3 Answers

  1. How does democracy contradict the manipulation of the masses of people? The essence of democracy is that there is an inverse relationship between the political course and the desire of people to see a specific political course. This desire can be influenced, and the task of the law is to establish rules according to which this influence is exercised, in order to balance the possibilities of different groups to influence people's desires.

    The essence of democracy is to ask you if you want borscht or cabbage soup, without going into details about whether you want borscht because you like the taste, because it is cheaper, because you are tired of cabbage soup, because you want to impress a girl, because you thought well, or because your whole family has been eating borscht for three generations in a row. This is a huge achievement, because no one has ever asked you anything before.

    Whether your choice of borscht will be correct depends only on you, no one can promise you this. The only way to protect your choice from outside manipulation is to throw you into space without a spacesuit.

  2. Definitely. The essence of elections is to legitimize the power of the current elite. Previously, this happened with the help of religion-the pharaoh is the incarnation of God on earth, so he rules us. Or with the help of kinship-this is the son of the last prince, so he rules us.

    Now, when many people believe that there is no God and all people are equal from birth, a scheme with elections was invented.

    Part of the people come to the polls, vote, and the one who won rules the whole nation.

    That is, the ruler who was chosen is legitimate.

    Naturally, the elite cannot trust the choice of the ruler to ordinary citizens, so different countries have different options for “democracy”.

    In short, there are two key rules::

    1. I only allow my own people to participate in the elections. That is, you can choose from a pre-agreed list, and not who you want. For this purpose, there is a financial qualification, collection of signatures, etc. up to prison and liquidation.

    2. No liability is provided. That is, the winner will do what the elites need, and not at all what he promised the people.

    And then, if people are happy, we extend it, and if not, we change it to another one of the same type.

    With force majeure, there is an option to falsify the results or recount the votes if the people chose the wrong one.

    There are also advantages, it is impossible not to take into account the wishes of the people at all. At least you need to promise what the people want.

  3. Just not the elections themselves, but the promotion of programs and candidates participating in them. Which, of course, involves means of controlling the behavior of the electorate with a completely pragmatic goal. Only it / manipulation does not contradict democracy in any way, either in form or substance.

Leave a Reply