I have to say that there is no real "perfect" system.
The issue is a fairly simple one. There are just too many people. Let's take into consideration, for example....We'll bring up a game as our example for this.
World of Warcraft(random name - no relation to it).
You have two clans, one with 10 people and one with 50 people, and you are voting on something.
With 10 people it's quite easy, as there are far less people to deal with. With the 50 there is a MUCH greater chance of people arguing or disagreeing. How can you make democratic decisions when this happens? "For the people by the people.." Well, when it ends up half and half, no matter which choice you make you will end up with pissed off people.
Along with this, take into consideration the way votes work. With 10 people each one is 10%. With 50, each vote is 2%. The number of people who will actually take part in the voting process is considerably less, being that people say "well my vote is only 2%, it doesn't matter." When 30 of those people do it, you've broken the voter base down to 40% already. So now they're voting for how others would feel as well, although it may not be true. This is one of the issues with voting in the USA right now. People keep arguing that with 100+ million votes or whatever, their ONE means nothing. Last I heard it was like a 60% non-voting rate.
That's why democracy isn't as efficient in big numbers.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with things like communists. That also works in small numbers but not in large groups. Mostly because of the fact that if you have 5 items and 10 people, they can share 50% of the time. With those same 5 items but 200 people, there are going to be fights and disagreements over who should get what, and when they should receive it.
I guess all in all, it can be viewed as every government being flawed in it's own ways. They all have their strong points, but at the same time they all have negatives that go along with that.
Reply