Comment by tialaramex

Timothy Snyder would encapsulate this idea as "Democracy is not something you are, but something you do."

Which makes a lot of sense if you say the same thing about Christianity. Christian isn't something you are, Christianity is something you do.

Both have hallowed dogmas that are poorly understood by their followers, the constitution and the bible/teachings of jesus respectively.

> I think people get confused into thinking that democracy is about voting when it is should be about reducing prolonged concentrations of power

Voting is the definition and core mechanism of democracy: Government by the consent of the governed, to protect their rights, their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

What's bizarre is, probably in a place where you have the benefits of centuries of overwhelming success, your extreme attempts to redefine it.

cui bono?, other than dictators. What has worked better than democracy?

> if your culture does not support the concept of good "democratic" governance, and no one strives for the institutions and constitutions to support it, you might be better off with a benevolent dictator, for as long as they last before a not-so-benevolent one.

Which culture? Democracy has been an incredible success all over the world - unprecedented success in history in most places it's taken hold.

Yours are the old propaganda of dictators - our 'culture', that undefined nonsense people cite for their prejudices, isn't compatible. The question is, why do you take up their cause?

They also love that you are sitting on the sidelines distracted, criticizing, rather than acting as a democratic citizen.

Democracy and elections are not opinion polls. It's a distribution of political power.

> Can you name a monarchy that is nearly as free, safe, and prosperous as advanced democracies?

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom.

Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

Liechtenstein and Monaco.

You're offering two choices which prove the point that electing is a poor way to fill a post.

"popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought.

I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above?

The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x.

Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.

If you ask five people who can't speak French to tell me which French-language essay deserves a higher grade, you'll quickly discover that their merit-finding abilities are a coin flip.

The whole purpose of elections is tangential to merit. There's important reasons to have them, but finding the 'best' candidate isn't one of them.

It's the whole theological foundation of northern european and american protestantism = being rich means good loves you, so you're a good person.

How they got there from jesus saying rich people can't go to heaven is one of those theological acrobacies they criticise so much in catholics, but don't disregard doing themselves when suits them.