>hey guys, what if we decided extremely complex, critical

>thinking they count votes

You vote for representatives who make these decisions, not directly for policy you fool.

When you reject democracy you reject self-rule. Maybe political cucks like you think daddy in the state knows what's best for you better than you know yourself, but I disagree.

>>1746085
Democracy means you are ruled by the masses, not by yourself.

>>1746067
>>1746073
These anons are correct.

If you get bent out of shape thinking that dummies are screwing up voting you should probably read up on how the American political system works

>>1746048
That's why sensible nations have concepts like a constitution, representatives, division of powers, individual rights, freedom of the press, etc.

whose fault is it that the populace isn't educated on these issues?

also, what does it matter?

>>1746105
Stop distancing yourself from the masses, you literal pleb. Democracy is the closest there is to self rule.

>>1746124
But most educated people vote liberal, due to being brainwashed by liberal teachers and media and then they go out and vote incorrectly.

>>1746048
As opposed to some jackass who only got there through virtue of being popped out of the right vag000?

>>1746127
Stop identifying with the masses, that's mob mentality.

>>1746132
It's the apprentice system for occupations, applied to politics.

>>1746105
When everyone in a "mass" has a say on the trajectory of their life and all decisions are collated into universal law you get "ruled by the masses". There's no way around that.

Either you don't have a society at all i.e. universal law no longer applies and maybe some sort of smaller tribal community is put in stead, or you have rule by the elite other whom you hope knows better than you about what's best for you, or you have mass consensus.

>>1746140
That doesn't really matter when the jackass stil gets the seat even if he's known to be a total incompetent, like Willy.

>>1746145
Monarchs generally have a lot of advisers, it's not like they deliberate on decisions on their own.

Germany should have kept monarchy, desu, it would have been better, even though Willy was awful.

>>1746159
But that's kind of the whole thing isn't it?

Monarchies seem to work until the entire country falls apart, which happens quite often historically.

>>1746136
Mob mentality would be telling the minority to shut up and be ruled. I'm telling you to not lose track that you are part of the public discussion as much as anyone else, so you are part of "the masses".

>>1746170
You could say the same about democracy, see the Weirmar Republic.

>>1746171
That's like telling a grain of sand, "You play a part in shaping the beach." Well, yes, technically, but it's infinitesimal.

>>1746185
I distrust the Democratic Republic model as much as the next guy, but to claim it has caused as much bloodshed as Monarchy and Autocracy is absurd.

>>1746185
Well, there are plenty of examples for any given political system of it crashing and burning. It's all class struggle really. :^)

>>1746193
You are right, you are a special snowflake that could solve all of the worlds issues if you just didn't have to worry about the several billion people you share a planet with.

>>1746194
Totalitarian dictatorships are what *replace* monarchies. Monarchies are authoratarian, but far from totalitarian. If the monarchies of China, Russia, Italy, and Germany didn't fall, the 20th Century would be have been a lot better.

>>1746199
I don't claim I could anymore than every other non-specialist.

>>1746210
And if Rome hadn't split and fallen, the whole planet would be a lot better.

But I guess we can't prove that because that's not how history works.

Democracy is rarely self rule, usually there are loop holes that allow power units to take authority. The USA for example has very easy access to their political positions and elected officials, thinking this openness gives a common citizen more access to the government.

But it practice incorporated units benefit much more to this ease of access then any individual since they can afford the time, energy and directed agenda to approach the government on multiple fronts to get policy passed.

Voting also requires so much energy from a populous to be effective. If a democracy was serious about being a democracy then voting would be required, there would be no conditions that revoked suffrage, election voting would not be limited to a 24 hour period, and all forms of education would be funded by taxes with access to said education given to all current voters. Anything short of this is just meme-teir oligarchy pretending to give the population some government influence.