Which is why originally, we didn't have what we have today. We had a modified republic which allowed democratic elections of some officials, but not of others. Keep in mind that senators were elected by states for a long time, a good thing if you as me, as they were intended to serve as a sort of moderate gerusia and be less accountable to the whims of the public. Electors for the presidency weren't directly elected either, in many places. Again, I think this helped us see a president more as a leader and less like a head-man.
Indeed, too much democracy can lead to disaster. We're seeing already that we end up with mob politics, populism, and candidates competing as to who can spend more of the other side's money, pass more laws they hate, etc. I hate it, and this is why the federal government was supposed to be elected mostly indirectly and given a small role to play.
The author does a lot of fun thought experiments that don't hold up long under critical scrutiny.
Take for example: "On the other hand, if, as it is now fashionable to maintain, the majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing—ending the democratic elective process itself—then this is no longer democracy, because the majority of voters can no longer rule."
It is still a democracy, because the majority of voters did not the surrender the power to make that decision to anyone, but in fact nobody is able to make that decision at all. There's no non-democratic entity who could decide so in place of the majority, because it is something that simply can't be changed. Every decision made is still made in a democratic process.
Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy. It's simply another decision nobody can make. It's completely outside the scope of your democratic decision making.
Edit:
Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make, but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.
Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority, wanted or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then I do not understand the relevance of your comment.
> Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy.
I think this one is pretty obvious and I am not sure of its significance here. You cannot decide to do a lot of things, but that does not mean that you cannot decide to do some other things. Allow me to say this: just because you cannot decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean that you are a democracy (just as it does not mean you are not a democracy). See the problem here?
> Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make, but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.
This makes no sense within the context. You have mixed the scopes yourself. It is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot decide that, then it is simply not democratic. At first I thought you would talk within the scope of the company, then that would have made more sense in the way that workers are not necessarily part of the democratic process, or their votes can be simply ignored, which may happen in the context of a country, too, in which case I would not call that democratic either.
For anyone who is reading my comment but have not read the article posted above: please do not dismiss the article because of my comments! There is much more to it than what is mentioned in my comments, and the author has articulated his arguments better than I did! I do not accurately reflect the author's views.
> Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority, wanted or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then I do not understand the relevance of your comment.
You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle further below for your benefit.
> This makes no sense within the context. It is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot, then it is simply not democratic.
And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's okay to murder each other there?
If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the abstract sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can make, then you can't ever have a democracy because something will always be out of your influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth). The decision of whether murder should be legal on company grounds will always be outside of what workers can decide. However if your definition of democracy essentially makes having a democracy impossible, may I suggest you use one that is actually useful.
If you believe that yes, your decisions should be scoped to physical borders and other limitations that arise, then your constitution (or whatever document dictates you can't end democracy), is simply another factor that narrows down what decisions can be made.
Your constitution is very much like your country's border in that sense. It limits the scope of your decisions.
> You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle further below for your benefit.
Only some parts (there were more objections besides this), yes, to emphasize the word "wanted" because your comment seemed to have omitted that crucial part and operated under the assumption that people do not want to do that, which misses the point. You said: "because the majority of voters did not the surrender the power to make that decision to anyone", which means that the majority of voters did not want to do that to begin with. If it is democracy (direct democracy, in this case), and they wanted to, they should have been able to.
> And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's okay to murder each other there?
No, because the company is within the scope of the country and its legal framework, and "there" is within the borders of a country. If the company (read: group of individuals) is large enough to make up the majority of the country, then they should be able to decide so democratically if there indeed is democracy.
> If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the abstract sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can make, then there can't ever have a democracy because something will always be out of your influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth).
I am not sure I understand your point. How is there direct democracy if the majority cannot decide to do X or Y (and here I am not talking about the majority of people wishing the sun to drop out of the sky or anything similar, of course)? You cannot just add exceptions and then call it democratic (or direct democracy), which is what is happening here. Are you sure that this is not a redefinition of democracy?
> How is there democracy if the majority cannot decide to do X or Y.
The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
You could do the same thought experiment with dictatorships or any form of government really. If a dictator can decide that he'd rather have a democracy, then he can end his own existence (fine?), unless he operates in some constitutional framework that enshrines him as the one and only power within the country. If that's the case, is he still a dictator? Short answer: clearly. Long answer: We can have a long debate about this and essentially come to the conclusion that either whatever definition of democracy/dictatorships you're using needs to be revised, or you need to come up with new names for most political systems on earth, because we need to names for things at the end of the day.
In any case don't use the article author's definition:
> Democracy is a system of majority rule in which each citizen has one vote either in deciding the policies of the government or in electing the rulers, who will in turn decide policy.
According to his definition the majority is allowed to just decide policy. I don't think he realizes there's actually no contradiction if you define it like that, because ending democracy would be a matter of polity and probably politics in general, but not really a matter of just policy.
Edit: Fair warning, I edited quite a bit above roughly 10 minutes after posting.
Indeed, too much democracy can lead to disaster. We're seeing already that we end up with mob politics, populism, and candidates competing as to who can spend more of the other side's money, pass more laws they hate, etc. I hate it, and this is why the federal government was supposed to be elected mostly indirectly and given a small role to play.