[FinanceAnon]

Let's say that you live in a democratic country, where over hundreds of years you regularly hold democratic elections. One day, a new presidential candidate says that if he wins, he will turn this country into a totalitarian state - this country will never have another democratic election and a chance to vote him out. 51% vote for him and he wins. Is that fair or a loophole in democracy?

A lot of conspiracy theories these days are anti-West and anti-democracy.

[justinmchase]

Yes of course. If people don't want democracy anymore what would be a better way to end it than with a vote?

Also though, just because he wins doesn't mean he can actually deliver that promise. Most democracies have multiple layers of laws that would have to be passed after the election and would probably result in civil war without a super majority.

[jl6]

Democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Of course that's a narrow definition of democracy, and I think in practice we also include things like institutions, civil discourse, separation of powers, and constitutional law, in what we mean by democracy.

[lordnacho]

Well if we're right about the free and open society being better, they won't vote that way.

Of course it can and has happened. You have to ask yourself whether those societies were actually free and open, which I know sounds like a cop-out.

[FinanceAnon]

That's why I think conspiracy theories can be a threat to democracy. They try to convice people that the free and open societies that they live in, are actually not free and open. Some of them can be right (e.g. Snowden leaks), but personally I think what we currently have is better than the alternatives. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[mrjangles]

You might have a point if it wasn't for the reality of the situation and who is pushing conspiracy theories and who is trying to crack down on them.

It is always the people saying how democracy is flawed and we should be more like China that are also trying to crack down on conspiracy theories.

[mannykannot]

> Well if we're right about the free and open society being better, they won't vote that way.

It is entirely plausible that a free and open society is better than the alternatives on several different bases, despite the possibility that it could all go wrong and end up as becoming one of the alternatives. There is no evidence in human history that society has any stable points, let alone that it has desirable points of stability.

> Of course it can and has happened. You have to ask yourself whether those societies were actually free and open, which I know sounds like a cop-out.

... it also has elements of the No True Scotsman fallacy.