What do you think of this fictional political ideology?

This is not an ideology that I would support. It's merely one that I think would be interesting to see develop. The POD that led to this was a much more widespread Shay's Rebellion that consisted not only of pissed off farmers but other groups frustrated with the early American government, like Revolutionary War veterans. I'm also thinking of making earlier attempts to tax the people, reminding many of them of the Crown and possibly a much earlier president of my father, George. Shay's Rebellion ends up engulfing one group after another, until an uprising occurs, carried out by many people end up being pissed off at a government that semingly doesn't listen to them.

They decide to do away with that problem with this ideology (let's call it a "plurocracy" for now). It's essentially absolute control by the majority opinion of the common people. No two-faced representatives. For bills proposed by national legislators (who consist only of senators) to be passed, they must have the highest public support out of all other options. There ia no judicial branch as something is legal as long as the majority says it is.

What I ask is if it's possible for a plurocracy to form in this circumstance and if it could function later. What I mean by functioning is the country being able to survive and not collapse. If it's a dystopian tyranny of the majority, it's still functioning. And what would happen if plurocracy was implented? Would it turn into a dystopia? Please consider social polarization, which is when a group of people with a similar opinion talk about it, they all end up having more radical views on the subject. This could severely effect wars and foreign relations.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please tell me. Thank you for answering.
 
So, rule by lynch mob? Yeah, that's gonna work out well... :rolleyes:

Yup. I want to see this develop just to see a schizophrenic version of the US where an idiotic majority keeps causing idiotic things to become legal/illegal. :D Its more of a psychological observation.
 
This is not an ideology that I would support. It's merely one that I think would be interesting to see develop. The POD that led to this was a much more widespread Shay's Rebellion that consisted not only of pissed off farmers but other groups frustrated with the early American government, like Revolutionary War veterans. I'm also thinking of making earlier attempts to tax the people, reminding many of them of the Crown and possibly a much earlier president of my father, George. Shay's Rebellion ends up engulfing one group after another, until an uprising occurs, carried out by many people end up being pissed off at a government that semingly doesn't listen to them.

They decide to do away with that problem with this ideology (let's call it a "plurocracy" for now). It's essentially absolute control by the majority opinion of the common people. No two-faced representatives. For bills proposed by national legislators (who consist only of senators) to be passed, they must have the highest public support out of all other options. There ia no judicial branch as something is legal as long as the majority says it is.

What I ask is if it's possible for a plurocracy to form in this circumstance and if it could function later. What I mean by functioning is the country being able to survive and not collapse. If it's a dystopian tyranny of the majority, it's still functioning. And what would happen if plurocracy was implented? Would it turn into a dystopia? Please consider social polarization, which is when a group of people with a similar opinion talk about it, they all end up having more radical views on the subject. This could severely effect wars and foreign relations.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please tell me. Thank you for answering.

"Fictional" political ideology? I'm pretty sure that this sort of idea has been proposed plenty of times. Given that such experiments in radical democracy generally end up in massive death-counts and tyrannies of the majority, I'd imagine that the same would happen in America.

Incidentally, I was wondering if you'd mind expanding a bit on the part about how "[f]or bills proposed by national legislators (who consist only of senators) to be passed, they must have the highest public support out of all other options"? I find the idea of an America governed by radical democracy rather interesting, although the size of the country might make it impractical to implement.
 
Is it just me or does this sound a bit like Athenian democracy? Because I've heard a lot of crazy and unwise things were down because a majority of citizens just felt like it or became paranoid of tyrants.
 
Is it just me or does this sound a bit like Athenian democracy? Because I've heard a lot of crazy and unwise things were down because a majority of citizens just felt like it or became paranoid of tyrants.

Athenian democracy had something resembling an independent judiciary, though. It was not supposed to be just mob rule, although the (often highly unsympathetic) sources we have tend to depict it that way. It is true, however, that it came fairly close at times.
By the way, my understanding is that Ancient Greek notion of "democracy" was more about social equality than procedural institutional workings, most notably in Aristophanes' use (which was certainly considered highly politically relevant both then and now).
The Ekklesiazousai are an extraordinary testament of the above.
 
Yup. I want to see this develop just to see a schizophrenic version of the US where an idiotic majority keeps causing idiotic things to become legal/illegal. :D Its more of a psychological observation.

This idea sounds like my first NationStates country (now long defunct) where people would do things like make tanks street-legal because people wanted a satisfying answer to road rage. :):p
 
If/when this gets to the 20th century, whoever controls the means of advertising, and therefore the levers of opinion, will have a massive hold over this society. Print media first, then radio and television... the business magnates able to manipulate the people like this will find themselves able to bend will to their own way pretty well. Your 'plurocracy' will become a 'plutocracy'!

Oh wait... < looks at Rupert Murdoch > :(
 
Athenian democracy had something resembling an independent judiciary, though. It was not supposed to be just mob rule, although the (often highly unsympathetic) sources we have tend to depict it that way. It is true, however, that it came fairly close at times.
By the way, my understanding is that Ancient Greek notion of "democracy" was more about social equality than procedural institutional workings, most notably in Aristophanes' use (which was certainly considered highly politically relevant both then and now).
The Ekklesiazousai are an extraordinary testament of the above.

The Athenians had a different understanding of the concept of citizenship than we do, but even so the Athenian conception of democracy was based on participation. It was assumed that every Athenian citizen would sit in the Assembly at some point in their lives and the Athenians' entire society was built around that understanding. The concept of Plurocracy, theoretically, could work the same way. The question is how well would such a system in a country with a population of 350 million people.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Athenians had a different understanding of the concept of citizenship than we do, but even so the Athenian conception of democracy was based on participation. It was assumed that every Athenian citizen would sit in the Assembly at some point in their lives and the Athenians' entire society was built around that understanding. The concept of Plurocracy, theoretically, could work the same way. The question is how well would such a system in a country with a population of 350 million people.
I'm thinking:

Early on, loose federation. Yearly "big meetings" where anyone who can travels to attend, local issues decided by local "little" or "medium" meetings, and lots of vote counting.
As quick communication comes in, the big meetings become more electronically mediated. (Possibly heliographs and semaphores are an interim step).
In the modern day, electronic voting. Lots of it. Huge amounts of it. Where the majority opinion on a given issue once a plurality have voted on it becomes law (or thresholds applied as appropriate).
 
The Athenians had a different understanding of the concept of citizenship than we do, but even so the Athenian conception of democracy was based on participation. It was assumed that every Athenian citizen would sit in the Assembly at some point in their lives and the Athenians' entire society was built around that understanding. The concept of Plurocracy, theoretically, could work the same way. The question is how well would such a system in a country with a population of 350 million people.

Interestingly, for a fairly long time people in Athens were paid to sit in the assembly... I agree about participation, it was a critical concept.
 
I'm thinking:

Early on, loose federation. Yearly "big meetings" where anyone who can travels to attend, local issues decided by local "little" or "medium" meetings, and lots of vote counting.
As quick communication comes in, the big meetings become more electronically mediated. (Possibly heliographs and semaphores are an interim step).
In the modern day, electronic voting. Lots of it. Huge amounts of it. Where the majority opinion on a given issue once a plurality have voted on it becomes law (or thresholds applied as appropriate).

So, basically Switzerland? :D
 
Top