Representative Democracy:
Limited Choice is not Freedom

Last Update: 16 March, 2024

Topic: What is this Issue Concerning?

This is concerning the system of government known as Representative Democracy, ie. supposed rule of the majority of the People by elected representatives, usually by secret ballot.

Representative democracy is touted as the best possible system of government, but is it?

Importance: Why You Should Care

If there's something wrong with our system of Government it means our society is going the wrong way at a systemic level and is in serious short-term and especially long-term danger.

Related Topics:

Definitions:

  • Respresentative democracy, which is the most common type of demoracy in the world by far, is a system whereby people of each local area elect a representative who votes and acts for them in the legislative body, for a fixed term, without need of any further approval by the local community during that time.

  • Political 'Good': What is a 'good' and 'bad' political system? In our view, a good political system, and the direction of improvement, is towards greater preservation of human rights, life, and individual freedoms, in that order of decreasing importance.

  • Voter Duty: Voters in a democracy have a duty to vote, to understand the issues they vote on, to compare the policy platforms of each and every candidate on an equal footing before making a decision, and to make that decision for the most long-term good of the jurisdiction.

Prejudices on this Issue:

Any criticism of democracy is popularly assumed to be promotion of Communism (because it is the main competing political system in the last century), and therefore tends to be met with a defensive hostility.

Our Intent in this Discussion:

This article is not about promoting communism or its many horrors. We recognize democracy as the best system we know of, but we object to it being both very poorly implemented and with those flaws socially promoted as so perfect a system of justice and freedom that we need not aspire for better. Rather conventional respresentative democratic systems tend to be so flawed, on so many levels, as to be effectively a kind of unrecognized dictatorship.

Related Issues

Problems with our democratic system, especially in functioning more like an unrecognized dictatorship, are closedly related to recognition of a Shadow Government.

BackGround Understanding

There is an effort, in designing systems of self-governance, to avoid dictatorship, because although it is the best form of government so long as the leader is humble, wise, and good (eg. Jesus Christ), it is the most dangerous to become abusive under the pride and selfishness all too common in humanity. Even if a good ruler can be found, their successor, typically brought up in priviledge, might have a very different character. Through the failures of dictatorship, insane and cruel people have been allowed to rule in history, and we must work to ensure that it can never happen again.

Fundamental Question of this Issue:

Is representative democracy freedom or is it tyrannny dressed up as freedom?

Truth-Leading Questions to Ask Yourself and Others on this Issue:

  1. Do you think that the People of foreign nations which actually live under tyrannical Goverment, are taught by their Society that they are enslaved or free?

  2. In the system of Government you live under:

    1. If it somehow was tyrannical, do you think it would be presented to you by the Establishment as tyrannical or as freedom?

    2. If it was tyrannical, how would you be able to discern that?

    3. Does the human rights legislation or declaration of your nation have any kind of clause which enables the Authority to override the rights otherwise set out in the same legislation or declaration? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations does, for example, towards the end, in Article 29.3, where it states, "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations". In other words, you are to have all the rights in the document except if they conflict with what the UN wants to do to you.

    4. Is there any limit (which is not changeable by Government without explicit Public consent) to how much or in how kany ways the Government may tax you?

    5. Is there any limit (which is not changeable by Government without explicit Public consent) to how much the Government may borrow and put the Public into debt?

    6. Does your Government require the People's direct consent to start a war? That would be important, and only fair, since the People usually suffer the mostin war.

    7. Is your Government able to conscipt the People to fight its wars, and has it done so in the past?

    8. If your Government decides for war, will the same people who decided that be fighting in it themselves, or is it something the People are left to fight?

    9. Is there anything in your country illegal to say? If so, how does the penalty for that crime compare with the penalty for murder?

    10. Is your Government able to give itself (without explicit Public consent) emergency powers, and has it done so in the past?

    11. Did your Government give the People the choice of how they wanted the COVID-19 pandemic handled? It went on for years and many places actually had elections during it, while pretending that there was no time to democratically ask the Public for their wishes.

    12. Is explicit Public approval required to make anything a law?

    13. Is there anything which cannot be made a law, or cannot be changed within the existing laws, by the Government?

    14. Do you have a legal recourse to remove someone from power if they fail to fulfill their election promises?

Assumptions of Reprosentative Democracy:

The democratic system assumes certain things for it to come to a good end for society. Let's attempt to write them out:

  1. That a single dictator is tyranny except when that dictator is elected for a term.

  2. That although one person might be corrupt, a few people, or a few parties, cannot possibly conspire, but will always work for the best interest of the People.

  3. That a representative demoocratic Government cannot make itself a dictatorship, or otherwise award itself dictatorial powers, not even if they declare an emergency.

  4. That human rights are inalienable: not suspendable in any way by Government.

  5. That words spoken by politicians are their own words, not written for them.

  6. That Government informes the People promptly of the full truth on all issues, so that the People have the right foundation to decide things in the future.

  7. That the People want to have a meaningful say in the direction of their government rather than be completely dictated to. This means that, given a convenient opportunity to vote, they will always vote, because it is important to them.

  8. That the People will only vote for what they believe to be good for the long-term good of the nation (or region related to the election). They will not vote solely for personal gain, and will certainly not vote for what they recognize as evil, not even a lesser evil.

  9. That every citizens cares about every issue their Government must decide on.

  10. That the People will research issues to a thorough understanding, current and historical, and seek out and compare all options offered, with information from diverse sources, before making any decision. It takes a commitment of time and effort, but since there is no other way to make a fair decision, voters will make the effort.

  11. That the People will vote for whoever offers the best ideas at the time and not any other criteria.

  12. That the People are too smart to be scared into approving measures against their interest.

  13. That politicians will offer enough contrast to voters that voters can choose between any different direction on any important issue.

  14. That politicians will never collude with the Establshment agains the People

  15. That referendums will always be called on any critical Government policy decision such as whether or not to order everyone to stay home because of a virus.

  16. That the People either cannot or will not approve anything destructive to the quality of life of future generations.

  17. That whatever the Majority decides is morally right.

Isn't Representative Democracy the Perfect System?

It's common for Peoples of every kind of political system to be educated by the Establishment into thinkinng that their system is the perfect one, which education of course supports the Establishment. We need to beware of this in our own minds.

It's time to recognize the flaws of representative democracy:

  1. Systemic Failures Typical in Represantative Democracy:

    1. Representative Misnomer. Elected representatives are typically free to impose their will on the People without asking the People ever again for consent or opinion besides in their election itself. Sometimes the Elected do the opposite of what their People seem to want, with no legal ability of the People to stop it until the next election (at best). Due to this ability to act completely disconnnected from the Will ofthe People, once in Office, 'ruler' is a far more accurate term for these elected officials than 'representative'. The main practical difference between an elected representative and a traditional dictator is that the former is usually for a fixed term and the latter is usally for life.

    2. Cancellation of Citizen Equality. Being ruled by an elected person has been touted as a wonderful thing compared to being ruled by an unelected person; this is portrayed as the triump of representative democracy over the scary alternative of dictatorship. Although it's usually better than dictatorship, representative democracy is not better than true freedom. The rosy view of representative democracy being wonderfully free misses the problem of forfeiture of equality however a ruler is installed. In representative democratic systems, as soon as you set up an election between a list of candidates, you set up a situation where a ruler must be chosen for everyone and no one can effectively refuse to be ruled: if anyone doesn't vote, or spoils their ballot in protest, the ruler of all is simply decided by the other voters. For example, even in a simple classroom election for class president, the election itself establishes one person as superior to all the others: no more equality. Representative democracy systems cancel equality by forcing the People to be ruled by someone, while making it appear as their free choice to be ruled, which choice allows the inequality to persist.

      What if that choice is forced? For people who are happy to choose between options without considering the limitations of that choice, representative democracy might work for them. They only think inside the box and so are controlled by the box given them.

      For more perceptive people, the dark side of representative democracy is being faced with a list of candidates of whom you none are worthy to rule, but also knowing that if you don't vote for one of them the other voters will choose one of them to rule over you, anyway. The result is that you get ruled, even if you know the person is unworthy of that office, and even if you don't want to be ruled by anyone. How free is that?

      Real freedom would be to have the right to refuse to be ruled by someone else. Decisions need to be made for a direction in the world regarding each world issue, but those could be made by community referenndum, and some things even decided individually. We don't need to put one person above everyone else, which repprestnative democracy does, and which effectively cancels your equality.

    3. No limits as to what Governments may make a law. The abilty for dictators to do this is presumably the real reason why dictatorships are so hated. Unfortunately representative democracies have also been doing this; it's actually quite shocking what has been made law under respreentative democracy systems. Making gross immorality into law is a critical failure of any Government. Example articles:

    4. No limits as to how much wealth and rights Governments can take from you by changing the laws.

    5. Abilty to change any or all of the laws to suit an agenda. In fact, it's not uncommon that if the People find a legal way to oppose the Government on something, that the Government simply makes it illegal to do that anymore. Then the force of the police, courts, and penal system are brought against whoever they want however they want for whatever they want. Even the most basic processes of democracy, such as voting, can and have been made illegal. Example articles:

    6. Wrong-Representative Rule

      7. A frustrating phenomenon of represntative democracy is that, through winning by majority, people who vote for one candidate are expected to follow the rule of the candidate they voted against if that candidate wins more votes.

      Therefore not only does the representative democracy system force you to give up your euality by being ruled by someone else at all (as previously discussed), but it's also a system by which you must accept representation by the person you voted against if they don't 'win': even if that person is that last person you want to rule over you.

      How free is it to be forced to accept the rule of the person you least want to rule over you just because they are popular? Welcome to representative democracy.

    7. Third-Party Partnerships with Elected Representatives to the effecive Hijacking of the Nation: Outright bribery is not only possible, and tempting to someone holding office only a few years, but seems to be very common, even in deeloped nations. For example, please see from 1:58:05 of this video interview. Blackmail is also rumoured as a means of control of politicians by third-parties. Either way, real or not, the concentration of power in a small number of people, regardless of how they attained that office, makes it relatively easy for enemies to effectively control the nation by establishing any kind of control over these few officials. Infiltration of government by people who are already loyal to third-parties is also possible with heavy support from these parties to help get them elected.

      8. This tactic is most effective when the third-party enemy controls all of at least the most popular voting options offered to voters: then whichever voter's choose is controlled by that third-party.

      Represenatative democracies where the representatives are effectively controlled by third-parties are called 'trapped' or 'captured' democracies.

    8. The elected representatives appoint high triers of fairness, such as senators, judges, or governors (if not appointed then recommendedand rubber stamped to the same effect). These high triers of fairness should be impartial and appointed in a mannner not beholden to anyone: certainly not appointed by politicians on the basis of their alignment or even loyalty to that political party or its values. They must not be beholded because it's that job to judge between the Government and the People if and when necessary, and if they can't do that impartially it compromises this last restort of democracy. In particular, if the Government decides to do something tyrannical, if the supreme court justices are loyal to that party, they can typically rely on the supreme court to uphold the legality of that tyranny over the Public.

    9. Issue Agglomeration: To vote on any issue, a voter is forced to approve or disapprove a candidate's platform decisions on all issues simultaneously. This frustrates the ability for voters to guide Government policy in these ways:

      1. It prevents voters from sending a clear message about which issues matter most to them. Rather this intent is lead to speculation. It's never clear which policy position of perhaps a hundred in the platform guided a voter's decision to vote for that candidate-platform, and it's left open to speculation. For example, a politician may think they received a vote due to their position on taxation, but actually it was due to their position on war.

      2. It often forces voters to vote against their wishes on some policies in order to express their views on others.

      3. It forces voters to vote on many more issues than they know or care about. It's naive to think that every voter has heart enough and time enough to care about and research every issue the Government touches. The moral way to handle this would be to allow them to vote only on the issues they know and care about. Unfortunaetly, all election policies are pre-decided for every issue in one platform per canddiate.

      4. It often forces voters to actually vote against their desire on some issues to express their desire on others. In reality, the issues are so many and the candidate-platofrms to choose between so few that it's mathematically expected that, the vast majority of the time, a policy platform will have some policy positions you agree with and others which are contrary to what you want, and it's mathematically expected that there will be too few candidates to solve this problem for you. For example, in an election with a hundred policies being decided, what are the chances that, out of 5 candidate-platforms, one of them will match your wishes on every issue? Not good. For example, if you want to vote for one platform which promises lower taxation, it might also approve war, which you are against. What do you do? You either vote to approve lower taxation and war, or you vote for another candidate-platform which does not offer lower taxation but may promise peace, or you don't vote at all. You are forced to either silence or confound yourself by how the system is designed.

    10. No obligation for election candidates to offer voters the policy promises which they want.

      Democracy assumes that when options are brought to voters, there is some difference between them, such that the choice translates into a meaningful choice of direction for the community or nation, instead of a meaningless endorsement between options which are identical or nearly identical.

      However there is no requirement for the options presented to voters to be what voters want, or even to have any contrast at all. If all the parties agree to take one side on an issue, for example, then voters won't be offererd any option for the other side of the issue. For example, during COVID-19 crisis elections, typically no option to stop the social restrictions was offered by any candidate of the most extablished political parties. For example, although Government support for abortion is an alarming and contested issue, it has become typical that no political party, or at least none of the largest political parties, offer a pro-life voting option, leaving pro-life voters to either compromise or spoil their ballot in protest.

      In practice, a phenomenon has emerged, in longstanding representative democracies, of the most popular politilcal parties having styles of policy and governmance which are amazingly similar, differing only in minor points, such that whichever is elected the governance is very similar without needing to break any promises.

    11. No 'None of the Above' Option. Voters should be able to express if none of the options offered are acceptable. Our democratic system should not assume that one of the options given to voters must always be what voters want.

    12. Election candidates decide the issues in each election are. Although in theory election candidates do have some incentive to offer options on the issues which voters care most about, candidates can also choose to silence some issues completely (which is most effective when all or all the leading candidates do it). For example, it is not been uncommon for municipal election candidates to be silent on the issue of stopping drinking water fluoridation, despite it being a controversial issue.

      When candidates, rather than voters, decide what 'the issues' are to offer options on in the election, that undemocratic decision is even more important than having a choice of option on what issues are offered. To compare it with deciding on a restaurant dinner, it would be like being told that you can order anything you want on the menu, so long as it is one salad and one desert, while the main course is not considered an issue you get get served but not get to decide.

    13. Typically no obligation of Elected Officials to keep their election campaign promises and typically being free to do the exact opposite.

      14. A recent excample is Ukraine president Zelensky: he was elected on a peace platform (notice how the news article quickly justifies his 'transformation'), even promising to negotiate directly with Russian president Putin, but in office he rejected a peace deal before the February 2022 invasion, and another one early after the invasion which his own delegation already signed, he made peace talks with Putin actually illegal, and he's often solicited and received military support for the war from other nations.

      Presumably it's because voters normally have no recourse if leaders break or even do the exact opposite of what they promised in an election, the practice has become common. News media has come to develop various and now familiar euphamisms to describe these betrayals, such as: 'u-turn', 'reversal', 'backtrack', 'walk back' or 'flip-flop'.

      This ability to do even the exact opposite of what was promised in the election campaign, even in matters of war, renders the election process meaningless, because you are literally electing a dictator who can do whatever they want despite whatever they told you.

      Some other examples:

    14. Legal ability of Represetnative-Democracy Government to bind the Public in secret contracts which the Public is not permitted to read. For example, COVID-19 vaccine contracts, between Government and manufacturers, although signed by Government on behalf of the Public, they were typically kept secret from the Public (no right to read them in unredacted form). The idea that you can represent a people, to bind them in contracts they're not even permitted to read, may be legal, but it is not moral, and it is not democratic. Rather it is extremely dangerous.

    15. No direct decision of the People on what the laws are unless the politicians decide to offer one (rarely). Once in power, Governments pass whatever laws they want, without anyrequirement for consent from the People beyond electing them, no matter how radical those laws are, or even if they are opposite to what they promised those who elected them. It is typically very rare that we are permitted a referendum to decide yes or no on anything directly, and even then there are ways for Governments to circumvent the spirit of the results if they don't like them. Since referendums are typically voluntary for Governments to offer, ultimate it still means that the Government is in control of policy decisions but they, not the People, can decide to open up some decisions to the Public if and when they want to.

      Even to attack another country, or award themselves emergency (dictatorial) powers, governments are not required to ask their People. For example, when Ontario, Canada government awarded itself dictatorial powers and suspended approximately half our human rights with lockdowns and mandates, on excuse of COVID-19, they never put it to voters, and it was said that they don't need to, that this is how our so-called 'democracy' works.

    16. No Government obligation to be bound by referendum results from voters. For example, notice the following wording from page 9 of the 2022 Voters’ Guide - Ontario municipal council and school board elections makes 'no' results of a referendum not permanently binding:

      17. In other words, the Government may do exactly what the People voted 'no' to, but they must wait 4 years to do it.

    17. [CRITICAL FAILURE] No Rapid-Referendum System

      18. A common excuse for not offering a referendum on something is that the leaders needed to act quickly; that there was no time.

      It's typical that these urgent decisions are also some of the most impacting to the nation, such as a decision to go to war or not.

      In a political system which still uses paper ballots only, and which takes months to organize through local polls, it's true that there often isn't enough time to hear back from voters on issues which do need an urgent decision. Sometimes there is, but sometimes there's not.

      Nevertheless a rapid-referendum system could be put in place, in this computerized age, in advance of problems, if the political will existed to ask the People for a decision on events which happen quickly: if they truly wanted the People to decide. If Government can find a way for us to file taxes online they can find a way for us to submit votes online.

      The fact that Government has shown no interest to implement such a system, rather repeatedly using this excuse of 'no time to ask voters' to make critical national decisions without voter input, means that many of the biggest decisions are typically and effectively put outside of the input of voters.

    18. Ability of Political Administration to Unilaterally Block Certain Candidates from Running for Party Leadership

      19. If certain people are blocked by the Establishment from running for election, it's not a free election. Rather the pre-vote screening process may be a way to ensure that voters are only permitted to choose between candidates who are allied with the Establishment and its goals.

    19. Ability of Courts to Block Candidates from Running for Office

      20. If certain people are blocked by the Establishment from running for election, it's not a free election. Rather the pre-vote screening process may be a way to ensure that voters are only permitted to choose between candidates who are allied with the Establishment and its goals.

    20. The party with the most votes not always being the party which forms the government. Depending how the electoral system, anti-democratic flaws such as the first-past-the-post candidate election system in separate ridings and the ability for losing parties to cooperate to form a minority government, can keep the party which the most citizens voted for out of governance. For example, this actually happened in Canada in both the 2021 and 2019 federal elections, where in both cases the Conservative party had the most citizen votes, but the Liberal party, with the support of the NDP party, was able to form the government.

    21. Elected Representatives Voting on Unread Legislation: Voters not required to understand or read the policies they give their consent for, but they vote more on concepts and it is the legislators' job to finalize the specific wording of each law they pass, which can undergo many revisions before it is passed. Unfortunately legislators are not required to even read the laws they vote on and bind the Public into, even though that is their job. Even for representatives with the best intentions, sometimes the proposed legislation is just too long to read even once, nevermind interpret or research, in the time they have before they must vote on it. The end result is binding the Public into laws that few even know what they are until they are passed. This is a far cry from the moral principle of binding the Public only into laws which are moral and necessary for peace. It should be illegal to bind someone else into laws which you haven't even read.

    22. Bilateral Responsibiltiy Failure: A major problem with representative democracy is that if something goes morally wrong with the governance, usually nobody, literally no one, is held responsible for it if it was an election issue. The politicians' defense is typically that they are doing the will of the People (who voted approval for that policy platform), and the People voting by secret ballot typically accept no responsibility since lack of voter responsibility seems implied by the secret ballot system (legally it is, morally it is not). Even when voters re-elect someone who already did many tyrannical things during their term of office (emergency powers, lockdowns, mandates, etc), the next time he does tyrannical things they blame that Government not themselves for electing a known tyrant. For example, most Ontarians blamed the Ford government for a major labour dispute in November, despite re-electing him after his COVID-19 tyranny in June 2022 (article Nov. 6, 2022 Poll finds 6 of 10 Ontarians blame Ford government for labour disruptions): why complain when you re-elect clear tyranny?.

      Some problems, such as public debt, are totally out of control because neither governent officials nor voters consider themselves responsible to every pay back the borrowing.

      A system where decisions are being made but no one specifically is considered responsible is very dangeorus for quality decision to be made.

    23. Truth Sequestering: Government operational habits tend to involve a lot of secrecy from the Public, even in levels of information classification. Unfortunaetly for democracy, the People cannot be expected to make the right decisions on issues if the truth is withheld from them on those issues. The only way a system like this could work in practice is if the Public is never allowed to actually make the decisions on the issues where the truth is withheld from them. It indicates that the election process is just for show.

    24. Party association of political respresenatives. Although this has a minor convenience benefit of quickly identifying what kinds of policies each candidate in different ridings stand for, rather than knowing your candidate individually, it has major costs to democracy, including that:

      1. Party association makes the political candidate obligated to the party leader first before constituents and all other considerations in their political actions. Effectively they are obligated to vote how their leader, not their constituents, tell them to vote (or by ejected from the party). This means they cannot represent their consitituents' wishes.

      2. It's an overconcentration of power towards the few or one which the democratic system seems not to have intended: Party association makes the entire legislature of hundreds of elecxted officials effectively function (and pass laws) at the whim of one person: the political party with a majority of seats. It means the Government functions as dictatorship of limited term under the label of democracy. It means that all of the other officials are extraneous bench-warmers, which is not only a taking away of power from them, but grossly wastes public money to fund them all.

      3. It makes it eacy for incompetent people to be elected to public office. When voting for a party, rather than the merits of an individual candidate, voters are forced to vote for literally any candidate in their riding with the desire party affiliation. Even if a horse was put as the represenetative for the political party you want to vote for, you would then be forced to vote for the horse. However inappropriate or incompetent beings shouldn't be elected to public office and authority over others.

    25. Representatives May Unilaterally Award Themselves 'Emergency' (Dictatorial) Powers which effectively suspend democracy and human rights.

      Emergency powers have no rightful place in a democracy. They are inherently counter-democratic. Furthermore, no one has authority to grant them, since since no one in the population has authority to dictate, and it's the population which elected that Government. Put another way, the representativs were elected with limited powers, and that doesn't give them the right to award themselves more powers without at least voter say-so. It's an usurp of power.

      The problem becomes only more dangerous the longer it goes on, in particular there is a tendency of Governments not to surrender emergency powers when they are assumed, no matter how temporary they are promised to be.

    26. Representatives in Name Only.

      So-called elected 'representatives' usually have no legal obligation to follow the wishes of their constituents, are free to ignore all constituent correspondence or protests, and even legislate directly against the will of the consitituents whom they supposedly represent.

      This alone makes the whole concept of political representation a complete fallacy (or, being a deliberate deception, a lie). Yes, you elect someone, but after that they effectively become your dictator for the duration of their term.

    27. Atheism Incentive. Religion stands as potential adversaries with Government, capable of criticizing and rallying the People against Government. In response of this threat to dictatorship, Government controls taxation and immigration, and has been using both to undermine the independent power of religion in two ways: conditionally easing taxation on religious organizations which support Government, and emphasizing immigration of opposing religious groups (to decrease the social influence of the traditional religious groups).

      Consequently, most religious institutions have been obedient to Government to the point of closure, and altering their teachings to conform with Government-supported lifestyles and initiatives.

    28. Election Fraud. The main input the People have in a democracy is through elections, which depend on a count of votes. Democracies have typically been naive to not guard the systems governing identifying voters and counting votes with high enough security to resist deliberate fraud, as though trusting that no one would stoop to such tactics. Unfortunately the moral reality is that people who would defend the murder of unborn children as a 'right' and airstrike foriegn weddings as a 'war on terrorism' and tell the nation that vaccines with many harms known to follow as 'safe' are already doing even worse than election fraud.

      Potential methods of election fraud include: inserting a large amount of fake pre-prepared ballots, voters voting under false identities, and software manipulation of vote counts.

      Examples of this problem:

    29. Oaths of Office Contrary to Service of the People: Typically elected politicians must make an oath before taking office, and typically that oath is to serve someone or something other than the Public. In Canada, for example, federal and provincial members of parliament must make an oath of allegiance to the Monarch (not the People).

      Taking such oaths of allegiance, as a requirement to hold office, makes it literally impossible for a person who keeps their word to serve the Public first in that office.

    30. Ability of News Media to Artificially Narrow Election Coverage to only a Few Candidates.

      31. News agencies are under no obligation to over all candidates in an election equaly, and so have the power to bring public attention to some options or candidates, whom they cover much, and away from other parties or candidates, whom they minimize or entirely avoid revealling the existence of.

      This leads the Public to choose only between options artificially narrowed by the news agency. Even if the voter is aware of the other options, their mind is lead to believe, by media silence about them, that they are either inferior or at least have no chance of winning.

      One examples of this is from the Ontario 2022 election, where we can compare the number of parties which the mainstream News presented to voters (as shown from one major news website), and the actual number of parties in the election (as shown from the election authority):

      We can see in the above example that although only 4 parties (shown as their leaders bust with the party symbol below) are covered by the maintream news, there are actually 25 parties registered in Ontario. That means the news is only covering 4 out of 25 parties, or 16%.

      It's so bad that even when candidates stand together at a public debate, the News doesn't usually mention or show on camera all of these participants, even when reporting on that debate. For example, in covering the Canadian federal conservative party leadership debate in May 2022, although there were six candidates standing in debate, the mainstream News covered it in a way which focuses on only Roman Baber, Pierre Poilievre and Jean Charest and nearly or entirely ignored the other three:

      This kind of selective coverage leads voters to focus only on who the News brings them to focus on, starving the other candidates of existence, nevermind worthiness, in the voters' minds.

      Interestingly, the options which the Public attention is lead to focus on are options which either clearly support what the Elites seem to want, or at least have no major objection to our system of governance and whose policies are so remarkably similar that it's difficult to tell them apart.

    31. False Representative Familiarity: Modern democratic political representatives are normally not personally known by the people voting for them, yet they feel well known due to frequent media appearances. However these are normally staged, scripted, and edited, in particular their speeches often written by others, and are not a genuine opportunity to know the character of that person. However the system doesn't provide much opportunity for many people to personally know a few.

    32. No obligation to show up for work Typically political representatives have little or no obligation to attend their elected legistlature, and many of them have abyssmal attendance records.

    33. Taking council votes from only part of the membership, either because the other members wouldn't be bothered to show up, or because the person calling the vote deliberately called it when some members were not there. In one case, a vote was suddenly called in council when a member stepped out to the washroom, which passed but would have failed if that member had been present. Yet all representatives must vote if the democracy is truly representative.

    34. Hidden Barriers to New Candidates:

      35. These obstacles impede the best & brightest from rising to leadership:

      1. Charging candiates for party leadership and exhorbitant fee to run for leadership. Example: Conservative leadership fee makes this the most expensive race ever — but is it worth the price?

      2. Political parties can ban leadership candidates before party members can any chance to vote for them as leader of the party. Example: Canada’s Conservative Party devised unspoken rule change to oust two pro-life leadership candidates

      3. Party leaders can be arbitrarily excluded from election campaign debates. For example: Pro-life Ontario Party leader slams ‘globalist’ rivals after exclusion from election debates

    35. No guarantee of equal media coverage: News media are under no obligation to cover election candidates equally, and out of sight tends to be out of mind and out of vote. It is not uncommmon for candidates with unconventional views to be ommitted from coverage, and debates, which cripples their ability to get noticed, nevermind elected.

      To truly be a level playing field, the media coverage for all elected official should be equal.

    36. Shadow Government Tendency by Government Agencies. In a system of governance where elected representatives are put at the heads of government ministries or departments without even necessarily being educated in that subject, and where their political incentive is to stay in the public eye rather than dig into the internal affairs of the departments they are head of, they are usually forced to rely heavily on the staff of that deparatment to run things for them: so heavily that the tendency is for the elected official to be no more than a figurehead with the real power and decisions happening at just under the elected level.

    37. Vulnerability to Effectively Capturing the Governance by Mind Control of the Majority in Majority-Rule Systems. Mind control techniques are designed to be effective against the majority of people, on the understanding and tolerance that a minority will not succumb. When combined with majority-based systems of Governmance, it gives mind control techniques near-total control: even though the Minority might be fully aware of a deception, the Majority might vote to support it anyway. Typicaly such mind control has been towards:

      • Blind in officials and their narratives, primarily. The subliminal attitude is that if it's in power, it must be right.

      • Inclination to trust success. The attitude is that success proves the person and the point. Since success is typically measured in terms the Establihsment outright controls, it is very easy for them to bestow it on whoever or whatever they want.

      • Aversion to religious or political topics for convenience. Socially they tend to be considered dangerous, impolite, and unnecessary to talk about.

      • Focus on positivity, which prevents any discussion about or acknowledgement of flaws in our system of Governance or problems in our world.

      • Focus on enjoying life, rather than righting wrongs; leaving that to the Government.

      • Emphasis on the right to choose but not the responsiliby to understand the subject or be responsible for the consequences. For example, many people vote on abortion or wars without bothering to understand the issue thoroughly. That's right: as though someone else's life isn't an issue worth you bothering to learn about before deciding to end.

      • Loyalty seen as a cardinal virtue. This tends to block all criticism of what we are doing as disloyal. The attitude is 'right or wrong this is our community'.

      • Automatically presentations of truth from non-official sources. The Majority seems to believe that only official sources matter, and any criticism of which is not only crazy, but dangerous, and disloyal.

      It is possible to break the mind control, but that's impeded by Majority disinterest in truth as part of it, and the Establishment typically having effectively infinite public resources with which to dominate, in repetition and public attention (which are major tools of mind control), whatever narrative they want.

      The result is that even if 'the truth gets out', the Establishment doesnt care because it's the Majority who decides and who they control.

  2. Failures of Voter Behaviour which Representative Democracy Systems Typically Don't Protect Humanity from:

    1. Voters Trying to Win the Election: Is everyone trying to impose their rule on others? A very common habit, in our experience, is for Voters to not vote for who they see as the the candidate, but only the best of those candidates who they see as having a reasonable chance to win the election. This seems to make a lot of sense to them, as though nothing matters but winning, so they try to strategize for the best win they feel they can get.

      2. This flaw might be the greatest of all in representative democracy culture, exposing why it's better to vote on policies than people, for these problems with voting on popularity first:

      1. It exceeds rights and duties of Voters. Democracy is designed for voters to vote for the candidates with the best policies, and that's all. Your country is depending on you to judge the best policies for the nation. You are not supposed to use your vote to try to be on the winning team as some kind of personal victory or control. Who wins the election is outside of your right to decide; you are called on mererly to judge the best policy or Candidate.

      2. It is a moral compromise for voters and the nation of unlimited negative consequences. When Voters select for candidatee popularity first and candidate policy platform second, it often forces Voters to either not vote at all or compromise their vote for candidates they know offer inferior policies. That means voting for policies worse than you think are right and worse than were actually offered in the Election, just because you figured the other person didn't have a chance to win. For example, typically pro-life (anti-abortion) Voters have voted for abortion-permissive candidates consistently, seemingly because truly pro-life Candidates didn't seem to have enough support to win the election. This consistent tendency of pro-life voters to vote for abortion-permissive candidates as a compromise has been a major base of support for abortion legality and other Government support, to the death of many pre-born children. Compromise has consequences.

      3. It shifts control of the election to the Establishment. Popularity depends on promotion, which the Establishment can easily give to or withhold from whoever they want, because of their social control (such as ownership of media outlets). When popularity is the first criteria which Voters select candidaets for, it means that the Establishment can simply put the promotion behind their People exclusively to limit the candidates whom Voters think 'have a chance to win' to only those few Candidates who have a deal with the Establishment.

      4. It usually shuts out Candidates who have no deal with the Establishment. It's hard enough for someone with an uncompromisng heart for the People to run for office at all without Voters effectively laying on them the additional burden that they will only support if and when that Canadidate somehow first raises a strong support from other people. It's a paradox. How can you win support from Voters who will only support if you have first won their support? You can't on your own. It effectively shuts out the best candidates who refuse to make deals with the Establishment. In such a culture, we can therefore expect that all of those elected have deals with the Establishment.

      5. It scares off good candidates and policies for the next election. It's the Candidates, not Voters, who need to be doing the election strategizing, and voting for the candidate for the best policies is what supports the nourishment of new initiatves and gradual betterment of our voting options over the long (multi-election) therm. Even if Candidaets don't win an election, the proportion of votes they received helps parties and future Candidates judge what to offer Voters in the future. If Candidates and prospective Candidaetes see, for example, no votes going to superior policies in the current election, then they have reason to be discouraged from promoting those policies in the next election. For example, if a truly pro-life Candidate runs in the election, and receives no vote except their own, because pro-life Voters didn't see that Candidate as popular enough to vote for, then future Candidates could interpret a truly pro-life platform as being political suicide and not offer that in the future. Consider an analogy with organic produce at the grocery store: if a grocer typically offering conventional food decides to experiment with one type of organic produce, and no one buys it, for any reason, they usually never offer organic food again.

    2. Majority Moral Whitewashing. The ultimate premise of the representative democratic system is that majority will is the only ultimate moral standard, even that what the marjority wants cannot be wrong. Representative democracy systems typically fail to set any moral limits to voter choice, such that voters can approve literally any proposal, and once they approve it, it's considered right by definition, even if it was illegal under the same system before. For example, in Canada, abortion and marijuana use not only went from illegal to legal, but went simultaneously from being popularly seen as morally wrong to morally right. This whitewashing of majority-approved evil happened again in the 2021 Canadian federal election, where the majority (of COVID-19 vaccinated people) voted support for a clear policy to mandate COVID-19 vaccines on the minority who refused them. Other examples of citizens voting immoral things:

      3. Any government system, including representative democracy, which does not prevent moral atrocities from being approved, or even recognized, so long as they are popular, is ultimately just as dangerous as any other type of governance. Put another way, although presumably the reason dictatorship is hated is that moral atrocities are easily approved and implemented under sthat system, but this flaw exists in representative democracies also: the only difference is the time it takes to build sufficient support, not the destination.

    3. Borrowing at a cost to future generations

    4. Failure to examine all the options before making a decision. Knowing all of the options is the minimum requirement to making a proper decision, and no one would like a decision made where they offered an option which wasn't even looked at, but unfortunately it takes effort, and voters have no immediate incentive to invest that effort. Too many voters seem to just decide based on two or three names in the mainstream news, and one or two campaign promises, without any more investigation than that.

      That's not a fair way to decide such important things. Voters have a duty to find all the candidates listed by the election authority (not merely those listed by mainstream news), and compare and contrast the the policy platforms of each candidate, before making a decision. Otherwise it's an uninformed decision and a failure of the democratic assumption that whoever offers the best policy ideas will be elected. In practice, those offers are too often not even read.

    5. Voting based on Loyalty (Tribalism). This is a major problem with democracy, where voters believe that morality lies with loyalty of support to one particular candidate or party, rather than immediately changing to whicever candidate offers the best ideas at the time. Failure to switch when better ideas are offered works against the evolution of our society, which depends not on time somuch as this need to insist on taking better options as soon as they are available without the false virtue of loyalty to people.

    6. Willingness to Vote for 'the Least Evil' Option. Beliving that they must vote for the options presented on the ballot, or worse, one of the optiosn presented on mainstream news, voters who can't find any candidate with compatible views on an issue the voter cares about will usually vote for whichever candidate appears the lesser harm. In other words, if they recognize all candidates as evil, according to their own moral judgment system, they will vote for the one who seems the least evil, on an argument of forced choice.

      Unfortunately, if you vote for what you recognize as evil, even if it is the least evil, you are guilty of approving what you understand to be evil, and there's a moral responsiblitiy for that. It would be better you didn't vote at all or wrote the name of your God on the ballot instead of choosing evil for yourself and your society.

    7. Reckless Voter Ignorance:

      Sometimes voters have a strong and voting opinion on an issue without bothering to fully understand that issue, as though it's ont worth their time, even when that issue is life or death for someone else. Examples:

      Unfortunately our democratic culture today has been to strongly encourage people to vote, but not to encourage them to understand the issues they vote on. It's so bad that the right to choose is touted far above any sense of responsibilty for making a wise and informed choice.

      A majority of ignorant voters can politically overpower a minority of knowledgeable voters on any topic and consistently mislead the country in ruinous courses of action.

      For example, in the COVID-19 crisis, it seemed like everyone had a strong opinion about lockdowns, social distancing, masks, and vaccines: strong enough to enforce these measures to the point of mandating them, or harassing strangers, or snitching on their own neighbours, and damanding many human rights suspensions to enforce them. If they bothered to understand the topic, they would have known that all of these measures were impossible to help: for example, a surgical mask or 6 foot distancing are no protection against a virus which is admitted by the WHO to be airborne.

    8. Voters Not Voting at All: This allows the Government to be selected without a complete mandate of all the people, and they don't seem to mind. This is foolish as it means you consent to literally anyone ruling you anyhow. It is also a complete failure of electorate duty and democratic assumption that people don't want to vote. As a recent example, in the Ontario, Canada June 2022 election, only approximately 43% of eligible voters voted (article: Voter turnout in Ontario lowest in history, early data from Elections Ontario shows.

    9. Emotionally-Based Voter Decisions: It's become popular to vote based on emotional reasons, especially individual attributes of the candidate, rather than on mental reasons such as policies. In particular, it seems that many people would rather elect a charismatic leader than a wise leader, ie. will refuse to vote for a leader with good policies they agree with if that leader doesn't present with a lot of strength, certainty, and energy. For example:

      • The motivational speaker Tony Robbins criticized Al Gore for not using emotion enough in his speeches, alleging that if he had used emotion he would have won the elction (video here, see from 4:55 time). Assuming for a moment that Al Gore's climate message was accurate, if he offered an election policy platform vital to save the planet, was a lack of passion in his speech a good reason not to vote for and therefore empower him to carry out the planet-saving agenda? No, it was a foolish reason to turn the man down, but it's considered to be a wise reason to never vote for weakness no matter what else.

      • Many people voted for Bill Clinton because he showed he could play the saxaphone during his election campaign. As fun as that is, that judgment fails to match the skills of the candidate to the position applied for. For one thing, the President of the United States is the sole commander-in-chief of what was the most powerful military in the world, including many nuclear weapons deployable on a word. It was of most vital importance that the position be held by someone who can discern truth correctly and make wise strategic and tactical decisions quickly. If you would't hire a computer programmer because of how well he or she plays the saxaphone, you shouldn't do it for the office of President: the presidency is an intellectual, decision-making kind of job. It would have been wiser to elect a great chess player for the job than someone who is quick at pushing buttons (of which a saxaphone has many).

      Likely that's also what Hitler used to get elected, passion in his voice being considered more important than the morality of what he was saying, and maybe the only reason the German people regretted it was because they lost the war and losing is weak. Otherwise, to judge emotionally, might seems right. But it's not right.

      How important a problem is this? It's critical. To improve as a society, we need the people with the best policies to be elected into authority to implement those policies, not the people with the best air or most passionate speech (the speeches are usually written by professional speechwriters anyway). Furthermore, since most humans are not strong in every way at the same time, the intellectuals with the best ideas are not likely to be the athletes or musicians with the best body or charisma. As long as we elect leaders emotionally, it will NEVER happen that the person with the best ideas gets into power except by accident.

    10. Voting for Most Popular Candidates Only out of Fear of Wasting your Vote.

      An illogical but common attitude of voters is that they don't want their vote to be 'wasted' or that their one vote won't make any significant difference. Mathematically, in one person compared to the election this is usually true, but it's a failure of duty on an individual level, a failure of democractic assumption on a social level, and if that attitude is adopted by more than one person, it becomes a phenomenon of great significance to determining the election outcome.

      One consequence of this is that new parties, not favoured by the Establishment or their news agencies, who seem to have no realistic chance of winning the election, tend to get far less votes than their policy proposals deserve because proud voters don't want their vote to be 'wasted'. They don't seem to mind the trouble and cost these candidates are going to to even offer the option, or feel an duty to support the best options. This habit tends to keep established parties in power, no matter how poor their policies are, because voters believe that any other options, though they are offered, don't have 'a chance' to vote for them and don't want to be part of losing

    11. Failure to Prioritise Morality as a Criteria in Candidate Selection: Some voters don't see a need to prioritise or even notice morality of politicians and policies except to complain to each other about it if they personally feel wronged by them (everyone understands morality when they are wronged). It's an unfortunate attitude, because morality is of eternal importance: certainly the most important criteria for determining the most long term results.

      When the Public does recognize morality, it tends to focus on sensational issues (such as a sex scandal) rather than issues related to the post of guiding the nation (such as attitudes on medical freedom).

      In particular, tyranny should be recognized and never re-elected, as a tyrant in one issue, tends to be a tyrant in all issues. For example, whereas Ontario (Canada) Premier Doug Ford was re-elected in June 2022 despite previously instituting some of the longest and harshest COVID-19 lockdowns in North America, and instituting proof of vaccination requirements and creating a 2-tier society despite a public promise he would not, teachers unions seem unjustifiably surprised that he would, in his second term, invoke a rarely used clause to override human rights to declare any teachers strike illegal before it even happened (example article Oct 31, 2022: Ontario is using the notwithstanding clause to stop a school strike. Here's what it is and how it works).

Conclusions on Representative Democracy:

Respresentative democracy, although better than some other forms of governmans (like communism), is far from reliable to preserve human morality and freedomsor otherwise achieving what is good, and to be so satisfied with such a system as perfection prevents us from reaching further upwards towards better forms of democracy. It's cardinal flaws are:

  1. No direct decision of the People on what the laws are unless the politicians decide to offer one (rarely). Once in power, Governments pass whatever laws they want, without anyrequirement for consent from the People beyond electing them, no matter how radical those laws are, or even if they are opposite to what they promised those who elected them. It is typically very rare that we are permitted a referendum to decide yes or no on anything directly, and even then there are ways for Governments to circumvent the spirit of the results if they don't like them. Since referendums are typically voluntary for Governments to offer, ultimate it still means that the Government is in control of policy decisions but they, not the People, can decide to open up some decisions to the Public if and when they want to.

  2. No moral limits as to what Governments may make a law.

  3. No obligation for election candidates to offer voters what they want.

  4. No obligation for elected representatives to do what they promised.

  5. No obligation for elected representatives to respond to constituent wishes or correspondence.

  6. Vulnerability to Capturing by Bribery and Infiltration of Positions of Influence

  7. Vulnerability to Capturing by Mind Control of the Majority

On the one hand, except for referendums, representative democracy is merely being given an opportunity to consent to rule by a temporary dictator who isn't even obligated to do anything they promise voters. Choice does not necessarily mean freedom.

On the other hand, respresentative democracy is an oppression of the minority of people who resist mind control by the majority of those who succumb to mind control. In other words, those who know something is wrong and want to do something about it face a continual pressure of a greater majority who thinks everything is right and doesn't want to hear different.

What is the purpose of providng society with representative democracy?

Since it actually operates more like temporary dictatorship than a rule of the people, the purpose seems to be to give people who are not permitted real political power an emotional feeling of real political power, so that they don't rebel.

Why not start your own political party?

Some might attempt to justify the frequent lack of ability for a citizen to effectively vote their will on certain issues, for reasons listed above, by saying that if you don't like it you can run for office yourself. Here are some problem with that thinking:

  • If you need to run for office just to be able to vote your opinion on an issue, it means that the political system has failed you as a voter.

  • Being a political leader might not be your talent or calling in life. For example, maybe you are a brilliant surgeon and should stay doing that.

  • You may have health or other physical reasons which prevent you.

  • There's usually a considerable cost of time and money to do this.

  • That option may not serve the timeframe which the issue requires.

Moreover, the dream of starting your own political party tends to get stifled at the media and funding level, because mainstream media tends not to cover unconventional parties (unless they grow enough to become a threat to the established parties, in which case the coverage tends to be negative). Without equal media coverage and campaign funding, you are at a tremendous disadvantage which most startups fail to overcome.

Suggestions for Improvements to Democracy:

  1. Upgrade to policy-direct democracy where policies on each issue, rather than merely candidates, are decided by voteers.

  2. Separate issues into separate votes, so that no one is forced to vote on issues they don't care about to vote on one they do, and no one is forced to vote against their wishes on some issues to vote for their wishes on others.

  3. Allow voters a way to decide what the issues are in the election, rather than candidates deciding this. Issue selection is more powerful than issue decision, and should be in the hands of voters not dictated to them.

  4. Allow voters a 'none of the above' option. There should be some way for voters to express that whoever decided the options for them decided wrong. Option selection is more powerful than option decision, and should be in the hands of voters not dictated to them.

  5. Limit Government secrecy from its citizens. In a democracy, where the People are in charge, the People need basic truths about the reality we live in and the plans and decsions and involvements of our Government. Only things which would mean direct threat to the Public's good if exposed, such as the exact position of our troops on a battlefield, should be concelaed from the Public: not fundamental facts of our reality, such as if ETs exist or even walk amongst us. For starters, our Government must not be permitted to bind the Public in contracts which the Public is not permitted to read (such as which happened during the COVID-19 crisis with vaccine manufacturers).

  6. As long as representative democracy remains, record election promises and compel elected representatives to keep them. Otherwise the democratic system is truly only a rotating dictatorship, with no reliable way for voters to influence policy.

  7. Prevent the majority from voting a cancellation or suspension of any human rights for any minority: group, opinion, or behaviour.

  8. Correct human rights legislation so that it does not include clauses permitting Government override.

  9. Prevent Government from awarding itself 'emergency powers' or arbirarily renewing them.

  10. Abolish political parties so that politicians workf or their constituents and no other master. Parties are only a means for the few to control the many. A non-party system would funtion far better to actually represent constituents, and the legislative house would be based on many minds in discussion instead of one mind in control.

  11. Ensure candidates are presented in equal amount to the Public mind. All news coverage must be an equal amount, rather than the News choosing who they will cover and thereby, to a great extent, who is or is not in the public mind.

  12. Institute term limits not only for elected politicians but for top employees at government ministries and agencies.

  13. Have some work attendance requirements for elected representatives.

What to Do:

  1. Take Voter Responsibility:

    1. At election time:

      1. To vote with understanding (of issues and candidates) each election. You are free to choose your own priority of issues, but it is irresoncible to vote for any platform or policy which you don’t understand.

      2. To research all sides of important issues based on evidence and diverse sources.

      3. To review all the options offered, according to the election authority (not the News), before making a decision. It is unfair and irresponsible prejudice to not look at each person or proposal before making your decision.

      4. To decide based on platform quality over loyalty to any candidate or party.

      5. To never vote for what you understand to be evil: not even if it is the lesser evil.

      6. If you have an opportunity to vote but there is no one worthy to vote for, make a protest vote. This is normally done by deliberately spoiling your ballot, such as by writing in the name of your diety as your selection and handing that in.

    2. At all times:

      1. Voice approval or objection to your political represenatative on any critical current issues.

      2. Keep an open ear without bias to information on issues which you will or may be voting on.

      3. Spread important evidence you have found with other voters on critical issues.

  2. Support Direct Democracy Initiatives or start one yourself! Examples include:

Back to Homepage

Flag Counter