I think the emphasis here should be on “gave everyone equal say”. That is still not the case today. Consider that children, foreigners, and some mentally ill cannot vote.
Until a few decades ago it was also customary that women can’t vote.
I think it’s not a difficult concept to come up with to collect all the people you know in a group and make decisions that way. Lots of societies historically did it that way. I’m pretty sure the germans had their Thing which is just a general assembly for general purposes (including making law). The main difference is that they only included people in the decision-making process who they thought were able to make good, meaningful decisions. Meanwhile today we include everyone in the process.
Meanwhile today we include everyone in the process.
Sometimes. It depends on if the vote is for something in particular, or if it’s a vote for someone to act as a representative. The first is more democratic, the latter is less so, especially if that person ends up not actually representing well.
Then there is the issue of whether or not “everyone” is truly included in either of these.
Whatever country you are, you get half candidates saying they’re right wing and half saying left wing, when in fact they’re all friends with themselves and underlings to capital and lobbying.
The kind of people who always gets what they want out of elections is corporations, because they bet on both sides.
I think the emphasis here should be on “gave everyone equal say”. That is still not the case today. Consider that children, foreigners, and some mentally ill cannot vote.
Until a few decades ago it was also customary that women can’t vote.
I think it’s not a difficult concept to come up with to collect all the people you know in a group and make decisions that way. Lots of societies historically did it that way. I’m pretty sure the germans had their Thing which is just a general assembly for general purposes (including making law). The main difference is that they only included people in the decision-making process who they thought were able to make good, meaningful decisions. Meanwhile today we include everyone in the process.
And some people with multiple personalities are only allowed to vote once, not once per voice living in their head.
It’s probably a good idea to not allow absolutely everybody to have a say. It may not even be the best idea to give everybody an equal say.
Sometimes. It depends on if the vote is for something in particular, or if it’s a vote for someone to act as a representative. The first is more democratic, the latter is less so, especially if that person ends up not actually representing well.
Then there is the issue of whether or not “everyone” is truly included in either of these.
Yeh but not with equally weights.
Whatever country you are, you get half candidates saying they’re right wing and half saying left wing, when in fact they’re all friends with themselves and underlings to capital and lobbying.
The kind of people who always gets what they want out of elections is corporations, because they bet on both sides.