-"These bodies seem to be relics of the past. Back when democracy was born (508 BC, Cleisthenes) the population of Athens was small, plus only a certain section of the citizenry were enfranchised. In a sense every person had a say in government."
-Correct, the Athenian democracy had the purest in relation to the section of the population that had the right to participate!
Our modern democracies may allow a bigger part of the population to "participate"....but they never really do since we have the oxymoron "technicality" to use "representatives"!
Representatives of a different class will never represent your class or its interests....and the struggle within all societies was always among classes and keeping in check the competition within the upper class.

-"As I noted, that fact that a system is not strictly majority rule does not mean it is not democratic."
-Well by definition Δήμος=demo=commune & κρατία=cracy=ruling means that the members of a community rule(take decisions). So the majority should rule in a democratic system and voting should always take place at taking decisions...not electing representatives.
Later....those in charge, changed the meaning of the term to :"everybody has the right to be heard"(how nice of them!).
So from Democracy we ended up with something like Righttospeak(acy) ....then to Iwillspeakforyou(acy)...which really means I will speak for my class's interests and my sponsors...and you can blame yourself for the 4 following years for your choice.

-"Jurgen Habermas views constitutions as transformational documents aimed at addressing and redressing the most significant defects and deficiencies in the society that frames it."
-Great point. Human needs to understand that our knowledge and wisdom evolves along with new facts that changes create.(larger societies, evolution of morality, modern problems from older "solutions").
So any document that attempts to address basic rules has to be in connection with an update picture of our social issues and technical problems.

-"The US system does place ultimate authority in the voter, so that does make it democratic, but the control of the masses is fairly tight."
-Your statement is in direct conflict with what Democracy really means. The system SHOULD place ultimate authority to the public(voter) and access to the center of decision making.
I am not saying that system is wise or ideal or good...I am just pointing what Democracy means and how a system should look like if it is labeled "democratic"!
Words have common usages and if the system they "describe" doesn't agree with the accepted meaning then we should either change the system( if we want it) or the label.

Have you heard of the futurist Jacque Fresco? He believed technology would make laws redundant.

Yes, I was lucky to hear Fresco's ideas before he died. Even if I was influenced by more practicals examples(space missions) but I found his ideas on spot and amazing to find out that these ideas were around for many decades ago!

-" The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole


I disagree.

I'm no cheerleader for democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole


I am. "

This is an interesting conversation! You declare yourself a "cheerleader for democracy" but you reject the main premise of the system?
I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy!

Well by definition Δήμος=demo=commune & κρατία=cracy=ruling means that the members of a community rule(take decisions). So the majority should rule in a democratic system and voting should always take place at taking decisions...not electing representatives. — Nickolasgaspar

Here are a some definitions of "democracy" from the web:

• A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
• Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").
• A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.

It doesn't matter what the original meaning of the word was or how the Athenian system worked. Back then, only male citizens could vote. Generally that meant men who owned property. Are you suggesting we go back to that? It also says nothing about majority ruling.

This is an interesting conversation! You declare yourself a "cheerleader for democracy" but you reject the main premise of the system? — Nickolasgaspar

Simple majority rule is not "the main premise of the system."

I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy! — Nickolasgaspar

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Notice - it doesn't say anything about majority rule or disallowing representative democracy.

Words have common usages and if the system they "describe" doesn't agree with the accepted meaning then we should either change the system( if we want it) or the label. — Nickolasgaspar

As I noted before, your usage of the word "democracy" is not consistent with its currently accepted meaning or its meaning when the Constitution was written.

Indirect/representative democracy's days are over, it was simply an interim measure that had to be adopted because of practical limitations (no easy way all the people could vote on issues back before we had cellphones). — TheMadFool

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

I'm guessing the change will be gradual - it may take a few generations for people to give up the old ways.

Who does a constitution serve? The people - protects their freedom and enables their pursuit of happiness. Once direct democracy is reestablished. the constitution becomes more of burden - extra time & energy will be needed for the steps a country has to make/take in order for their votes to do what they're supposed to do viz. steer the nation towards the achievement of wholesome goals. — TheMadFool

I don't think a document that protects minority rights is a bad thing. Have you seen what these people are voting for?

In the UK people have voted for a 165% increase in homelessness (this figure is pre-pandemic), around 30,000 deaths per year due to NHS cuts according to The Royal Society of Medicine (again, pre pandemic), and case examples of people literally starving to death after having their state benefits terminated (around 70% of these decisions get overturned on appeal to a judge). A more obvious example is Nazi Germany.

-"Here are a some definitions of "democracy" from the web:

A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").
A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."
-I happen to be a Greek citizen and I am aware of the etymology of the word and the original system it described.
The following systems that those definitions describes drifted from the meaning and etymology of the word. They are NO longer described by this label.
"representative democracy" is an oxymoron...its like saying virgin prostitute (forgive my example).

So we need a word that describes the qualities and characteristics of every new system...or else we are dealing with a marketing label.

-"It doesn't matter what the original meaning of the word was or how the Athenian system worked."
-Agreed common usages of words DO matter. This is how we convey accurate meaning!
Demo and cracy refer to specific qualities and standards that aren't met by the following regimes.

-"Back then, only male citizens could vote.Generally that meant men who owned property."
-Correct! Similarly today we exclude individuals under a specific age, people with felony convictions, foreigners even if they are living in a country for decades,Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents,Some people who are mentally incapacitated.
So we have improved our ethics and we include women and in some countries foreigners in what we define as "Demos".
But you need to understand that the percentage of the participants back then was smaller but 100% of those PARTICIPATED in the procedure of decision making.
Now the percentage of participants has increased....but how many participate DIRECTLY in any decision?

[Are you suggesting we go back to that?
-Seriously...are the extremes the only choice here? lol Are we...five year olds or its just our arguments!


It also says nothing about majority ruling.
Of course it does....those who were consider part of "Demos" all voted for their preferred solution.
The solution of choice was that of the majority of votes.

Independent of what Democracy should really look like, its a obsolete political solution that is inapplicable and easily manipulated.
Its like trying to sail through the Atlantic with Iron age marine technology.

-"As I noted before, your usage of the word "democracy" is not consistent with its currently accepted meaning or its meaning when the Constitution was written. "
-Yes you did note that, but the meaning of those currently accepted definitions is in direct conflict with the etymology and the label of what that etymology described.
So its exactly like i.e. having a word like "morning shift Job"...and use it to describe a night UNPAID shift.
Here is a more closer example.
The term used to describe Sparta's political system was Oligarch(with two kings a senate and 5 curators)! The surprising fact is that Sparta's system is far closer to our modern systems than the Athenian democracy, something that many modern leaders admitted (Hitler, Jefferson).
So we need to be very careful with Political "Marketing".

-"Simple majority rule is not "the main premise of the system."
-Correct. The current political systems that are "self-declared" as Democratic piss on the main premise set by the etymology of the word!

-"I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy!"
_ I am sure I have provided the definition of that system already!Its the political system that allows any member of the "Demos" to participate directly and influence public decisions.

-"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
-Those are empty words without any ties to real life events, a euphemism and a marketing scam.
Goverment of a specific class of people, voted by people who have interests, ignoring most people's interests.

-"Notice - it doesn't say anything about majority rule or disallowing representative democracy."
-Yes...after all "representative democracy" is an ectroma on its own. IF people accept it as a meaningful linguistic morphoma, they got what they deserve!

The following systems that those definitions describes drifted from the meaning and etymology of the word. They are NO longer described by this label. — Nickolasgaspar

Demo and cracy refer to specific qualities and standards that aren't met by the following regimes. — Nickolasgaspar

That's not the way language works. Words "drift from the meaning and etymology of the word" all the time. You may not like it, but "democracy" means something different now and it meant something different when the US Constitution was written. If you won't accept the standard meaning of the word and the meaning we are applying in this discussion, there's not much we can talk about.

Seriously...are the extremes the only choice here? lol Are we...five year olds or its just our arguments! — Nickolasgaspar

You are the one who is refusing to participate in this discussion under the standard meanings of the words we have been using.

If you're going to change the rules, I don't want to play.

Let me clarify my position.
As a Greek speaking citizen, those words have a specific agreed meaning and the Political system they describe specific premises and characteristics. When you use them to describe something that has nothing to do with the meaning of those words that is frustrating and confusing.
I am not denying that the meaning has drifted and now also describes current oligarchic regimes. I am only pointing out that people make evaluations based on the "ad" not the experience they have "using the product".
Authority figures are telling to Americans that they are free and the greatest nation in the world, but they don't present them marks that are crucial for this evaluation and most importantly they don't compare them to other countries.

A study in Namibia showed that our language shapes our experiences....and this is what the political establishment is achieving by calling our oligarchical regimes democratic.
enjoy the video on the study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgxyfqHRPoE

Authority figures are telling to Americans that they are free and the greatest nation in the world, but they don't present them marks that are crucial for this evaluation and most importantly they don't compare them to other countries. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not arguing against your position. As I've said, you are trying to participate in a different discussion than I am. For me, this is not the place to have the discussion you want to have.

-"That's not the way language works. Words "drift from the meaning and etymology of the word" all the time. You may not like it, but "democracy" means something different now and it meant something different when the US Constitution was written. If you won't accept the standard meaning of the word and the meaning we are applying in this discussion, there's not much we can talk about."
-I never said how language works or how it should work.
I am only pointing out that the original system described by that word was in agreement with the meanings of both synthetics.
The current systems are in direct conflict with the meanings of the synthetic words that have not changed.
Its not about what I like or don't like. Its about the moral foundations of a systems and how true it is to its modern empty deepities! i.e Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
a Government of a specific class, voted by people who are brain washed and turned in to fans by big dollar campaigns, experiencing political decisions that ignore their interests.
Its about a system capitalizing euphemisms and blurring definitions and using them as punchlines.

Now lets agree with you and say the word democracy describes accurately our modern oligarchies.
So lets assume that a new system arises where the citizens elect a representative. His/her job is to represent them and their decisions. So he/she never proposes his opinion, but he is forced to present the most popular opinion of a referendum hold by his voters.
How are you going to call this system. Representative democracy?
Can you understand that words, beyond the fact that their meaning changes they also NEED TO REMAIN PRACTICAL and ABLE to distinguish closely related concepts????
The establishment we are in has forced his characteristics under a definition of a glorified system of the past. What happens when that glorified system reemerges?

-"I'm not arguing against your position. As I've said, you are trying to participate in a different discussion than I am. For me, this is not the place to have the discussion you want to have. "
-I can not really argue against that. The only point I can see to be related to my point is your answer to Down The Rabbit Hole's statement
-" I'm no cheerleader for democracy. "
you:"I am. "

I only pointed out that you are a supporter of a system with oligarchic qualities that is labeled "Democracy". Its qualities are oligarchic because as the etymology of the word states "ολίγοι άρχουν/διοικούν" - only few govern.
That is true for all western regimes. Most voters elect an individual of an other class because they agree on a vague position of the political spectrum.(left right, conservative , democratic ....fluff ).
No one really participates and affects any of the decisions made by "elected" members of a different class.

-"You are the one who is refusing to participate in this discussion under the standard meanings of the words we have been using.

If you're going to change the rules, I don't want to play. "
-I am pointing out that your the label of the system or the punch line you presented (government of the people....etc) may have a fresh definition but that definition and the system's real life characteristics , match the characteristics and outcomes of an other system (oligarchy)!
The only difference is that in oligarchy, people with economical power become part of the ruling class without the need to influence voters... while in our modern current democracies people with economical power who can fund their election campaign influence voters.
This is why Socrates stressed the issue of economical power and election campaigns and why the most popular participants should all be put in the lottery so any differences in influence could be leveled.

I only pointed out that you are a supporter of a system with oligarchic qualities that is labeled "Democracy". Its qualities are oligarchic because as the etymology of the word states "ολίγοι άρχουν/διοικούν" - only few govern. — Nickolasgaspar

There are many things wrong with American government, whatever you call it. I won't argue with that. When I say I am a supporter of democracy, I mean as it is now constituted in the US and in many western countries, imperfect as it is. I don't know what more I can say.

Sure. Laws are "rules" designed to inform people of "unaccepted" behavior and communicate the implications for those who "decide" to ignore them.
So in every aspect of our lives we have rules that we need to follow (either in the form of laws, policies or directions). — Nickolasgaspar

I still do not find an argument. And I call you out on usage. You go from laws to "rules", then from "rules" to rules. And "designed to inform" and "communicate." And "implications" for those who "decide" to "ignore" them. Why the waffle language? Is there substance here you're either afraid of or feel you do not know well enough to speak simply and plainly about? Do you think it's all a feel-good board game the creators of which are trying to sell?

The least that happens is that meaning goes on a holiday - the worst that there is no meaning. "Rules designed to inform people"? You have not read much law, have you. Nor is the informing or communication central. In the US at least, and likely the world around, there is no need of communication of law for it to have effect. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, is not exculpatory.

The second part of your reply I couldn't understand because of a syntax problem. I infer that where you're from, there's a cooperative aspect to social life: one is expected to do some things and not do others, yes? And that controlled in part by technologies in use that simply prevent the possibility of civil malfeasance. And I read that as your living in very polite society, one in which the iron fist can be wrapped in layers of velvet.

Secondly monarchy came before democracy and BOTH FAILED — Nickolasgaspar

To the extent that I'm aware democracy didn't fail. Monarchy failed because of inherent flaws in such a mode of governance (tryanny-prone). Democracy, on the other hand, has no innate flaws that could cause its own downfall.

scientific "dictatorship" — Nickolasgaspar

I guess you're offering us a variation of Socrates' idea of philosopher kings. There are risks in such a political system, no? How can we be certain that a scientific dictatorship won't devolve into just dictatorship with all the abuses of power that come with it?

I don't think a document that protects minority rights is a bad thing. Have you seen what these people are voting for?

In the UK people have voted for a 165% increase in homelessness (this figure is pre-pandemic), around 30,000 deaths per year due to NHS cuts according to The Royal Society of Medicine (again, pre pandemic), and case examples of people literally starving to death after having their state benefits terminated (around 70% of these decisions get overturned on appeal to a judge). A more obvious example is Nazi Germany. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's too bad. I guess the poor, the sick, the minorities in modern democracies are what the slaves, women, children were in Athenian democracy. Sidelined, brushed aside.

To the extent that I'm aware democracy didn't fail. Monarchy failed because of inherent flaws in such a mode of governance (tryanny-prone). D — TheMadFool

-It depends from the standards we use to define failure and success. MY standards are always high and I consider failure when a system doesn't meet its goals set by its Theory.
i.e. we never had a political system where all the people decided for themselves and their community and I can not see how this can be done within our large and diverse modern societies.
So to start this conversation, we don't really have a real world democracy in principle like we never had any real world application of any political or economical system. We have oligarchic hybrids that pose as democracies.

-"Democracy, on the other hand, has no innate flaws that could cause its own downfall."
-The only flaw of democracy that it is inapplicable. As a philosophical ideology it ignores basic scientific knowledge...that is, all social species tend to organize their members under hierarchies and individuals have a tendency to accumulate privileged. If we add the fact that psychopaths are driven to position with power....Democracy is theoretically impossible.
Our history verifies that conclusion.

-"I guess you're offering us a variation of Socrates' idea of philosopher kings. There are risks in such a political system, no? How can we be certain that a scientific dictatorship won't devolve into just dictatorship with all the abuses of power that come with it? "
-Nice to hear that you are familiar of that concept. But no because I acknowledge the same risk you are seeing in such a system.
I am talking about removing any human"king" from the system and substituting them with a Process....as we have done with Science.
Scientist's do not decide what is the correct theory or the most suitable and efficient solution...its the process with its Standards of evaluation that provides those decisions.

It depends from the standards we use to define failure and success. — Nickolasgaspar

I think the only way democracy is a failure is if you redefine "failure" as success. Nevertheless, I do concede that it's the least worst option we have.

I am talking about removing any human"king" from the system and substituting them with a Process....as we have done with Science. — Nickolasgaspar

Nice! I didn't think of that. We would then need some kind of method à la the scientific method. Any ideas?

-I still do not find an argument. And I call you out on usage. You go from laws to "rules", then from "rules" to rules.
-OUr laws are official rules of an establishment. The label "law" only informs us about the enforcer of the rule and the consequences for disobey them.


-''And "designed to inform" and "communicate." And "implications" for those who "decide" to "ignore" them. Why the waffle language? Is there substance here you're either afraid of or feel you do not know well enough to speak simply and plainly about? Do you think it's all a feel-good board game the creators of which are trying to sell?
-Why do you have an issue with words that describe facts. If you go to court for a violation the court will tell you that you are OBLIGATED to be INFORMED of your STATE's laws. So the laws are designed to communicate what your state expects from you. They can only enforce it by the threat of "violence"(take part of your wealth or your freedom).

"Rules designed to inform people"?
-Yes they are...they inform people of what behavior is unacceptable in their societies. Have you ever talked to an accountant or layer etc....Why do you think they go to college? lol

-"You have not read much law, have you."
-that sounds like a self critique ......

-"Nor is the informing or communication central."
-lol "central" why do you feel the need to use this qualifier...does your objection fall apart? Nobody talked on which characteristic of our rules are central of not. I am pointing out the general role of making up rules and publishing them.

In the US at least, and likely the world around, there is no need of communication of law for it to have effect. , is not exculpatory.
-So you are making my point now..... States publish their rules in order for their citizens to have no excuses. So by reading those publications you are informed of what you are ought not to do...or else.

The second part of your reply I couldn't understand because of a syntax problem. I infer that where you're from, there's a cooperative aspect to social life: one is expected to do some things and not do others, yes? And that controlled in part by technologies in use that simply prevent the possibility of civil malfeasance. And I read that as your living in very polite society, one in which the iron fist can be wrapped in layers of velvet.
-Sorry but you don't understand the role of a society and why humans prefer it than remaining at the mercy of nature. SUre from what I see, the American society is a hybrid where uncertainty and risk are part of it....those exact elements human societies were designed to remove from people's lives.

I think we are done here....right.
If we have to debate the reason why authorities publish their rules and Ignorance of the law is not an excuse...lol there is no reason to keep this up.
take care.

-"I think the only way democracy is a failure is if you redefine "failure" as success."
-No, success should always be evaluated by the goals we set. The Democratic "goals" are far from being achieved.

-"Nevertheless, I do concede that it's the least worst option we have."
-I can agree with that statement. Currently is the least worst system but historically we have applications that were far better(Athenian democracy).

-"Nice! I didn't think of that. We would then need some kind of method à la the scientific method. Any ideas? "
-Sure a set of empirical methodologies(scientific process) that designs solutions based on goals set by a "constitution".The acknowledgment of the failure to meet any goal as data that can be used to inform our next improved solution.
This implies the removal of all our philosophical ideologies and practical applications (economical and political) and the introduction of a bill of commitments that will serve the well being of humans of current and future generations(this imply the consideration of the ecological impact of our solutions).

-"There are many things wrong with American government, whatever you call it. I won't argue with that. When I say I am a supporter of democracy, I mean as it is now constituted in the US and in many western countries, imperfect as it is. I don't know what more I can say. "
-I get what you are saying and I am only pointing out that what is constituted in the western world has identical characteristics with the properties of any oligarchic system with some superficial differences in how those who have the actual power get in to office.
Our current democratic systems take advantage of our psychology, our drives and urges. They enforce the illusion of choice, our need to belong to a group as an active member by just being fans.
This is what the sport industry and nation states have being doing for ages.