[tensor]

I wouldn't say that elections have little to do with democracy, they are necessary. Though I agree that merely having an election isn't sufficient. A lot of modern dictatorships have "elections". And that's not to even begin to get in to how representation works.

[9rx]

> I wouldn't say that elections have little to do with democracy, they are necessary.

Elections are a useful tool, but not strictly necessary. Obviously in the small scale the people in a democracy can simply communicate directly. As things scale up you do need to, for all practical purposes, introduce a messenger[1] to carry what the people at the local level have decided upon, to compile with all the other local levels. But that does not require elections either, only trust that the message will be delivered accurately and in good faith. Elections are a really good way to select who you trust, which is why it is the norm in a representative democracy, but if in some hypothetical world where someone naturally became trusted by the people and became the messenger out of simple happenstance, that would be just as democratic. The only signifiant feature of a democracy is that the people hold control[2].

[1] Now that you no longer need to travel thousands of miles to talk to another person it is questionable how necessary that remains. However, we've never successfully developed a trust model without face-to-face interaction. As such, we willingly retain a trusted messenger to offer the face-to-face presence.

[2] Which is why the USA is oft said to not be a democracy. Few people in the USA actually get involved in democracy, which then makes it look like a small group hold control over everyone else. However, there is nothing to suggest that anyone is prevented from getting involved if they want to. Choosing to not participate is quite different from not being able to participate. And thus it is rightfully still considered a democracy.