Lots of things are democratically run, something many participants take pride in. I am one of those people, but I also feel that democracy is far from perfect.
Take the class officer election at IHS. Anyone can run, and will end up with responsibilities, but everyone knows the election is really just a popularity contest. You could say that this is because the voters are students going through puberty, but similar things have happened in the USA’s democracy, whose voters have to be at least 18. For example, the 2016 election of Trump was partly caused by the fact that many people were getting disinformation about many things, to the point where it’s almost like some people were living in a different universe.
In both cases, democracy seems to be putting power in the hands of the people, but the real power belongs to the people with the most influence over others, whether they’re the most popular in social groups, or have a big enough stage to convince people of things that aren’t true. The thing is, these are still important decisions that will affect everyone, so they need to be made by people thinking about the consequences. If people are voting based on misinformation or bias, it could be bad.
I do support giving the people power, but what if the people had to work together to figure out how to use that power, rather than each person making their own vote based on the information and biases that they had? The main problem with voting is that everyone has their own idea of what the best option is, but the logic behind some of these ideas is flawed. If everyone could explain their logic, and be willing to listen to others’, maybe everyone could agree on the option that would be best for the people.
To do this, a debate-based system could be used, as a debate provides the space for a respectful argument in which people are willing to actually consider what the other side is saying, and think critically. The system could consist of a bunch of small debates between people, or one large one between two groups. You may be thinking that not everyone would be willing to have an open mind, but this could be changed, especially if a third party were present to make sure people were being respectful. Of course, planning out this kind of system to deal with logistical issues would be hard, but I do feel that it’s possible.
Overall, if we could get it to work, this kind of system would be better than “majority rules,” as it would make sure everyone was educated when making important decisions, rooting out bias and misinformation. Instead of what a few people wanted others to believe or do, the focus would be on what was actually best for everyone. But like a democracy, everyone would still have an equal say.