Unfortunately, we don't get to vote for the people who would. They don't run.

Democracy is a fallacy. It is merely a system designed to pull the wool over the sheep’s eyes to fool them into thinking that they might actually have a say. Reality check – the 99% don’t have a say.

Satellite, do you have an idea on which system would work better/fairer?

Work better/fairer for who?

The current fallacy of democracy is working very, very well for the 1%. And the 1% believe the fallacy to be very fair indeed.

How about for the "other 99%", since your contention is that it is only fair for the 1%.

Let me ask you this...Why should there be a system that works in favor of the 99%?

The 99% think the system they have is the best in the world. And don't dare let anyone challenge or criticize their so called democracy. Especially in this here great United States of America.

But be honest now...how much real say does the 99% have? Theoretically speaking, democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy. I sure as hell see no evidence that that is actually what happens and yet the 99% believe it.

Democracy is nothing but a fallacy.

Rather then continuing to answer questions with other questions, please tell us what system would be more fair.

You're contention is that democracy is a fallacy and only fair for the 1%, and I am willing to listen to your case. Please enlighten us as to the superior system.

I have not once claimed or even hinted towards knowing a "superior system". I am merely pointing out that the current system, so called democracy, is a fallacy.

But clearly I have touched a sensitive point here.

no, I actually tend to agree with you to a certain extent. I just wanted an answer to what system is better. When the question what system would be more fair was asked, you asked "more fair for whom," indication that with clarification you could answer.

I sure wouldn't want to live in a society like that. In our democracy, we elect leaders who generally reflect our views (based on their promises and/or their past actions), but we delegate day-to-day decision making to them. If we had to rely on citizens to determine public policy, then every citizen would have to devote their working hours to understanding the issues so they could make an informed vote.

Most citizens have only the most superficial, and in most cases emotional (rather than evidence-based), understanding of key public policy issues. Furthermore, most citizens are susceptible to believing their trusted messengers, even when all the evidence shows that their trusted messengers are wrong. Granted, many politicians are guilty of this as well, but given that they are bombarded daily by conflicting views and arguments (and given that they will be held accountable for their decisions) one would hope that they have developed at least some degree of skepticism.

I don't want to live in a society where the political leaders base their policy decisions on public opinion, simply carrying out the largely uninformed wishes of citizens. I want leaders who share the majority's values and apply those values to their informed judgments when making policy decisions.

I hear you Brad but unfortunately many of us live in a society where the political leaders base their policy decisions NOT on public opinion but on what the lobbyists with the most money want.

Even presidential candidates are elected based upon who spends the most money. Example is this past Super Tuesday results. The only reason why Romney came out on top is because he outspent Santorum (and the others) by 10 to 1.

I'm not sure Obama outspent McCain in the last presidential election, did he? I think Romney's recent wins are probably due largely to the fact that he's viewed as more "electable" and "presidential" than his opponents, plus he's been building momentum with each win; many people want to vote for a winner.

And while it's clear that lobbyists have far more power than they should, it's also clear that they don't always get to call the shots.

Obama outspent McCain by 3 to 1. In the final week he outspent McCain by nearly 5 to 1.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/advert ... -vs-obama/


Those lobbyists with the most money get everything they want regardless of what the 99% would like.

Wow, but do you really think Obama won only because he spent more? I wonder how much of it was that he raised more money because so many people were disgusted by the previous administration, excited by him, and wanted him to win.

But anyway, maybe I'm just too optimistic and naive, which makes me unwilling to swallow the argument that everything is decided by money and that principle plays only a minor supporting role.

Nothing wrong with that. I am probably too pessimistic and still looking for that balanced sweet spot.

A final thought...Don't underestimate the power of the media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8