[Debate]#Main: The Debate thread

[STM1993]

Let's be realistic, how can the people vote to choose their government when they understand nothing of politics and are full of misconceptions? Besides, the interest of the few overlap the interest of the whole, so each individual will root for the politics that better suit him, not necessarily being the best politics for the whole. Democracy brings serious instability.

So are you trying to imply that Democracy is highly unstable and Aristocracy/monarchy is a better form when formed by educated minds/mind?
...
Also @STM93 : So it seems you agree with most of the operating principles of democracy and still there are certain loop holes? How do you think a democratic government tackle that?

Ideally, yes. The problem with democracy lies in a few areas:
1) It would be utterly impractical to listen to every individual person's opinion.
As a result, the masses have to pick a few people who best represent them. Even then, it is simply not realistic to cover every possible opinion out there. In other words, you're still going to end up having a few specific leaders anyway. That said this also potentially solves the problem below assuming the representative is properly educated.

2) People don't always know what they are talking about.
When you see crap like people who are anti-vaccine because of the alleged side-effects or how Donald Trump apparently gets so much support or those crazy Social Justice people with their "triggers" and being offended on behalf of actual minorities to the point of hypocrisy, you begin to question if groups of people even know what they are doing with their mob mentality. I am pretty pessimistic about this as a result, not helped by the media sensationalizing or obscuring various events. Going back to the first point: Do they even know if their representative is right for them?

I would much rather be led by a small group that knows what they are doing as opposed to trying to appease everyone who doesn't take the time to be educated on a subject. Afterall, popular is not necessarily correct.

Looks more like oligarchy pulling the strings behind the curtain to me.

Oligarchy, I don't think it's possible. If one party tries to over power, there are other parties who can combine and form a even more destructive force and over throw them.

The party that is already in power has a huge advantage of being able to make structural changes to their fitting.

Furthermore, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't work at all in politics; even if the opposition agree that the ruling party should be done away with and manage to topple the ruling party, they ultimately do NOT agree on the same policies and will certainly NOT agree to share power, leading to a lot of inefficiency.

But,

In other words, corruption is inherent, primarily because an imperfect knowledge of candidates exists, resulting in a need to build relationships with those with power to put you in the spotlight, and in turn strings get attached

How else do you think this hypothetical candidate can spread his thoughts without making a name for himself or get to spotlight?

That's my point - there isn't really any other way. Maybe in future there could be candidates who would voice themselves on the internet and fund themselves, but I've found that popular internet opinion often doesn't reflect the real ground sentiments.