I think a more accurate question is: Does democracy, as it stands, whose results are imposed by the ignorant, who are in turn influenced by whoever yells the wrong answer first and loudest, matter in any meaningful way?

Someone will point out that in a democracy I can voice my objection/opinion. However, if no one listens anyway, I see no value in it, and so my voice remains just as silent as if in a dictatorship. Unvoiced is unvoiced, regardless of the why behind it.

The dictatorship has less freedom. But does it? Really? If I disagree with the government I go to jail. Here...There, pretty much the same. If I disagree with them while armed I get shot. Here...There, just as shot, by government sanctioned shooters. Still dead though, not sure why I would be concerned about the format of the government that shot me. I have to go to work, here...there. Same thing. Pretty much across the board, same thing, different label. Someone will claim that we can choose what we do in a democracy (work, play,etc), but really, how is that working out for the common person? How many of us wake up each day and say "Thank God I chose this job, I love it so much!" Would it make such a difference if someone else had chosen the job you dislike? State or parental pressure, the outcome appears similar. I do not live where I want, I live where I can afford to live, very little choice there in truth. Yes, in a dictatorship the police can boot down your door and take you away to be interrogated. Of course, with "No Knock" entry (yep, a real thing) so can my local Police service, or the Federal RCMP. So again, at three in the morning, do I really care what emblem the armed jack-booted thugs kicking my door in are wearing? No, not really. And it doesn't matter if they are at the wrong place; the door is still broken, my house has been effectively pillaged, and everyone in it will be questioned for hours before any mistake is acknowledged.

I am not seeing much difference.

Observation, trial and error, scientific method, logic, principle—foundational critical thinking skills can suffice to help navigate information. — NOS4A2

Sure, but that all presupposes the applicability and the ability to apply those things. How, for example, would you suggest a person make a reasoned decision about Covid vaccines, keeping in mind in your world there is no reliable source of information? Maybe your way in a wysiwyg world, but that not our world.

Something I watched today made me consider the question of the OP, and conclude that it might be the other way around.

The internet and the massive exchange of information it brings doesn't destroy democracies, but it brings to light all the flaws that have crept into them. The corrupt power structures that have infested our democracies prefer to stay in the shadows, but amidst the exchange of information they cannot.

This is why we see a rise in attempts of states to regain control over the flow of information, and regain control over their populations. They're trying to creep back into the shadows, but the light of truth shines brighter.

A couple of points in response:
1) When I said 'can democracy survive?', I meant a system where electors decide on real fact-based issues who will lead them, and their view is accepted and acted upon by those elected. You can talk about the democracy of social media and the 'post truth' world, where all views are accepted as valid, but that results in the absurd anti-vax movement we now have, which is seriously harming efforts to stop Covid. No matter how stupid, selfish and ill-informed the views of its supporters are, govts won't call them out in those terms; any attempts to make vaccination mandatory are met with riots by those defending their right to decide for themselves. You have to say that the Chinese anti-Covid measures have been most effective - brutal though they have been. So maybe 'a meaningful democracy' is a better phrase.

2) Those who reply with the 'things won't get better until we learn to think and act like responsible adults' point don't get it: Democracy invalidates that approach. Its tenet is that voters must be accepted for what they are and politicians should lead them with sensitivity and understanding - not arrogant judgement of their failings. Most people are ignorant, simple and prone to emotional decision-making. That's the way humanity is. To expect them to learn to act otherwise is naive.

I think the Guttenberg point is a good one. It has occured to me that down the ages the great advances in our civilisation have been brought about through improved communication: as witness the printing press, the railways, the car, the telegraph, phones, the mail, radio, TV and now the Internet. The possible dangers of the last of these are matched only by the first. (Maybe 'advances' should be in quotes?)

The difference getween a meaningful democracy and a dictatorship, by the way, is that the former has the means of turfing out corruption and ineptitude on the part of leaders.

Simply put it: Authoritarian regimes and governments in general have now learned how to control and use (or abuse) the new media called the internet and social media. That's just it. — ssu

Yes, but if well-meaning democrats find they can't compete except by copying that approach we get into Animal Farm territory - the pigs become men..

.

The difference getween a meaningful democracy and a dictatorship, by the way, is that the former has the means of turfing out corruption and ineptitude on the part of leaders. — Tim3003

Really? I have never noticed that. How is that accomplished in your country exactly? Here we can't do anything until the next election, and then we have a choice about which lying sack of crap gets in, but ultimately there is no discernable difference to any of the political parties: all of them will lie, all of them are corrupt, and all of them will back pedal on any promises they made during the election. So we vote in someone that back pedals, lies, and rewards friends with government contracts, then 4 years later we vote in someone that back pedals, lies, and rewards friends with government contracts. Does the detail that the name of the person has changed make any difference to anyone, other than the person that got voted in? I would posit that all of my available electoral choices in the last thirty years have been inept, quasi-corrupt, and lacked conviction. The only one that I believe may not have fit that bill died before he could come to power. The four hours off I get to vote is much better spent taking my wife out for dinner; that actually has an effect on my life. Voting, not so much.

Voting, not so much. — Book273

Two sayings from the 1970's - are they still current? "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal," and "Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in". The first is anarchist, the second is grumbling at the bus stop, but similar sentiment.

Yes, but if well-meaning democrats find they can't compete except by copying that approach we get into Animal Farm territory - the pigs become men.. — Tim3003

Exactly. One of the most perilous strategies is to think that if in a democracy some actors use dubious methods, to protect democracy you have to use similar dubious methods.

The truth is that populist conspiracy theorists promote the most excessive, incredible and most pure propaganda on purpose: they just assume that everything is propaganda, so you fight "the powers that be" with your own propaganda.

I'm not sure if you've seen a lot of US schools.. but a lot of them have nothing to do with the kind of education needed to engineer weapons.. Are we talking urban or suburban schools? Because urban schools are often just trying to keep the kids and its own funding afloat for four years... — schopenhauer1

You are responding to a post where I said the Military-Industrial Complex has been in control of education since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That is not an issue of city or rural schools, nor is it about this state or that state. It is about education for technology replacing what Eisenhower called our "domestic education". Our domestic education added on vocational training when we mobilized for the first world war, but we retained education for good citizenship and transmitted an American mythology and education for citizenship, until the National Defense Education Act.

Education is like a genii in a bottle, the defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genii. We changed the wish in 1958.

A primary purpose of domestic education was preparing the young for good moral judgment and that means teaching the children how to think, not what to think. Our liberty and social order really depend on that past education. Education for technology is amoral and tries to program the child's brain to be of use to industry and the military. Does that make sense, the difference between education to achieve a democratic and social goal, or education to achieve industrial and military goals?

I have no argument with the observation that many, many schools are just struggling to survive. Students in those schools are being cheated of having an education because what they are getting will not help them in any way and the environment is largely responsible for the failure of the schools. The 1958 National Defense Education Act was supposed to end in 4 years. It obviously did not end and it may be too late to save our democracy now. We took our culture for granted and that was a big mistake!

The US Republican-Trump party is now working to install loyalists in swing-state election-admin posts, so that they can manipulate the 2024 count to ensure he wins - all in defense of the stop-the-steal lie, which 2/3 of them still believe. — Tim3003

I was worried about this too, but a disputed election will be challenged in the courts, and ultimately SCOTUS, and none of the judges on there are morons. Will Republicans abide by what this particular SCOTUS says? Enough will so that our democracy will continue.

Here we can't do anything until the next election, and then we have a choice about which lying sack of crap gets in, — Book273

Where do you live? Where I live we can write to our representatives, and write letters to the editor, and protest in the streets, attend public hearings on the city, county, and state levels. This activity can lead to people uniting and having a much stronger voice than an individual. Such as the National Rifle Association. It is possible to write a bill and get have a vote on it.

I have actively changed law at a local level and bureaucratic policy at the state level, by working with others. What is really horrible is I seem to be the only one in forums who understands what citizens can do and that the meaning of citizenship is being responsible for such things. Democracy means the people have the power. We just aren't educating for that anymore.

One of the most perilous strategies is to think that if in a democracy some actors use dubious methods, to protect democracy you have to use similar dubious methods. — ssu

What other options are there? Defeat them with your kindness?

Oh it's far more simple than you think! From the view of the government/state:

a) keep the economy robust and in good health.
b) provide the services the people want, starting with safety and listen to their demands.
c) Uphold transparency and keep corruption low.
d) basically keep the people happy.
e) and don't rest on your laurel's if you have reached the above. It's a constant struggle, and in the end the voters will likely just get bored with you and replace you with someone worse. At least people will then later note how good things were back in your time...

People who are content are difficult to get to be hostile at each other, ready to take the barricades. The criticism will be left to the true "fringe" or to the "intelligencia", which actually the latter is quite beneficial. Nothing works as well as honest open laughter when someone comes up with something outrageous. Being angry at them only turns on a conspiracist: remember, for him or her you are just the brainwashed sheeple.

If then everything is going to hell in a hand basket, then the vicious circle can be so bad there's not much to do. Might be worth noting to people who are important to you what is happening and how to prepare for even worse time. I think simply making a hilarious joke that tells the real truth in a funny short way spreads far better than demonizing the other side. For example, cartoons can be far more effective than a grotesque images filled with absolute hatred and loathing. That kind of propaganda turns people off, if they aren't already extremely angry about the issue. If people are truly really fed up with a politician and hate his or her guts, then by all means do make images of him or her as the worst of the worst. But then it's just incitement.

From the view of the government/state: — ssu

What when it's the government/state who is the actor who uses dubious methods?

Canada. I used to vote. My friends used to vote. Most don't now, for the reasons I listed. No body listens to our letters, might as well burn them, the end result is the same. I figure democracy is a scam: nice sales pitch but the final product isn't worth a damn.

Democracies are not kept in check by informed citizens, they are kept in check by powerful legal institutions and as well as various other rules and systems. An authoritarian government is completely controlled by a handful of - or even just one person who goes completely unchecked in what they're allowed to do. They control the army, the institutions, the businesses, the media and nobody can stand up to them. The citizens' rights can be given or taken away, people can be imprisoned for nothing and there are few rules to stop the ruling party from doing, really whatever they please.

That is the big difference between an authoritarian government and a flawed democracy from a full democracy. A full democracy holds leaders accountable for their actions, the institutions aren't under their control, their power is limited. They are subject to the law like anyone else, there are many rules telling us what they can and can't do.

What's great about democracy is how the system protects the rights of its citizens and the leaders are held accountable to a far greater degree than any other government type. When we see corruption, the free institutions lose that freedom, the rights of the media taken away and so on, that's when we say democracy is in trouble, not when people have no idea who they're voting for and barely have any options.

Whether citizens are voting for bad reasons or have bad options, these are trivial concerns in comparison. So its a problem that Trump was corrupt, he did try to interfere with free institutions, he did try to discredit the media and he attacked the vote itself and broke so many rules and he really needed to be impeached for these things. Yet US politics is a mess and he wasn't, but ultimately, the system did rebuff Trump's coup pretty effortlessly, many parts of the system are still doing their job.

Many other democracies around the world are not having this problem, in Australia, where I live, leaders resign over issues that are so unbelievably trivial in comparison to all the things Trump has done and I think that's how it should be, the flaw in the US is that Trump was able to get away with far too much.

tldr in a democracy it's the institutions that matter for its success, not the voters.

What when it's the government/state who is the actor who uses dubious methods? — baker

Shows only the integral weakness built into the regime. Why once in power, do you still have to attack others as viciously as before? Your showing your weakness. What your base actually would want is for you to do what you promised to do, simple as that. It's the populists dilemma: once in power, you are those "powers to be" that you have criticized. Hence if you want to follow that act and not keep your promises, you have to enlargen the "conspiracy" to the international level. Good luck with that. In the end you do have to have a support base and they have to be happy.

Yes, governments can control the media, but then they simply distort the political debate not to show the real opinion that there is. Going from verbal assault to physical assault is actually easy. Coming back from that isn't anymore. An authoritarian simply cannot know just how much popularity he has and going down that rabbit hole isn't actually a smart move.

The really smart move is to get the whole political class to follow your tune, and then you would have to stay quite silent, be above the political debate. Have perhaps someone below you be the lightning rod that can be replaced. You don't do that by ferociously attacking others.

Democracies are not kept in check by informed citizens, they are kept in check by powerful legal institutions and as well as various other rules and systems. — Judaka

This is true, but any government or regime has to have a support base. There simply has to be people who at least think that supporting the present leadership and system is better than the alternative. Otherwise the whole apparatus will come apart in a drop of a hat.

Democracy is more of an idea than a reality. The reality of a true full democracy would be horrific probably.

Without a doubt the closest country to having an actual ‘democracy’ on Earth is Switzerland. The thought of that system on a global scale fills me with dread not hope. I simply don’t believe a global vote would result in something ‘good’ for humanity’s long term development. Smaller isolated governments concerned with a limited population size would be okay … somewhere along the way we missed that boat though.

Looks like another stage of feudalism and then an eventually power struggle leading with a stable population size followed by centuries of wrangling before we settle on a reasonable body of people to be held within a governed system where each individual has enough of a voice to matter. Decentralised power can only make sense if nations effectively split up and act as a community of peoples rather than as a disassociated body called ‘nation’ where the power is both unregulated, inefficient and short-armed in reach and scope due to the sprawling population.

Without a doubt the closest country to having an actual ‘democracy’ on Earth is Switzerland. The thought of that system on a global scale fills me with dread not hope. — I like sushi

If you just copy-paste the Swiss system into an existing power structure in many countries, yes, that would be something to be dreaded. Or simply would tarnish the name of the Swiss model. Because having the institutions and system in name only wouldn't help many countries.

Hence it doesn't go like that. For example, Liberia has similar Constitution as the US, yet that hasn't prevented a military sergeant taking power and shooting the whole government (the story goes that he got the inspiration of making a coup when the President inspected the troops in pyjamas and bathrobe). The civil wars that the country has endured were gruesome.

It all comes to those institutions, how well the system operates, some basic educational level, social cohesion and, as Marx pointed out before Bill Clinton: it's the economy, stupid.

I think it's simply racist to think that some people (unlike others) would be incapable of having a democracy. It's the above mentioned things that have to work.

I think it's simply racist to think that some people (unlike others) would be incapable of having a democracy. It's the above mentioned things that have to work. — ssu

?

I suggest that a democracy, as I understand it (voters, elected officials that represent said voters, etc) will always result in the lowest denominator style government. Think political and social entropy.
I look around at the people I work with, arguably educated and literate, and listen to their spoken values and am appalled at the profound absence of thought processes and shallow values being yammered about. These are the educated voters, Bachelors and Masters degrees all around, and very little substance or critical thought to be found anywhere. In a majority rules situation, I would have to listen to what these clowns want, because there are more of them than there are of me. Absolute nightmare.

Perhaps a democracy wherein the requirement to vote, or hold office, is an IQ above 130. That should remove a substantial amount of dead weight. Then at least I could say that my representative might be corrupt and a asshole, but not an idiot. That would be a good place to start.

Let's just remember the religious wars that rocked the Christian world back then at the time after Gutenberg. — ssu

That's an interesting parallel, thanks.

Democracies are not kept in check by informed citizens, they are kept in check by powerful legal institutions and as well as various other rules and systems. — Judaka

But no dictator is going to allow those institutions to act fairly. He's going to install his own judges. Hence, they only survive under a democracy where leaders cannot dismantle them without being voted out next time..

Shows only the integral weakness built into the regime. Why once in power, do you still have to attack others as viciously as before? Your showing your weakness. What your base actually would want is for you to do what you promised to do, simple as that. — ssu

What type of people do you think make dictators?! The likes of Trump don't win by respecting their opponents, they trash them. Of course he's weak. Dictators are driven far more by egotism than ability. As for promsies: most of those on which they get elected are unachievable, and they knew that all along. Where's Trump's wall? And was it paid for by the Mexicans? It was a cheap slogan he could never make come true. Remember 'drain the swamp'? Surely that doubled in size during Trump's presidency. What about 'prosecuting crooked Hillary'?! Once in power his tactic was to attack his enemies and deflect attention from all those absurd promises.

Perhaps a democracy wherein the requirement to vote, or hold office, is an IQ above 130. That should remove a substantial amount of dead weight. Then at least I could say that my representative might be corrupt and a asshole, but not an idiot. That would be a good place to start. — Book273

I have pondered on an election held entirely online, where voters have first to answer say 5 multiple choice questions about the basic issues of the election; and if they get 2 or more wrong they can't vote. There'd have to be a secoind chance at it, incase they pressed the wrong key by mistake. So you'd need say 20 questions, of which 5 would be picked at random for each attempt to vote.

But it makes no difference what method of weeding out you choose. The only way to stop corruption is to let everyone vote. If not; what guarantee is there that your 130+ IQ elected govt wont decide on a policy of eugenics, to stop lower IQ babies being born? Power corrupts...

↪Athena Canada. I used to vote. My friends used to vote. Most don't now, for the reasons I listed. Nobody listens to our letters, might as well burn them, the end result is the same. I figure democracy is a scam: nice sales pitch but the final product isn't worth a damn. — Book273

Democracy is what we make it, but to get something changed requires a huge effort and connecting with the people who are willing to work for the change. Timing is also important. I discovered it is much easier to make change happen when someone like the governor is new to the office and wants to make change. Today our children's services policy is very different from the past and grandparents have rights by law.

The whole point of democracy is that the dictator isn't the one who decides what is "allowed", the institutions do. A democratically elected leader, whether he's going to get voted in again or not, lacks the legal power to undermine the democratic institutions. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter what the vote was, and that's normally how democracies become dictatorships because a leader is able to interfere with the election process and undermine it in some way.

The whole point of democracy is that the dictator isn't the one who decides what is "allowed", the institutions do. A democratically elected leader, whether he's going to get voted in again or not, lacks the legal power to undermine the democratic institutions. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter what the vote was, and that's normally how democracies become dictatorships because a leader is able to interfere with the election process and undermine it in some way. — Judaka

A leader may be elected democratically, but once in - like Hitler, he can easily disempower those institutions by force, stopping them from calling out his corruption. Come the next election, like Putin, he can ensure he wins. So it's not the existance of the institutions that safeguard democracy, it's their ability to continue to function without interference from the govt. Only via the next free-and-fair election can any wrongs a govt has committed on them be part of the campaign of a prospective new govt and if they win be righted.

The strength of a democracy should be measured by how easily its leadership can undermine it.

So it's not the existance of the institutions that safeguard democracy, it's their ability to continue to function without interference from the govt. — Tim3003

These are not mutually exclusive, it is the institutions that safeguard democracy, and their ability to do that is dependent upon some independence. Putin can manufacture elections results because he has complete control, Trump couldn't because he didn't. It's what the democracy does to stop in-power officials, if it cannot check them for corruption or if it cannot stop them from interfering with elections then that "democracy" is weak and ineffective.

20th century US government would enter wars, institution massive policy changes, order covert missions and play geopolitical games that either the public had no say in or if they did have a say, they were often influenced by propaganda. Look at communism, Iraq, Vietnam and so many other examples. How is the modern US worse? It's just that people are better informed today, better educated and can be slightly more attuned to how things really are. Trump on Twitter didn't achieve anything compared to what was achieved with 20th-century propaganda but the internet has done much to educate and inform the people better than ever before.

The Internet is a many splendored thing. If Facebook and 4Chan or 8Chan are not good for it, other parts are. It isn't the Internet, per se, that is a threat to democracy. Powerful groups who dislike democracy are a muckiest bigger threat.

As for bad information, there is nothing new under the sun, Public discourse and the press have operated at abysmally low levels for long stretches of time. There was no 'golden age' when everyone read only balanced, carefully thought out opinion pieces and altogether factual 'news'.

People who believe--the corona virus is a hoax, or that the moon landing was faked, or that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election, or any number of other stupid lies--are impervious to fact and balanced argument. It doesn't matter whether they flock to web sites that present garbage, or not. In 1969 there was no internet, yet the "the moon landing was faked!" individuals managed to find each other, anyway, and they have persisted in this nonsense for decades.

As an aside, there are many sites on the internet, television stations and programs, publications, and individuals or groups who are just not good for one's cognition or mental health. One does well to avoid them.

I look around at the people I work with, arguably educated and literate, and listen to their spoken values and am appalled at the profound absence of thought processes and shallow values being yammered about. These are the educated voters, Bachelors and Masters degrees all around, and very little substance or critical thought to be found anywhere. — Book273

Usually it's a problem of motivation. Who cares? Elections happen very rarely and it's a vote among millions. But let's say their careers where on the line with the choice they made in the election booth (which btw. goes against the crucial anonymity of voting). If their candidate does do what he or she promises they keep their job, if he or she doesn't, they lose their job. Suddenly there would be a lot of interest to elections and many of your colleagues and they would follow politics.

The internet was designed by its creators for sharing information (communication) in the fastest way possible with current technology. Does easier communication harm democracy or does it facilitate the democratic process? There's no clear-cut answer to this question or, if one demands an answer, it's both. The truth, facts, things vital to a healthy democracy are easily transmissible and accessible but the downside, even lies & disinformation, anti-democratic forces as it were, utilize the same channels with the exact same advantages.

What's the net effect though? Positive/negative? The same nose through which we take in life-sustaining air, oxygen to be precise, is Covid-19's preferred mode of entry/exit into/from the human body.