I see any form of government that is based on voting impossible until we can show we can have a legitimate, publicly verifiable election. I haven't seen one across the globe as far as I can see.
If you read Aristotle's politics book it philosophically from the ground up describes the need for government before it begins to get into the forms of government that solve these needs, how they do it and their pros and cons otherwise. If you read the book, all these needs lead to the types of government you see today. The only problem is, the problems that they so clearly and obviously and nescessitatedly solved back then. Do not need solved today.
We don't even need government for 80% of it's original intended purpose anymore. We really need to sit down and rethink our need for government, what it was then when our current forms were made, rethink our needs now and decide what potentially whole new invention solves the problems we need government for now.
We could have, by far, an even MORE limited government than before. One that has even BETTER securities against tyranny and protection of liberties and rights.
At this point, I can't see how any form of government that allows the masses to vote could work at all. The masses are too gullible, controllable and too easily swayed. Maybe having certain requirements to vote like the U.S. used back when it was started could still work, but I don't know. Lately I've been thinking democracies and republics are too easily subverted and hard to remove if needed. At least with a monarchy, a leader can be removed quicker and "easier," especially if the populace is armed.
(post is archived)