Purified Democracy

[Altai]

This concept is a new invention of mine. I see that today's understanding of democracy can easily be regarded as nothing when it does not work according to the interests of some "groups" and their "supporters". People's understanding of democracy make difference based on different events. President Trump is one of the recent examples of it. Democracy chose Trump as a president but some groups didnt like this choice and they are easily ignoring democracy and making up excuses to justify their anti-democratic moves. If we want to achieve a pure democratic state management, we need to get rid of our prejudices and hatred and this is almost impossible for many individuals because this is the human nature itself. Human beings are emotional assets and not robots.

Now what is my concept of "Purified Democracy";

First of all, the government officials should be on stage with their official entity, not with their personal entity as the Trump does and many others does. Many people hates Trump because of his raw face and strange moves on the speaking chair. I dont care what is his name and I dont care more than enough that what is his background. He is just a person given duty by people to apply whatever people wants him to do. For example many people who hates Muslims is now opposing Trump's Muslim ban just to be against Trump's politics, not because of they suddenly started to feel in love with Muslims. If they would be asked without telling them the mean purpose, all of them would support to ban Muslims. So secondly, in my "Purified Democracy" system, people will be asked about something without being aware of the real intention of the government. As third, state should organize informative conferences about events and people should "have to" attend these conferences before elections about something. Fourthly, state should ask anything to people as long as its not a situation that needs to be decided quickly. For example state cant say "Currently we have been attacked by nuclears bombs and what kind of a response would you like us to give them ? Please vote".


My system is open for improvements. What would you add/change about it ? 

[?Impact]

5 hours ago, Altai said:

First of all, the government officials should be on stage with their official entity, not with their personal entity as the Trump does and many others does. Many people hates Trump because of his raw face and strange moves on the speaking chair. I dont care what is his name and I dont care more than enough that what is his background. He is just a person given duty by people to apply whatever people wants him to do. For example many people who hates Muslims is now opposing Trump's Muslim ban just to be against Trump's politics, not because of they suddenly started to feel in love with Muslims. If they would be asked without telling them the mean purpose, all of them would support to ban Muslims.

It is human nature to relate to other people, and not faceless, nameless organizations. Love 'em or hate 'em, it is the people that make democracy work. While I understand the point you are trying to make (even if I don`t agree with the example), I think you are underestimating the value of the human relationship. As you said earlier, people are emotional creatures and not logical robots. You can`t change people, you have to find a way to work with them.

5 hours ago, Altai said:

So secondly, in my "Purified Democracy" system, people will be asked about something without being aware of the real intention of the government.

Isn't that called polling? It happens all the time, and the pollsters are always trying to figure out ways to ask the questions without revealing what the real intentions are. The challenge is that people are not completely dumb, and of course there are many people out there that try to analyze what the polls are getting at and tell the larger population their interpretation (pundits).

5 hours ago, Altai said:

As third, state should organize informative conferences about events and people should "have to" attend these conferences before elections about something.

Yes, education is very important and we need to do a lot more. To a certain extent it happens, but the delivery vehicle to the masses has been the newspaper, radio, television, and now Internet. When you bring up conferences that implies there is only one vehicle, and more significant that it is controlled by the government. When you have that control are you not losing democracy, and just having a brainwashing session where the government tells you what to think? Would that not only give you the illusion of free choice?

5 hours ago, Altai said:

Fourthly, state should ask anything to people as long as its not a situation that needs to be decided quickly. For example state cant say "Currently we have been attacked by nuclears bombs and what kind of a response would you like us to give them.

You should google "tyranny of the majority", a lot has been written on that subject. For a practical example of a system that moves toward the goal you are seeking, but does achieve some level of balance you might want to study how democracy in Switzerland works.

[kactus]

Worth also mentioning that there is no ideal model for democracy and it's just relative...

In many countries there are no voice given to the opposition or quashed so called democracy is like my way or highly that is spoon fed to the sheepish population at large or indoctrinated. That is not democracy. It's just a matter of interpretation.

[Altai]

On 08.02.2017 at 4:21 PM, ?Impact said:

It is human nature to relate to other people, and not faceless, nameless organizations. Love 'em or hate 'em, it is the people that make democracy work. While I understand the point you are trying to make (even if I don`t agree with the example), I think you are underestimating the value of the human relationship. As you said earlier, people are emotional creatures and not logical robots. You can`t change people, you have to find a way to work with them.

I dont think that people should "relate" with a state official. I dont think that people wants to relate with a man in electricity management while paying the bill or they want to relate with a bus driver. People just expected them to "do their job" with a smiling face. So people want to do same thing from state officials too. We will think the same things about them if they just do their job. A state officials could not be able to start a sentence with "I want to do.....", she/he have to say "People want to do....". As I said he is given duty by people to apply what people wants him to do, not what he wants to do. So he should step back and should not be in front of cameras with his personality but should be with his official entity. 
 

Quote

Isn't that called polling? It happens all the time, and the pollsters are always trying to figure out ways to ask the questions without revealing what the real intentions are. The challenge is that people are not completely dumb, and of course there are many people out there that try to analyze what the polls are getting at and tell the larger population their interpretation (pundits)

Yes this is a kind of polling but people will be aware of it that they are going to vote something serious unlike a polling done by two guys who wanders from door to door. Does not matter whether or not they try to find out what the polling aims. They have to give logical answers if they want a beautiful country. 
 

Quote

Yes, education is very important and we need to do a lot more. To a certain extent it happens, but the delivery vehicle to the masses has been the newspaper, radio, television, and now Internet. When you bring up conferences that implies there is only one vehicle, and more significant that it is controlled by the government. When you have that control are you not losing democracy, and just having a brainwashing session where the government tells you what to think? Would that not only give you the illusion of free choice?

Conferences should not be like a "brainwashing" session. Its should be an informative conference more than a state propaganda. But still there may be some problems. Such as sharing false informations. 
 

Quote

You should google "tyranny of the majority", a lot has been written on that subject. For a practical example of a system that moves toward the goal you are seeking, but does achieve some level of balance you might want to study how democracy in Switzerland works.

Here my famous rules is activated. So logic based on the same informations does not vary from person to person. Logical decide will crush the illogical decide with a big vote difference. If it results with a close vote rates, then there is a problem with the informations provided. 
 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Altai

[Ash74]

8 hours ago, Altai said:

Here my famous rules is activated. So logic based on the same informations does not vary from person to person. Logical decide will crush the illogical decide with a big vote difference. If it results with a close vote rates, then there is a problem with the informations provided. 
 

How very arrogant. 

By that argument there would be no religion or would be an agreed on one. Good luck with that. 

So please share how with all the information out there, would a group convince to turn away from their beliefs? 

Is it not "logical" to not believe or for us all to worship the same God?