Democracy isn't desirable. Mob rule is a terrible system of government. Democracy != voting; Democracy != freedom.
Really? And who said democracy == mob rule?
Mob is a weasel term, to imply "people when take decisions as a group are inherently bad".
Well, people taking decisions as a whole has been quite nice when it happened and while it lasted (or was allowed to last). I'm thinking the Athenian Democracy, various communes, etc.
And it's not like any other system of government is better. Besides true democracy, everything else is tyranny, including representational democracy. Democracy means "the people should be governed exactly how the majority of them likes to". No bait and switch representation, no BS.
Careful: democracy is not about majority, but rather (literally) "government by the people"; there is quite a difference. There are various types of "majority", and all of them fail at fully representing "the people" as a whole, unless it's a 100% majority where nobody abstains (and even then, one would have to argue about who was allowed to vote and how).
This is why any robust democratic system will have, on some subjects, "qualified" majorities (where the threshold is set much higher than 51%, or abstained votes are counted against, etc etc) or "relative" majorities (where the most popular option wins, even when it doesn't represent at least 50% of the votes) as well as the "simple" majority (usually 50% + 1 or 51% of the expressed votes). They're different ways of really interpreting "the will of the people" on different subjects. A proper democratic system recognises the importance of respecting minorities and the volatility (and gullibility) of popular sentiment, and safeguards itself against wrong decisions. Many fascist governments were democratically elected and survived re-election, but they were not democratic in nature.
If the majority of synapses in your brain should decide tomorrow that shooting yourself in the foot is a good idea, despite "a small but vocal minority opposed to the plan" (i.e. your foot), that doesn't mean that it'd be in your real interest to do so.
Athenian democracy was subject to bouts of mob rule - note the treasurer incidents. Courts were barbaric, and really amounted to popularity votes as jurors had little legal oversight. At the assembly level, for their credit, the criteria for citizenship required military training and voting for war generally meant you had to actually do the fighting - hence the level of peace.
Mobs form when there is no responsibility for their vote or actions. That's why in unrestrained democracies, the mob majority can disenfranchise the minority so easily and quickly.
> Democracy means "the people should be governed exactly how the majority of them likes to". No bait and switch representation, no BS.
Direct democracy without constitutional checks is tyranny. The majority would just vote the minority into slavery. This is such an obvious consequence of what it seems you're advocating that I must be misunderstanding you.
Really? And who said democracy == mob rule?
Mob is a weasel term, to imply "people when take decisions as a group are inherently bad".
Well, people taking decisions as a whole has been quite nice when it happened and while it lasted (or was allowed to last). I'm thinking the Athenian Democracy, various communes, etc.
And it's not like any other system of government is better. Besides true democracy, everything else is tyranny, including representational democracy. Democracy means "the people should be governed exactly how the majority of them likes to". No bait and switch representation, no BS.