[ben_w]

In UK elections, because it's not a 2-party system, the winner usually has less than half of the votes.

But even if they didn't, losers don't have to take it quietly.

But even if they did, governments are complex representatives, not ongoing referendums on each individual topic, so we can agree with 80% of the party we vote for and strongly disagree with the rest of their policies.

The cynical alternative is that democracy is a way to get everyone to shut up: if you voted for them it's your fault, if you voted against them you need to obey the will of the people (if you voted for a minor party you wasted your vote), if you're too young to vote then you're naïve to real issues, and if you didn't vote at all then you silenced yourself.

(Sometimes I'm the cynic).

[pjc50]

> democracy is a way to get everyone to shut up

Democracy is a way to get people to acquiesce without violence. If you look at history, it's remarkable how common insurgencies and succession crises or breakaway warlords are.

[tonyedgecombe]

It's like a release valve, no point in going out rioting if you can vote the bastards out in the next election.

[imtringued]

This is also how most professional licensing works. The idea isn't that the license guarantees quality, it's that the license can be revoked when the licensee in question makes an egregious mistake.

Democracy isn't about voting people in. A monarchy or dictatorship can be voted in and stay permanently. The point is to vote people out of power.

[mncharity]

A recent discussion[1] suggests China's ~500 CE Keju imperial exam was designed as a royal ranking system to reduce violent political fights between noble houses. But at a cost of stagnated innovation.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41624827

[Gud]

*representative democracy, the lowest form of democracy.