darkkhorn19 Democratic governments give power to the aristocrats, corporations and greedy politicians who claim their country is free and secular but in reality is owned by them. Even in an [b]actual[/b] democracy, the people would be much too ignorant when it comes to such topics as politics, as you said. Now, what type of government would you prefer? I am interested.

Roxas1314 Some form of communism or socialism that allows competition, but certainly NOT what's going on with the crap today.

Roxas1314 And now everyone is really going to hate me because I am some sort of 'commie'. Pfft.

thetacoman I vote Constitutional Monarchy. Long live Queen Oprah.

Nos_DragonFly You're 100% Right , I think socialism is the path to greatness not democracy .

Sappp [i]"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."[/i] - Winston Churchill I understand your problems and I too sometimes think that people who know nothing about politics should not have a say in it. But I see nothing better than democracy. Socialism or communism will not work, like they have not worked in the past, and I do not know any system that will work as well as democracy has done and continues to do. What kind of advantages do you think socialism/communism has versus democracy, considering the 'problems' you brought up with democracy? In a democracy you might need money or contacts to become president or other elected official, but do you think that will be better in either of the other systems? In a democracy anyone can strive for political power: in the USSR for example the communistic party was the only one allowed. How is that more fair? In your ideal view of a socialistic or communistic state, what would be the way to determine who is the leader? My biggest problem however with socialistic or communistic state is that they often are authoritarian as opposed to a 'Rechtsstaat' (legal state). In my view, a state can not be just if it is not a 'Rechtsstaat'. Also, in the Netherlands anyone can become a member of a political party and if they put you on the list for elections, you can become a member of parliament. Of course, these usually are people that the parties trust and who have been with that party for quite some time, but in theory anyone can become a member of parliament if you are into politics (a good friend of mine was elected into the Provincial States (that's one level under national) when she was just 19 because she had been an active member of a party since she was 14) BTW: I really do not hate you because you are 'some sort of commie'. I used to be a member of the Socialistic Party in the Netherlands. My views on politics have changed but I do not think badly of people with these views.

whiteflame55 What's strangest to me about your argument, Heitsi, is that neither communism nor socialism would solve for the problems you present here. As Sappp said, there's still plenty of corruption to go around in both, and a little added competition wouldn't solve the problem. Every communist society to date has turned into a dictatorship given a little extra time. Almost every socialist society has succumbed to economic issues and outside pressures. In either case, people have to be pressured into joining the society somehow, otherwise the population that would join voluntarily is simply too small. You talked about adding a bit of competition to each of these, and while I'm not sure what that would look like (it really goes against the core values of both systems), it doesn't seem like that alone would be both effective enough as a draw and effective in the long-term survivability of the government. Even if you add a splash of capitalism to the system, most people will still view it as overbearing state control and many would leave. The one way they both communism and socialism don't bite into your critique of democracies is that they both provide a much more open system of government, thereby allowing for less of a money/popularity war. But that just creates new problems. In a communist system, there is supposed to be no government, but a system can't function like that. Therefore, in every instance it's been tried, a strong central government was created, and, as I mentioned earlier, a dictatorship sprung for that. That's not a great alternative. In a socialist system, community members rotate through a council that decides on future actions of the community, and while that sounds like a good system, it also means that, in a very large community, the rotation would include apathetic members, fanatical members, essentially all over the map. It works well in places like the Kibbutzim in Israel because they have a vetting process. It doesn't work well for countries. But I would also like to challenge your two main assertions in general. I would still say democracy helps prevent corruption in some instances. When voters flood a congressman's email with complaints, that congressman perks up. It's not as strong as it once was (a flood of letters in the mail stood out a bit more), but the idea is the same: voters have the power to elect and reelect. Sure, most times the person elected into office is the one with the most money or a charismatic smile, but every second they're in office is another second they're being weighed and measured. Sure, it takes an impressive screw up to be forced out of office by an annoyed public, but that is still power. That's still something. Sure, corruption will remain no matter how hard the public looks at its elected officials, but that doesn't mean that some corruption cannot be weeded out. And on that same vein, I think there is some power to the people. Sure, it's not to an individual necessarily (the whole "every vote counts" thing is kind of hazy these days), but groups of voters still have great power. Presidents spend months courting various racial groups, people of a certain age, those working and not working, the genders, the religions, and any number of other groups that comprise their voting blocs. You can't just ignore that. But I also think you're talking a lot about actual power without talking about empowering. People who are a part of a democracy may not have their full voices heard, but it is satisfying to be able to submit your ballot in November. They feel empowered by it, even if many recognize that their vote isn't going to count for much. It's not just about actual power, but the feeling of power that one gains from being a part of a system like this. Socialism and communism both lack such empowering traits.