 89. Just to give you some perspective, here's how those brackets break down:

IQ below 75 - extremely difficult to train and simply aren't competitive for any career path based on skill alone.

People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to end up in the justice system, and five times more likely to struggle with poverty as adults compared to those with IQs between 110 and 125.

Those with an average IQ (between 90 and 100) aren't competitive for high-level professional or executive roles, but they can be easily trained for the majority of jobs in the workforce.

The top 5 percent (those above 120) of the adult population are largely self-sufficient learners; there are very few mental hurdles that can stop them from mastering a profession.

As you can see, collectively, we fall into that high-risk group that can basically only be trained for very basic, repetitive tasks.

The gap between an 89 and a 109 IQ is ASTRONOMICAL.

But an individual isn't forced to drive a car or work for a corporation that requires psych testing, so they aren't obligated to undergo any assessment that might result in negative consequences for them. However, political decisions—laws, for instance—bind everyone regardless of whether they like it or not, under the threat of force. These laws apply equally to the fools, the average citizens, and the intellectuals alike. That's why it's fair for all their votes to carry equal weight.

But where’s the fairness in any of this? In the fact that I—and everyone else who actually contributes—have to shoulder the consequences of decisions made by people who have no clue what they're doing? It’s pretty simple, really: intelligence and actual skill drive progress and profit, whereas sheer incompetence just acts as a massive anchor dragging everything down. So, naturally, the "smart" people end up footing the bill for the misguided policies of the "uninformed," all because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of absolute equality—where a fool's vote carries the exact same weight as an expert's.

Where exactly do you see any sense of justice in that?

What we have here is a representative democracy—though, let's be honest, it's one plagued by a lack of political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with plenty of other well-known flaws.

You can try to dress it up with fancy terms if you want... but changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we are living under a system defined by incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, cronyism, and outright injustice. You might be able to describe it as something somewhat acceptable or even "normal" simply because you have the literacy and education to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

A more truly democratic system would be a direct democracy where everyone holds a single vote. A pluralistic voting system definitely falls outside the bounds of true democracy and the current zeitgeista, especially when it's based on innate traits like IQ.

Personally, I care about results, fairness, accountability, and freedom. Whether that comes through a democracy, communism, or anarchy... well, I don't give a shit!

We need tangible results, not ideologies or empty rhetoric built on pure capitalist utopias and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

Those who want to engage in politics without letting politics take over their lives.

Oh, I just love those kinds of "justifications." 🙄
Anyone who enters the political arena does so because they want power. Period. Even if someone claims they want power just to implement something "good," they are essentially forcing their specific vision of "good" onto everyone else—and that is precisely how history's greatest tyrants began.

Or those for whom politics is just one aspect of a well-lived life.

Sure... wanting the rewards of leadership without doing the dirty work is the dream of every ambitious incompetent out there. Plenty of people are willing to do whatever it takes to land those positions. History is littered with thousands of them, and I haven't met a single one who was actually different. Think about that. 😉

Or those who advocate for political equality for what they believe are moral reasons.

So, is it considered "moral" to lie to a fool by pretending they are just as intelligent as anyone else?

Or is it that fools demand political equality just so they can use quasi-moral concepts of "fairness" to compensate for their own intellectual shortcomings?

On top of all that...
Having the right to speak up doesn't mean you have the right to be taken seriously.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

There’s definitely a link between how democratic a system is and its level of material prosperity—but personally, I’m convinced there’s something much deeper going on than just a simple correlation.

The real kicker is FAITH. If you look at the data, scientific studies show a clear connection between IQ levels and GDP, though of course you have to account for those standard deviations along the "Bell Curve." Honestly, if you want to dive into the numbers, check it out HERE.

Democracy is essentially a matter of faith. For some folks, it’s practically the only formal religion they practice. It’s built on that recurring hunch that more than half of the population might actually be right more than half of the time.
E. B. WHITE

And finally:

A democracy is really just nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the crowd can vote to strip away the rights of the remaining forty-nine.
THOMAS JEFFERSON

Maybe bribery isn't even fundamentally about the laws themselves—I mean, look at ours—but rather the total failure of enforcement and how badly things fall apart in practice, especially with our backlogged courts... corruption is just everywhere.
So, is this some kind of metric for democracy? And if so, how much does it actually reflect the state of things?

Quincy:

I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking things, but honestly? shamantrixx is totally onto something here. Like, seriously. I guess you could say they hit the nail on the head with this one. It’s pretty wild when you really stop to look at it. Just... wow. James Lee77 says: So, I was just sitting here thinking about that whole question—you know, the one about what an actually efficient political system would look like compared to the mess we’re dealing with right now. I guess it's a massive rabbit hole, honestly. Maybe there's a better way to do things, but man, who knows?

The core issue with politics is that "efficiency" is such a vague term—it doesn't actually mean anything on its own. Efficient at what, exactly? Are we talking about squeezing out more profit? Maybe hitting better environmental targets? Or maybe creating a fairer distribution of wealth? But even then, how do you define "fairer"? Does that mean more security for everyone? Or does it mean more individual freedom? I guess it just depends on who you ask.

It’s pretty obvious that some of these different "goods" just clash with each other. Like, you can't really have all of them at once—you're usually picking one over the others. That's why political decision-making is actually unavoidable. You can't just run a bunch of numbers to "calculate" which system works best, because, I guess, we don't all want the exact same thing from the system anyway.

So, regarding that, if I had to give an answer to the question above, I’d probably just bring up this little thought experiment I was messing around with a while back:

Nothing and everything. James Lee77 said:The way I see it, the whole basic argument for democracy is that there’s just no such thing as a science of "the good life." Like, the common good isn't some exact math problem that we can just hand over to a bunch of experts to solve. If you could actually write an equation that calculates exactly what the greatest good for everyone is, then all you'd have to do is plug in the current data and—boom—you're done. Problem solved, no debating required. But since that doesn't exist, and there’s no scientific field or expert panel for "the common good," I guess we all have to decide together. We're all equally in the dark, so we might as well all have a say.

I mean, let's be real—some people just know way more about certain topics than others. That’s why most folks actually listen to experts before making a call. Plus, we've got our elected political leaders who basically act as the specialists for all our shared stuff. It’s become public knowledge.The way things work right now feels like this weird mashup of aristocracy and democracy. Like, we all vote for the best people to make the big calls—so you've got the democratic part, but then there's that aristocratic element too. I guess that's just how it is.

Honestly, it feels like this whole hybrid democratic-aristocratic setup we’ve got going on just ends up keeping the worst parts of both worlds. You get the political elites acting like they can just do whatever they want, and then you have the general public making calls without really knowing what they're getting into. I guess, just thinking out loud here, there might actually be a way to fix it and make the whole system better.

Here’s how I see it going down. I mean, if guys like Plato and those high schoolers from the local prep school could figure it out, I guess I can too. 🙂 I mean, experts really ought to lay everything out on the table for everyone involved in making decisions—like, they should clarify every single aspect of a problem, or at least the big ones, as clearly as possible. But at the end of the day, the actual call has to be made by everyone who’s affected by it. In politics, that usually means pretty much every single citizen. So, I guess there's this key assumption here: you could basically split any political issue into two separate piles. One pile is stuff that can actually be handled by experts—you know, factual, scientific knowledge. The other pile? That's just pure decision-making. You can't science your way through the second part.

The real issue is that a lot of people—whether they're just checked out, feeling lazy, or maybe they just can't wrap their heads around it—don't actually try to look at all the angles. Even when the experts lay everything out super clearly, people just ignore it. They basically just flip the channel to Big Brother and call it a day.

So, if we look at how political issues are basically two-sided—you've got the expert side and then the pure politics side—it makes sense that any citizen could actually be qualified to make a call, provided they really get the technical stuff. The idea is that the expert part is precise enough that you can actually test someone's understanding of it.

If we went by that, maybe every political decision would have three parts. First, experts in a specific field (like, say, studying how much alcohol affects drunk driving stats) would reach a consensus on a set of facts. Basically, they'd create a "knowledge catalog" that anyone wanting to weigh in on the issue would need to know. Second, there’d be a test. Anyone who wants a vote on a specific policy, like banning DUIs, would have to pass a test on those facts. That way, you end up with a competent group of voters. Then comes the third part—the stuff you can't just measure with data, where a choice actually has to be made. Everyone who passes the test gets to participate in the vote, almost like a referendum. The only things left to professional politicians would be emergency situations where there isn't time for this whole process. Political parties would just be advisory or suggest ideas, but the actual decisions would belong to everyone who proved themselves competent through the testing.

I guess the internet (and where it's headed) actually makes this kind of idea... well, plausible. 😬 We could basically keep the best parts of an aristocratic model (competence) and a democratic one (everyone getting a say). Of course, the huge catch is that in any real-world situation, it'd be super tough to separate raw facts from political judgment.

Edward Flores4 said:If you look back at what was said above, you'll realize I was really just answering a hypothetical question about what a "more efficient" political structure might look like compared to our current one.

Beyond that—and this is my main point—the issue isn't actually designing a better system; the real hurdle is whether people are even willing to trade our current system of total unaccountability for one where they’d actually be held responsible for their own actions within their means.

See, you can demand accountability from someone who lacks the capacity for it—you can even try to bake penalties for irresponsibility into the law—but a fool is never going to be truly accountable. If you don't see that, and you keep pushing for responsibility from someone incapable of providing it... well, then you're arguably being even more foolish than they are. Responsibility is a product of an individual's intellectual capacity, not something that can be conjured up by your "demands" or through some legal sanction against those who refuse to comply.

Laws are, in many ways, just a written admission that we failed to solve a problem. When we run into a problem we don't know how to fix, we write a law to physically suppress the symptoms. A law isn't a solution—it just adds another layer of complexity to the original mess.

Honestly, maybe a system like that could be slipped past the public since most people are either mediocre or just plain dim.

Unfortunately, the statistics don't support your optimism. Most Americans sit right on that razor-thin line between being functional and being completely incapable—the average American IQ is hovering around 89. Just to give you some perspective, here's how those brackets break down:

IQ below 75 - extremely difficult to train and simply aren't competitive for any career path based on skill alone.

People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to end up in the justice system, and five times more likely to struggle with poverty as adults compared to those with IQs between 110 and 125.

Those with an average IQ (between 90 and 100) aren't competitive for high-level professional or executive roles, but they can be easily trained for the majority of jobs in the workforce.

The top 5 percent (those above 120) of the adult population are largely self-sufficient learners; there are very few mental hurdles that can stop them from mastering a profession.

As you can see, collectively, we fall into that high-risk group that can basically only be trained for very basic, repetitive tasks.

The gap between an 89 and a 109 IQ is ASTRONOMICAL.

But an individual isn't forced to drive a car or work for a corporation that requires psych testing, so they aren't obligated to undergo any assessment that might result in negative consequences for them. However, political decisions—laws, for instance—bind everyone regardless of whether they like it or not, under the threat of force. These laws apply equally to the fools, the average citizens, and the intellectuals alike. That's why it's fair for all their votes to carry equal weight.

But where’s the fairness in any of this? In the fact that I—and everyone else who actually contributes—have to shoulder the consequences of decisions made by people who have no clue what they're doing? It’s pretty simple, really: intelligence and actual skill drive progress and profit, whereas sheer incompetence just acts as a massive anchor dragging everything down. So, naturally, the "smart" people end up footing the bill for the misguided policies of the "uninformed," all because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of absolute equality—where a fool's vote carries the exact same weight as an expert's.

Where exactly do you see any sense of justice in that?

What we have here is a representative democracy—though, let's be honest, it's one plagued by a lack of political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with plenty of other well-known flaws.

You can try to dress it up with fancy terms if you want... but changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we are living under a system defined by incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, cronyism, and outright injustice. You might be able to describe it as something somewhat acceptable or even "normal" simply because you have the literacy and education to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

A more truly democratic system would be a direct democracy where everyone holds a single vote. A pluralistic voting system definitely falls outside the bounds of true democracy and the current zeitgeista, especially when it's based on innate traits like IQ.

Personally, I care about results, fairness, accountability, and freedom. Whether that comes through a democracy, communism, or anarchy... well, I don't give a shit!

We need tangible results, not ideologies or empty rhetoric built on pure capitalist utopias and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

Those who want to engage in politics without letting politics take over their lives.

Oh, I just love those kinds of "justifications." 🙄
Anyone who enters the political arena does so because they want power. Period. Even if someone claims they want power just to implement something "good," they are essentially forcing their specific vision of "good" onto everyone else—and that is precisely how history's greatest tyrants began.

Or those for whom politics is just one aspect of a well-lived life.

Sure... wanting the rewards of leadership without doing the dirty work is the dream of every ambitious incompetent out there. Plenty of people are willing to do whatever it takes to land those positions. History is littered with thousands of them, and I haven't met a single one who was actually different. Think about that. 😉

Or those who advocate for political equality for what they believe are moral reasons.

So, is it considered "moral" to lie to a fool by pretending they are just as intelligent as anyone else?

Or is it that fools demand political equality just so they can use quasi-moral concepts of "fairness" to compensate for their own intellectual shortcomings?

On top of all that...
Having the right to speak up doesn't mean you have the right to be taken seriously.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

There’s definitely a link between how democratic a system is and its level of material prosperity—but personally, I’m convinced there’s something much deeper going on than just a simple correlation.

The real kicker is FAITH. If you look at the data, scientific studies show a clear connection between IQ levels and GDP, though of course you have to account for those standard deviations along the "Bell Curve." Honestly, if you want to dive into the numbers, check it out HERE.

Democracy is essentially a matter of faith. For some folks, it’s practically the only formal religion they practice. It’s built on that recurring hunch that more than half of the population might actually be right more than half of the time.
E. B. WHITE

And finally:

A democracy is really just nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the crowd can vote to strip away the rights of the remaining forty-nine.
THOMAS JEFFERSON

This feels overblown and way too pessimistic to me, even if it fits into the first category. 😁

Quincy:

And where is the fairness in that? In the fact that I HAVE to suffer the consequences of their decisions? The reality is that profit is driven by intellect and skill, while stupidity and incompetence just drag everything down. It’s obvious that the "smart" people end up paying a heavy price for the political choices made by the "dumb," simply because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of equality where an idiot's vote carries the same weight as an intellectual's. Where exactly do you see any fairness in that?

I'll say it again: if the decision-making process was fair in terms of political equality, then the decision itself is legitimate. Though, let's be real, in a majoritarian democracy, there are always going to be dissatisfied minorities.

If you don't buy the argument for political equality, I don't know what else to tell you. People are different: some accept that premise, others don't.

Quincy:

You can call it "interstellar temporal democracy" for all I care... changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we live under a rule of incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, nepotism, and injustice—which you, thanks to your literacy and education, are able to describe as something quasi-acceptable, expected, normal, and promising.

To put it more accurately: I'm not fond of representative democracy, but I do agree with that Churchillian thesis about it being the least bad system.

Quincy:

We need results, not ideologies and demagoguery built on pure capitalist utopia and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

From a democratic perspective, "results" and "efficiency" aren't the deciding factors. That isn't the metric by which a democracy passes or fails.

Quincy:

I love these "justifications." 🙄 Anyone involved in politics does it because they want power. Even if someone wants power just to do good, they’re still forcing their own version of "good" onto everyone else. That’s exactly how the world's greatest tyrants get their start.

That sounds more like practical pragmatism than an actual justification.
Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the fairest way to handle it is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any single group—not even the smartest ones, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic right to rule.
The alternative isn't voting based on IQ; it's throwing the whole system out the window entirely.

Sure... wanting a free ride without doing any work is every incompetent climber's dream, and plenty of people will do anything to reach that level. History is full of them, and NOT A SINGLE one was ever different. think about that It will be that policy 😉

That isn't politics. That's just playing games.
And saying "not a single one" is just plain wrong.

So, is it considered moral to pretend you think a fool is your intellectual equal?

No, that's pointless.

Or do fools demand political equality just to offset their intellectual deficit with some quasi-moral concept of fairness?

They would only be able to demand that if political power were strictly reserved for the most intelligent first.

Besides...
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

Obvious. Just like I don't take your opinion on the quasi-morality of political equality seriously, even though you have the democratic right to hold it. 😁

The key word is FAITH, because scientific studies show a correlation between IQ and GDP, aside from the expected deviations in the bell curve.

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith like in a religion; I meant that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief—something that could actually become knowledge.

Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have. It is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.E. B. WHITE

And finally:

"Democracy is basically just mob rule—a system where 51% of the crowd can strip away the rights of the other 49%."
THOMAS JEFFERSON

That’s exactly why it's vital for a democracy to be liberal—meaning its power is strictly checked by a constitution, which is something this second gentleman fought tooth and nail for.

frozenotter232 said:This feels overblown and way too pessimistic to me, even if it fits into the first category. 😁

Quincy:

And where is the fairness in that? In the fact that I HAVE to suffer the consequences of their decisions? The reality is that profit is driven by intellect and skill, while stupidity and incompetence just drag everything down. It’s obvious that the "smart" people end up paying a heavy price for the political choices made by the "dumb," simply because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of equality where an idiot's vote carries the same weight as an intellectual's. Where exactly do you see any fairness in that?

I'll say it again: if the decision-making process was fair in terms of political equality, then the decision itself is legitimate. Though, let's be real, in a majoritarian democracy, there are always going to be dissatisfied minorities.

If you don't buy the argument for political equality, I don't know what else to tell you. People are different: some accept that premise, others don't.

Quincy:

You can call it "interstellar temporal democracy" for all I care... changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we live under a rule of incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, nepotism, and injustice—which you, thanks to your literacy and education, are able to describe as something quasi-acceptable, expected, normal, and promising.

To put it more accurately: I'm not fond of representative democracy, but I do agree with that Churchillian thesis about it being the least bad system.

Quincy:

We need results, not ideologies and demagoguery built on pure capitalist utopia and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

From a democratic perspective, "results" and "efficiency" aren't the deciding factors. That isn't the metric by which a democracy passes or fails.

Quincy:

I love these "justifications." 🙄 Anyone involved in politics does it because they want power. Even if someone wants power just to do good, they’re still forcing their own version of "good" onto everyone else. That’s exactly how the world's greatest tyrants get their start.

That sounds more like practical pragmatism than an actual justification.
Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the fairest way to handle it is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any single group—not even the smartest ones, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic right to rule.
The alternative isn't voting based on IQ; it's throwing the whole system out the window entirely.

Sure... wanting a free ride without doing any work is every incompetent climber's dream, and plenty of people will do anything to reach that level. History is full of them, and NOT A SINGLE one was ever different. think about that It will be that policy 😉

That isn't politics. That's just playing games.
And saying "not a single one" is just plain wrong.

So, is it considered moral to pretend you think a fool is your intellectual equal?

No, that's pointless.

Or do fools demand political equality just to offset their intellectual deficit with some quasi-moral concept of fairness?

They would only be able to demand that if political power were strictly reserved for the most intelligent first.

Besides...
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

Obvious. Just like I don't take your opinion on the quasi-morality of political equality seriously, even though you have the democratic right to hold it. 😁

The key word is FAITH, because scientific studies show a correlation between IQ and GDP, aside from the expected deviations in the bell curve.

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith like in a religion; I meant that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief—something that could actually become knowledge.

Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have. It is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.E. B. WHITE

And finally:

"Democracy is basically just mob rule—a system where 51% of the crowd can strip away the rights of the other 49%."
THOMAS JEFFERSON

That’s exactly why it's vital for a democracy to be liberal—meaning its power is strictly checked by a constitution, which is something this second gentleman fought tooth and nail for.

Go ahead—rely entirely on people’s sense of civic duty and moral responsibility if you want to. Just wait and see how many folks suddenly decide to act like saints the moment they realize they can pocket an extra hundred bucks by being irresponsible toward you. It’s funny how quickly "integrity" disappears when there's a quick buck to be made, right? Seriously, though, let me know how that works out for you. 😉

Quincey:

I’m going to say it again—just to be crystal clear: if the decision-making process was actually fair, you know, in terms of having true political equality...

What’s actually fair about a "majority" decision when you have 51 people voting to screw over the other 49? Where is the equality in that? 🤷

Quincey:

Look, I get it—it’s an undeniable reality that in any major democracy, you’re always going to have some dissatisfied minority groups pulling at the edges. It's almost baked into the system, isn't it? Whether it's political disagreements or social friction, there will always be a segment of the population feeling like the scales aren't tipping their way. It’s just part of the landscape when you're running a massive, diverse country like ours.

Since most people tend to rush headlong into things without much thought, I honestly think majority rule is pretty much destined to drag everyone’s quality of life down to a mediocre, one-size-fits-all baseline. If that’s really what you consider to be "justice" or "equality"—this idea that we should all just settle for the lowest common denominator—then hey, congratulations. You got exactly what you asked for. 😉

Quincey:

If you can't find a solid angle to support political equality, then I’m honestly at a loss for what else to say—it’s a tough one. At the end of the day, people are just wired differently. You have some folks who are totally open to that kind of reasoning, while others—well, they just aren't going to see it that way, no matter how much you explain it. It really comes down to individual perspective.

What kind of argument is that? I didn't see you actually making any points about political equality anywhere in there—I mean, honestly. You can't just point to a law and call it an argument, right? That’s not how this works. ☕

Quincey:

To put it more accurately—I’m not exactly head over heels for representative democracy, but I do find myself nodding along to that old Churchill thesis about it being the least bad system we've got.

Look, even if this is the least terrible option I’ve come across so far, let’s not mistake "less bad" for "actually good." There’s a massive difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and finding something that actually works. The thing about stagnation is that it just isn't part of the universe's design—it's fundamentally against the laws of nature. Everything that stops moving, everything that stays static, eventually just withers away and dies. It’s an absolute certainty. And honestly? If we apply that same logic to our democracy, it’s pretty clear where we're headed if we don't find a way to keep things evolving. If we stop progressing, we start fading out.

Quincey:

Look, if you’re looking at this through a strictly democratic lens, "results" and "efficiency" aren't really the make-or-all metrics they seem to be—not even close. It isn't some sort of pass-or-fail exam where a democracy succeeds or crashes based solely on how fast or how smoothly things get done.

One day, it’s going to click for you. Democracy is really just this abstract idea—it's a concept you can't actually wrap your hands around, let alone sit down and eat or drink. But results? Well, those are a different story entirely. Results show up in much more tangible ways—they're things you can actually taste and feel in your everyday life.

Quincey:

That sounds more like practical expediency than an actual justification.

Honestly, calling something "practical expediency" is often just a polite way of describing laziness, irresponsibility, and pure selfishness.

Quincey:

Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the most just approach is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any one group—not even the highly intelligent, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic legitimacy for themselves.

So, what—is it better to let fools run the show?

Go ahead, build a massive corporation like Apple or Ford, and then hire someone completely incompetent as the CEO—just so you don't monopolize power among the smart people—and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I have a feeling that if you were actually in that position, you wouldn't be nearly as eager to hand over the reins to someone less capable, which makes your stance feel a little hypocritical to me. It’s easy to play the moral high ground when you aren't the one holding the bag. 🙄

Quincey:

The alternative isn't a pluralistic vote based on intelligence; it's the total rejection of the entire structure—essentially, discarding any political system whatsoever.

I can get behind that, though it's arguably harder to pull off than anything we've discussed so far, even if it is the most likely outcome. That shift only happens once the current system finally collapses under its own weight. And honestly? The sooner, the better.

Quincey:

And saying "not one single" instance is simply inaccurate.

Do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Quincey:

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith—like you find in religion—but rather that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief, meaning it has the potential to become actual knowledge.

The second concrete knowledge exists, clinging to an unproven hypothesis becomes nothing more than an "alternative religion."☕

Quincey:

That is why it is vital for democracy to be liberal—meaning constrained by a constitution—which is exactly what this gentleman was so passionately advocating for.

Democracy, much like Christianity, has never truly been put to the test.
STUART CHASE

Edward Flores4 said:If you look back at what was said above, you'll realize I was really just answering a hypothetical question about what a "more efficient" political structure might look like compared to our current one.

Beyond that—and this is my main point—the issue isn't actually designing a better system; the real hurdle is whether people are even willing to trade our current system of total unaccountability for one where they’d actually be held responsible for their own actions within their means.

See, you can demand accountability from someone who lacks the capacity for it—you can even try to bake penalties for irresponsibility into the law—but a fool is never going to be truly accountable. If you don't see that, and you keep pushing for responsibility from someone incapable of providing it... well, then you're arguably being even more foolish than they are. Responsibility is a product of an individual's intellectual capacity, not something that can be conjured up by your "demands" or through some legal sanction against those who refuse to comply.

Laws are, in many ways, just a written admission that we failed to solve a problem. When we run into a problem we don't know how to fix, we write a law to physically suppress the symptoms. A law isn't a solution—it just adds another layer of complexity to the original mess.

Honestly, maybe a system like that could be slipped past the public since most people are either mediocre or just plain dim.

Unfortunately, the statistics don't support your optimism. Most Americans sit right on that razor-thin line between being functional and being completely incapable—the average American IQ is hovering around 89. Just to give you some perspective, here's how those brackets break down:

IQ below 75 - extremely difficult to train and simply aren't competitive for any career path based on skill alone.

People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to end up in the justice system, and five times more likely to struggle with poverty as adults compared to those with IQs between 110 and 125.

Those with an average IQ (between 90 and 100) aren't competitive for high-level professional or executive roles, but they can be easily trained for the majority of jobs in the workforce.

The top 5 percent (those above 120) of the adult population are largely self-sufficient learners; there are very few mental hurdles that can stop them from mastering a profession.

As you can see, collectively, we fall into that high-risk group that can basically only be trained for very basic, repetitive tasks.

The gap between an 89 and a 109 IQ is ASTRONOMICAL.

But an individual isn't forced to drive a car or work for a corporation that requires psych testing, so they aren't obligated to undergo any assessment that might result in negative consequences for them. However, political decisions—laws, for instance—bind everyone regardless of whether they like it or not, under the threat of force. These laws apply equally to the fools, the average citizens, and the intellectuals alike. That's why it's fair for all their votes to carry equal weight.

But where’s the fairness in any of this? In the fact that I—and everyone else who actually contributes—have to shoulder the consequences of decisions made by people who have no clue what they're doing? It’s pretty simple, really: intelligence and actual skill drive progress and profit, whereas sheer incompetence just acts as a massive anchor dragging everything down. So, naturally, the "smart" people end up footing the bill for the misguided policies of the "uninformed," all because we bought into this utopian fairy tale of absolute equality—where a fool's vote carries the exact same weight as an expert's.

Where exactly do you see any sense of justice in that?

What we have here is a representative democracy—though, let's be honest, it's one plagued by a lack of political culture among both voters and elected officials, along with plenty of other well-known flaws.

You can try to dress it up with fancy terms if you want... but changing the label doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that we are living under a system defined by incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy, arrogance, cronyism, and outright injustice. You might be able to describe it as something somewhat acceptable or even "normal" simply because you have the literacy and education to rationalize it, but that doesn't make it right.

A more truly democratic system would be a direct democracy where everyone holds a single vote. A pluralistic voting system definitely falls outside the bounds of true democracy and the current zeitgeista, especially when it's based on innate traits like IQ.

Personally, I care about results, fairness, accountability, and freedom. Whether that comes through a democracy, communism, or anarchy... well, I don't give a shit!

We need tangible results, not ideologies or empty rhetoric built on pure capitalist utopias and the hypocrisy of political correctness.

Those who want to engage in politics without letting politics take over their lives.

Oh, I just love those kinds of "justifications." 🙄
Anyone who enters the political arena does so because they want power. Period. Even if someone claims they want power just to implement something "good," they are essentially forcing their specific vision of "good" onto everyone else—and that is precisely how history's greatest tyrants began.

Or those for whom politics is just one aspect of a well-lived life.

Sure... wanting the rewards of leadership without doing the dirty work is the dream of every ambitious incompetent out there. Plenty of people are willing to do whatever it takes to land those positions. History is littered with thousands of them, and I haven't met a single one who was actually different. Think about that. 😉

Or those who advocate for political equality for what they believe are moral reasons.

So, is it considered "moral" to lie to a fool by pretending they are just as intelligent as anyone else?

Or is it that fools demand political equality just so they can use quasi-moral concepts of "fairness" to compensate for their own intellectual shortcomings?

On top of all that...
Having the right to speak up doesn't mean you have the right to be taken seriously.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY

There’s definitely a link between how democratic a system is and its level of material prosperity—but personally, I’m convinced there’s something much deeper going on than just a simple correlation.

The real kicker is FAITH. If you look at the data, scientific studies show a clear connection between IQ levels and GDP, though of course you have to account for those standard deviations along the "Bell Curve." Honestly, if you want to dive into the numbers, check it out HERE.

Democracy is essentially a matter of faith. For some folks, it’s practically the only formal religion they practice. It’s built on that recurring hunch that more than half of the population might actually be right more than half of the time.
E. B. WHITE

And finally:

A democracy is really just nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the crowd can vote to strip away the rights of the remaining forty-nine.
THOMAS JEFFERSON

Edward Flores4 said:Go ahead—rely entirely on people’s sense of civic duty and moral responsibility if you want to. Just wait and see how many folks suddenly decide to act like saints the moment they realize they can pocket an extra hundred bucks by being irresponsible toward you. It’s funny how quickly "integrity" disappears when there's a quick buck to be made, right? Seriously, though, let me know how that works out for you. 😉

Quincey:

I’m going to say it again—just to be crystal clear: if the decision-making process was actually fair, you know, in terms of having true political equality...

What’s actually fair about a "majority" decision when you have 51 people voting to screw over the other 49? Where is the equality in that? 🤷

Quincey:

Look, I get it—it’s an undeniable reality that in any major democracy, you’re always going to have some dissatisfied minority groups pulling at the edges. It's almost baked into the system, isn't it? Whether it's political disagreements or social friction, there will always be a segment of the population feeling like the scales aren't tipping their way. It’s just part of the landscape when you're running a massive, diverse country like ours.

Since most people tend to rush headlong into things without much thought, I honestly think majority rule is pretty much destined to drag everyone’s quality of life down to a mediocre, one-size-fits-all baseline. If that’s really what you consider to be "justice" or "equality"—this idea that we should all just settle for the lowest common denominator—then hey, congratulations. You got exactly what you asked for. 😉

Quincey:

If you can't find a solid angle to support political equality, then I’m honestly at a loss for what else to say—it’s a tough one. At the end of the day, people are just wired differently. You have some folks who are totally open to that kind of reasoning, while others—well, they just aren't going to see it that way, no matter how much you explain it. It really comes down to individual perspective.

What kind of argument is that? I didn't see you actually making any points about political equality anywhere in there—I mean, honestly. You can't just point to a law and call it an argument, right? That’s not how this works. ☕

Quincey:

To put it more accurately—I’m not exactly head over heels for representative democracy, but I do find myself nodding along to that old Churchill thesis about it being the least bad system we've got.

Look, even if this is the least terrible option I’ve come across so far, let’s not mistake "less bad" for "actually good." There’s a massive difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and finding something that actually works. The thing about stagnation is that it just isn't part of the universe's design—it's fundamentally against the laws of nature. Everything that stops moving, everything that stays static, eventually just withers away and dies. It’s an absolute certainty. And honestly? If we apply that same logic to our democracy, it’s pretty clear where we're headed if we don't find a way to keep things evolving. If we stop progressing, we start fading out.

Quincey:

Look, if you’re looking at this through a strictly democratic lens, "results" and "efficiency" aren't really the make-or-all metrics they seem to be—not even close. It isn't some sort of pass-or-fail exam where a democracy succeeds or crashes based solely on how fast or how smoothly things get done.

One day, it’s going to click for you. Democracy is really just this abstract idea—it's a concept you can't actually wrap your hands around, let alone sit down and eat or drink. But results? Well, those are a different story entirely. Results show up in much more tangible ways—they're things you can actually taste and feel in your everyday life.

Quincey:

That sounds more like practical expediency than an actual justification.

Honestly, calling something "practical expediency" is often just a polite way of describing laziness, irresponsibility, and pure selfishness.

Quincey:

Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the most just approach is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any one group—not even the highly intelligent, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic legitimacy for themselves.

So, what—is it better to let fools run the show?

Go ahead, build a massive corporation like Apple or Ford, and then hire someone completely incompetent as the CEO—just so you don't monopolize power among the smart people—and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I have a feeling that if you were actually in that position, you wouldn't be nearly as eager to hand over the reins to someone less capable, which makes your stance feel a little hypocritical to me. It’s easy to play the moral high ground when you aren't the one holding the bag. 🙄

Quincey:

The alternative isn't a pluralistic vote based on intelligence; it's the total rejection of the entire structure—essentially, discarding any political system whatsoever.

I can get behind that, though it's arguably harder to pull off than anything we've discussed so far, even if it is the most likely outcome. That shift only happens once the current system finally collapses under its own weight. And honestly? The sooner, the better.

Quincey:

And saying "not one single" instance is simply inaccurate.

Do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Quincey:

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith—like you find in religion—but rather that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief, meaning it has the potential to become actual knowledge.

The second concrete knowledge exists, clinging to an unproven hypothesis becomes nothing more than an "alternative religion."☕

Quincey:

That is why it is vital for democracy to be liberal—meaning constrained by a constitution—which is exactly what this gentleman was so passionately advocating for.

Democracy, much like Christianity, has never truly been put to the test.
STUART CHASE

There's one catch:
For intelligence to actually matter, it has to be harnessed by those chasing greed.
Intelligence itself doesn't have much ambition.
And honestly, smart people don't really want to be used as tools for the greedy and the foolish.
So, yeah... trying to bridge the gap between governance and actual intellect is going to be tough. 🤷

I have to say, I actually find it quite amusing when someone quotes fifty tiny little snippets and tries to address every single one individually. Honestly, though, nothing they said really resonates with me. It just seems completely unfeasible. I mean, running those kinds of procedures for every single question would be pure absurdity. Still, it’s a creative idea. Very well thought out. Personally, I’d suggest we hold a lottery every four years instead. We could just pick, say, 200 people at random to serve in Congress. You’d likely end up with every kind of person imaginable—a massive spectrum of education levels, perspectives, viewpoints, and expertise. That would be a truly representative sample of the American public. They’d spend those four years working solely for the good of the country. No salary, obviously; we’d just cover their housing and meals. Their real motivation would be either public praise or social disapproval. I suspect we might see something similar to this in the future.

Edward Flores4 said:Go ahead—rely entirely on people’s sense of civic duty and moral responsibility if you want to. Just wait and see how many folks suddenly decide to act like saints the moment they realize they can pocket an extra hundred bucks by being irresponsible toward you. It’s funny how quickly "integrity" disappears when there's a quick buck to be made, right? Seriously, though, let me know how that works out for you. 😉

Quincey:

I’m going to say it again—just to be crystal clear: if the decision-making process was actually fair, you know, in terms of having true political equality...

What’s actually fair about a "majority" decision when you have 51 people voting to screw over the other 49? Where is the equality in that? 🤷

Quincey:

Look, I get it—it’s an undeniable reality that in any major democracy, you’re always going to have some dissatisfied minority groups pulling at the edges. It's almost baked into the system, isn't it? Whether it's political disagreements or social friction, there will always be a segment of the population feeling like the scales aren't tipping their way. It’s just part of the landscape when you're running a massive, diverse country like ours.

Since most people tend to rush headlong into things without much thought, I honestly think majority rule is pretty much destined to drag everyone’s quality of life down to a mediocre, one-size-fits-all baseline. If that’s really what you consider to be "justice" or "equality"—this idea that we should all just settle for the lowest common denominator—then hey, congratulations. You got exactly what you asked for. 😉

Quincey:

If you can't find a solid angle to support political equality, then I’m honestly at a loss for what else to say—it’s a tough one. At the end of the day, people are just wired differently. You have some folks who are totally open to that kind of reasoning, while others—well, they just aren't going to see it that way, no matter how much you explain it. It really comes down to individual perspective.

What kind of argument is that? I didn't see you actually making any points about political equality anywhere in there—I mean, honestly. You can't just point to a law and call it an argument, right? That’s not how this works. ☕

Quincey:

To put it more accurately—I’m not exactly head over heels for representative democracy, but I do find myself nodding along to that old Churchill thesis about it being the least bad system we've got.

Look, even if this is the least terrible option I’ve come across so far, let’s not mistake "less bad" for "actually good." There’s a massive difference between choosing the lesser of two evils and finding something that actually works. The thing about stagnation is that it just isn't part of the universe's design—it's fundamentally against the laws of nature. Everything that stops moving, everything that stays static, eventually just withers away and dies. It’s an absolute certainty. And honestly? If we apply that same logic to our democracy, it’s pretty clear where we're headed if we don't find a way to keep things evolving. If we stop progressing, we start fading out.

Quincey:

Look, if you’re looking at this through a strictly democratic lens, "results" and "efficiency" aren't really the make-or-all metrics they seem to be—not even close. It isn't some sort of pass-or-fail exam where a democracy succeeds or crashes based solely on how fast or how smoothly things get done.

One day, it’s going to click for you. Democracy is really just this abstract idea—it's a concept you can't actually wrap your hands around, let alone sit down and eat or drink. But results? Well, those are a different story entirely. Results show up in much more tangible ways—they're things you can actually taste and feel in your everyday life.

Quincey:

That sounds more like practical expediency than an actual justification.

Honestly, calling something "practical expediency" is often just a polite way of describing laziness, irresponsibility, and pure selfishness.

Quincey:

Look, politics is fundamentally about power. And as long as political power exists, the most just approach is to ensure it isn't the exclusive domain of any one group—not even the highly intelligent, who might try to claim some kind of paternalistic legitimacy for themselves.

So, what—is it better to let fools run the show?

Go ahead, build a massive corporation like Apple or Ford, and then hire someone completely incompetent as the CEO—just so you don't monopolize power among the smart people—and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I have a feeling that if you were actually in that position, you wouldn't be nearly as eager to hand over the reins to someone less capable, which makes your stance feel a little hypocritical to me. It’s easy to play the moral high ground when you aren't the one holding the bag. 🙄

Quincey:

The alternative isn't a pluralistic vote based on intelligence; it's the total rejection of the entire structure—essentially, discarding any political system whatsoever.

I can get behind that, though it's arguably harder to pull off than anything we've discussed so far, even if it is the most likely outcome. That shift only happens once the current system finally collapses under its own weight. And honestly? The sooner, the better.

Quincey:

And saying "not one single" instance is simply inaccurate.

Do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Quincey:

When I used the term 'plausibility' regarding that hypothesis, I wasn't suggesting blind faith—like you find in religion—but rather that the hypothesis is a candidate for justified true belief, meaning it has the potential to become actual knowledge.

The second concrete knowledge exists, clinging to an unproven hypothesis becomes nothing more than an "alternative religion."☕

Quincey:

That is why it is vital for democracy to be liberal—meaning constrained by a constitution—which is exactly what this gentleman was so passionately advocating for.

Democracy, much like Christianity, has never truly been put to the test.
STUART CHASE

I haven't had issues with most people so far. Kuc-kuc

How is it fair for a "majority" decision of 51 people to screw over the other 49? Where's the equality in that? 🤷

Sure, the criminal code exists to penalize criminals; anti-discrimination laws exist to protect against bias; labor laws protect employees from bosses who'd rather strip them of all rights; traffic laws target those who drive recklessly... There are all kinds of "minorities," not just the "benign" ones that simply offer a different perspective on the common good. It isn't that simple. However, the real issue arises when a political decision fails to account for these other minority interests (though a minority can always try to lobby later to regain the majority).

Look, if there's a political community where decisions have to be made, and total consensus is basically impossible, then the majority rule among equals is the only realistic option left. It's a known flaw, which is why the system isn't perfect. That said, the Constitution ensures that authority isn't absolute and can't just meddle in everything. Even when minority interests are frustrated, their fundamental rights remain protected.

What's the argument? I didn't see you actually argue for political equality anywhere. You don't honestly think a law counts as an argument, do you? ☕

The argument is this: political decisions bind all citizens equally (regardless of IQ or any other trait), which is why we have the principle of equal and universal suffrage.

Even if it's the least bad option tried so far, it doesn't mean it's the best possible one. Stagnation isn't part of the universe's design—anything that stagnates dies. Eventually, that fate will catch up to democracy too.

Fine. We'll see.

So it's better to let fools hold power?

Start a successful company, hire an idiot as CEO just to prove that power shouldn't be exclusive to the smart people, and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I suspect you’d be just as willing to hand over power to idiots in that scenario, which makes your stance pretty hypocritical. It’s easy to talk big when you aren't the one holding the bag 🙄

The analogy doesn't work. My company is my private property; I have the exclusive right to hire whoever I want. But the political community and the government aren't my private property—they belong to everyone. You can't run the government like it's your own small business or a private club. The rules in politics are fundamentally different from the rules in the private sector. Sure, personally, I'd prefer to see intelligent, competent people in power, but my ability to decide that shouldn't be any greater or smaller than any other citizen's. This isn't about surrendering power.

So, do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Well, there have been plenty who entered politics with a genuine concept of the common good, rather than just chasing power. On a global scale, I think of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela... Locally, we've had figures like Abraham Lincoln or maybe some modern activists...
Or various unknown activists in local movements and grassroots initiatives, etc.

When concrete facts exist, believing in an unproven hypothesis is nothing more than a "fringe religion." ☕

I'm far too familiar with how complex social, economic, and political phenomena are to just take a hypothesis from some "study" in a link and accept it as absolute fact instead of what it actually is: just another hypothesis.

Democracy, as has been said of Christianity, has never really been tried.
STUART CHASE

Fine then, maybe we should actually try it out and see if the universe approves or not. 🤷

Michelle Doyle61 said:I have to say, I actually find it quite amusing when someone quotes fifty tiny little snippets and tries to address every single one individually. Honestly, though, nothing they said really resonates with me. It just seems completely unfeasible. I mean, running those kinds of procedures for every single question would be pure absurdity. Still, it’s a creative idea. Very well thought out. Personally, I’d suggest we hold a lottery every four years instead. We could just pick, say, 200 people at random to serve in Congress. You’d likely end up with every kind of person imaginable—a massive spectrum of education levels, perspectives, viewpoints, and expertise. That would be a truly representative sample of the American public. They’d spend those four years working solely for the good of the country. No salary, obviously; we’d just cover their housing and meals. Their real motivation would be either public praise or social disapproval. I suspect we might see something similar to this in the future.

That would essentially be "natural selection" for intellectual leadership, and honestly, it’s the best idea I’ve heard so far—including my own 🙂

Kudos to 👍

frozenotter232 said:I haven't had issues with most people so far. Kuc-kuc

How is it fair for a "majority" decision of 51 people to screw over the other 49? Where's the equality in that? 🤷

Sure, the criminal code exists to penalize criminals; anti-discrimination laws exist to protect against bias; labor laws protect employees from bosses who'd rather strip them of all rights; traffic laws target those who drive recklessly... There are all kinds of "minorities," not just the "benign" ones that simply offer a different perspective on the common good. It isn't that simple. However, the real issue arises when a political decision fails to account for these other minority interests (though a minority can always try to lobby later to regain the majority).

Look, if there's a political community where decisions have to be made, and total consensus is basically impossible, then the majority rule among equals is the only realistic option left. It's a known flaw, which is why the system isn't perfect. That said, the Constitution ensures that authority isn't absolute and can't just meddle in everything. Even when minority interests are frustrated, their fundamental rights remain protected.

What's the argument? I didn't see you actually argue for political equality anywhere. You don't honestly think a law counts as an argument, do you? ☕

The argument is this: political decisions bind all citizens equally (regardless of IQ or any other trait), which is why we have the principle of equal and universal suffrage.

Even if it's the least bad option tried so far, it doesn't mean it's the best possible one. Stagnation isn't part of the universe's design—anything that stagnates dies. Eventually, that fate will catch up to democracy too.

Fine. We'll see.

So it's better to let fools hold power?

Start a successful company, hire an idiot as CEO just to prove that power shouldn't be exclusive to the smart people, and then come back to me talking about paternalistic legitimacy.

I suspect you’d be just as willing to hand over power to idiots in that scenario, which makes your stance pretty hypocritical. It’s easy to talk big when you aren't the one holding the bag 🙄

The analogy doesn't work. My company is my private property; I have the exclusive right to hire whoever I want. But the political community and the government aren't my private property—they belong to everyone. You can't run the government like it's your own small business or a private club. The rules in politics are fundamentally different from the rules in the private sector. Sure, personally, I'd prefer to see intelligent, competent people in power, but my ability to decide that shouldn't be any greater or smaller than any other citizen's. This isn't about surrendering power.

So, do you actually have an example that proves your point?

Well, there have been plenty who entered politics with a genuine concept of the common good, rather than just chasing power. On a global scale, I think of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela... Locally, we've had figures like Abraham Lincoln or maybe some modern activists...
Or various unknown activists in local movements and grassroots initiatives, etc.

When concrete facts exist, believing in an unproven hypothesis is nothing more than a "fringe religion." ☕

I'm far too familiar with how complex social, economic, and political phenomena are to just take a hypothesis from some "study" in a link and accept it as absolute fact instead of what it actually is: just another hypothesis.

Democracy, as has been said of Christianity, has never really been tried.
STUART CHASE

Fine then, maybe we should actually try it out and see if the universe approves or not. 🤷

And honestly, that’s exactly where you’re tripping up—you've been pretty heavily indoctrinated.

Quinn:

Fair enough then—maybe we should just put it to the test and see if it actually holds water, or if the universe decides to shut it down.

So be it.