opinion of democracy?

[David S]

Democracy is messy, unorganized, and allows stupid people (Democrats) to have a say.

Facsism is the best form of government followed by monarchies in terms of efficiency.

Which monarchy, or which fascist dictator produced a better result than our our constitutional republic?

[MasterJedi]

Positive

(Unless I'd get to become Supreme Emperor of Earth )

[Jake]

Which monarchy, or which fascist dictator produced a better result than our our constitutional republic?

Generalissimo Franco

[dazzleman]

Democracy is only as good collectively as the people making the decisions.  It is subject to human error and imperfection, plus psychological quirks on a grand scale.

Still, it is better to be guided by imperfection, error and psychological quirks of a large number of people, as opposed to a small group of people or a single person.

Think about investment theory -- the way to reduce risk is to diversify and make a number of different investments.  That way, portfolio performance is is influenced by a large number of performance factors rather than a single one.  This makes the overall portfolio much less risky.  Lots more things have to go wrong to get a substandard return.

Democracy is this way, too.  The fact that the electorate is so broad and diverse tends to smooth out dangerous trends and instability.  It's not perfect, of course, but it's better than dictatorship.

[John Dibble]

Direct democracy, in which the people vote on all the laws as a whole: Very negative.

Democratic republic, without constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Very negative.

Democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Positive

^^^^

[dazzleman]

Direct democracy, in which the people vote on all the laws as a whole: Very negative.

Democratic republic, without constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Very negative.

Democratic republic, with constitutional limitations on the power of the majority: Positive

^^^^

^^^^^^

[angus]

Inefficient.  Nevertheless, I voted positive.  Like you, I have been brainwashed by teachers, textbooks, and the government, so I can't help getting warm fuzzy feelings when I hear the word.  I think its saving grace is probably the difficulty with which it is exploited, since the purchase of millions of votes is undoubtedly more expensive than the purchase of one.  Thus in a democracy, unlike in a dictatorship, only the very rich can afford to have their way.  And since the very rich are such a limited subset of all humanity, democracy is statistically less likely to become corrupt than most other forms.  On the other hand, knowing that millions of people, collectively, can tell me what to do chaps my ass.  In an imperialistic system, such as that of the Inca, you know its only one man's call, and that his right to make that call comes directly from the gods.  That must give the subject a much warmer and much fuzzier feeling than democracy.  Not to mention the fact that if you need to move goods from one part of the Empire to another, such as in case of a natural disaster, you don't have to wait for a quorum of hundreds, or even thousands, of men to get their heads out of their asses to make any decisions.  Unfortunately, once tasted, democracy has the power to addict.  Not unlike heroin.  I think we're stuck with it for a while, so it kinda make sense for our books and our teachers to convince us that it's a dandy form of government.