The debate "Greater the area weaker the democracy" was started by
August 4, 2019, 12:53 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Eurah posted 2 arguments, RoyDierlijk posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Eurah, jrardin12, mwest0097, romeroa251, RoyDierlijk, itzmeboi and 7 visitors agree.
mtbtheboss, YEET and 4 visitors disagree.
I think size is a proxy for homogeneity. It's homogeneous cultures that are more suitable for democracies. But, larger populations are more vulnerable to incomplete information dissemination which can increase deviation between subcultures, but propoganda, closed borders, traditionalism or other things can resist those changes so it's not a perfect proxy.
the electoral college has nothing to do with republics. the existence of a Congress is what makes us a republic.
also the electoral college (people who vote for us) is different from the electoral system (of different point values for states). one can have different point values without electoral representatives.
Thats why America is not a democracy, we're a Democratic republic, hence then electoral college.
yeah....but the decision that makes a particular section happy may cause dissatisfaction to another percentage of pop. A good decision may not be "good" for all.
A federal system under a democracy could be a way out to this.
that is all correct, the time it takes to decide is shorter, and the process to reach those decisions is more effective... but that doesnt mean the decisions are good.
a larger population, a bigger debate, and more diverse opinions lead to slower, but better decisions.
time taken to make a decision increases and effectiveness of government decreases as population under control increases....particularly if the population is diverse
The lesser the area, the more prone to echo chambers the democracy becomes.