• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Democracy Blocking America's Ability To Solve It's Problems?

Rate the level of interference Democracy has in Americans ability to solve problems:

  • one (no interference)

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • two

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • three

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • four

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • five

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • six

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • seven

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • eight

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • nine

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • ten (Total Interference)

    Votes: 3 10.7%

  • Total voters
    28
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
117
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
American is in a lot of trouble economically right now and Democracy may actually be the barrier to getting things back on track.

Based upon how you see America's situation, on scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate Democracy being an interference with America's ability to get back on track, where 1 means Democracy has absolutely no interference with solving the problems, 10 means it interferes absolutely with problem solving.
 
Last edited:
I don't see democracy as the problem at all. I see the combination of these three things, rational ignorance, rational irrationality and the ability of artificial persons to lobby our govt, as the problem. It's not so much democracy as it is the system by which we implement it.
 
I think the only issue is a lack of term limits. The possibility of life-time membership in a control center for the entire country means that politicians spend as much time campaigning as actually working. Limit them to two terms or one term or whatever and maybe they'll do a bit more working during their time in office.
 
Democracy isn't the problem.

Refusal to demand that elected officials obey the Constitution and the ignorance of the electorate about the Constituitons are the two key problems.
 
I don't see democracy as the problem at all. I see the combination of these three things, rational ignorance, rational irrationality and the ability of artificial persons to lobby our govt, as the problem. It's not so much democracy as it is the system by which we implement it.

How much influence should an ignorant person have? Do you think giving experts more power in decision making would would help with the problem of rational ignorance and rational irrationality? For example, under the present voting system, a voter who has no proven intelligence in given area has the same influence with their vote as one who is studied the issue for years. Also, would the same approach help electorates Mayor Snorkum?

It sounds like you are saying that lobbying may has too much potential influence available to them. Would it effective to limit the influence of lobbyists interests relative to the interests of the nation? For example, some legislation is merely moral preference. Why should one person dictate the morals of another, where those actions are moral in nature only and the disagreed upon behavior causes no significant financial impact upon the nation, but criminalizing them does have a negative financial impact in comparison.
 
I think the only issue is a lack of term limits. The possibility of life-time membership in a control center for the entire country means that politicians spend as much time campaigning as actually working. Limit them to two terms or one term or whatever and maybe they'll do a bit more working during their time in office.

Many problems our nation faces could span more than one term to fix and may need a specific candidate that could provide that specialty. I am not an expert, possibly most issues can be fixed in one term. Not sure. But, if Democracy is not the problem and terms limits is, then wouldn't it make more sense for the most popular stands on issues determine the politician's job vs. the politician having too much freedom over America's agenda. Perhaps, campaigning would be unnecessary if the people's agenda was clear. Perhaps we could have two elections, one to set the major issues on the agenda and their relative priority, then pick the candidate who convinces us they will handle that job.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure if Democracy is the problem. I do think however there is a small bit of truth to this quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
 
Many problems our nation faces could span more than one term to fix and may need a specific candidate that could provide that specialty. I am not an expert, possibly most issues can be fixed in one term. Not sure. But, if Democracy is not the problem and terms limits is, then wouldn't it make more sense for the most popular stands on issues determine the politician's job vs. the politician having too much freedom over America's agenda. Perhaps, campaigning would be unnecessary if the people's agenda was clear. Perhaps we could have two elections, one to set the major issues on the agenda and their relative priority, then pick the candidate who convinces us they will handle that job.

Two elections might be better than just electing people. It's partly the fault of the people, and in that sense it's almost like protecting them from themselves. We'll keep voting the same guy into office even when he votes against our interests, simply because of the "R" or "D" next to his name (FYI, I use "we" in the general sense). The other problem I have is this acceptance we've developed for political timelines. In the last week I've seen a variation of the statement, "They won't do anything on that until after the 2012 election" at least 20 times. And most of the time it regards a significant, time-sensitive issue that has been put off time and time again.

Perhaps people will perform their duty with integrity if they know they won't be coming back next session regardless of their actions. Of course, they're equally as likely to go hog-wild abusing their authority because they won't be answering to the people, but hell...there's got to be a better way. I don't want a President who goes on compaign and fundraiser trips in March of 2011 when we still don't have a fiscal year budget or a spending plan to reduce our deficit/debt (not targeting Obama alone, I know most politicians do it..he's just an easy example). But the current nature of politics encourages our representatives to walk away from the table in order to go sell themselves. Hell, remember the big deal with McCain "suspending his campaign" to go back to DC during the TARP debate? His and Obama's #1 job should have been in DC at that time, but instead they're stumping. Announcing that they planned to return and do their jobs was kind of a slap in the face.
 
I'm not really sure if Democracy is the problem. I do think however there is a small bit of truth to this quote:

Is the 'bit of truth' that the natural progression of a Democracy end days arrive with 'lousy fiscal policy', and a dictatorship is imminent. If so, would you say the dictatorship is neccessary for survival or is it just a horrible result where success is just a roll of the dice from that point?
 
American is in a lot of trouble economically right now and Democracy may actually be the barrier to getting things back on track.

Based upon how you see America's situation, on scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate Democracy being an interference with America's ability to get back on track, where 1 means Democracy has absolutely no interference with solving the problems, 10 means it interferes absolutely with problem solving.

Any time there's a crisis, democracy gets in the way of quick solutions. That's the price one pays for living in a free country.
 
Democracy is not so much the problem as partisanship and money, which get in the way of democracy. That and the nitwit voters who have no idea what the issues are, but vote the way the campaign commercials (paid for by that money that gets in the way) or their party tells them to.
 
If they have all the time they want, they many not finish the things they had a responsibility to finish. If we tell them they run multiple terms, we may loose out on some talent and expertise. If we tell them they can't campaign at all, but may be eligible for multiple terms, they may not be able to defend themselves against rivals or sell us on strategies for signficant developing issues. Do you think to limit their campaign time would be enough to create a balance?
 
I think the only issue is a lack of term limits. The possibility of life-time membership in a control center for the entire country means that politicians spend as much time campaigning as actually working. Limit them to two terms or one term or whatever and maybe they'll do a bit more working during their time in office.

I support term limits only for executive branches (the President, a governorship, etc.) but with regards to the legislature I support age limits instead.

I think having people elected multiple times to a position can be a good thing sometimes as it promotes stability and also allows politicians to gain experience in how laws and government policies affect our country. On the other hand I think that politicians who become too old get out of touch with the median mood of our country.
 
American is in a lot of trouble economically right now and Democracy may actually be the barrier to getting things back on track.

Based upon how you see America's situation, on scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate Democracy being an interference with America's ability to get back on track, where 1 means Democracy has absolutely no interference with solving the problems, 10 means it interferes absolutely with problem solving.


We are nation with differing ideologies. Since we have a representative type goverment that is reflected in our policies. We the people call the shots. If you want to change govenment policies, you have to influence public opinion. Far from perfect, but one that I support over the alternative, a dictatorship. :sun
 
Far from perfect, but one that I support over the alternative, a dictatorship. :sun

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest."
- Winston Churchill
 
No. I would say the electorial process is more than democracy itself.
 
I support term limits only for executive branches (the President, a governorship, etc.) but with regards to the legislature I support age limits instead.

I think having people elected multiple times to a position can be a good thing sometimes as it promotes stability and also allows politicians to gain experience in how laws and government policies affect our country. On the other hand I think that politicians who become too old get out of touch with the median mood of our country.

but what should be the age limit? Is it a number, or does it depend on the physical and mental condition of the candidate?
 
Democracy is not so much the problem as partisanship and money, which get in the way of democracy. That and the nitwit voters who have no idea what the issues are, but vote the way the campaign commercials (paid for by that money that gets in the way) or their party tells them to.
The USA citizens just don't seem to be very good at picking leaders.

Based on recent history, wouldn't the USA be better off with a monkey and a dartboard?

.
 
The USA citizens just don't seem to be very good at picking leaders.

Based on recent history, wouldn't the USA be better off with a monkey and a dartboard?

.

That depends on whose names were on the dartboard.
 
American is in a lot of trouble economically right now and Democracy may actually be the barrier to getting things back on track.

Based upon how you see America's situation, on scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate Democracy being an interference with America's ability to get back on track, where 1 means Democracy has absolutely no interference with solving the problems, 10 means it interferes absolutely with problem solving.



I've actually thought about this from time to time.

Sometimes, it seems that most people know what has to be done. Currently 1/3 of our budget is debt, and our total debt is exceeding our GDP. We are experiencing serious problems with our overseas creditors over this, as well as our trade balance and so forth. The situation could become critical if something isn't done soon.

There's little debate that these are facts. Everyone knows there's two things you can do in this situation; cut spending or raise taxes, or both.

The economy is already so weak and damaged that raising taxes probably wouldn't be good. Drastic spending cuts are what is needed now. This is no secret; probably almost every politician in DC knows it.

The problem is that DOING it isn't "politically feasible". Cut someone's pet project, some town's military base, some person's government check, and they probably won't vote for you next election or send you money to campaign on. Politicians mostly want to get re-elected, so they dither, stall, pass the buck, and hide their heads in the sand... at best.

I learned a long time ago that coming up with a solution to a problem that would work is not so hard... anyone with a good brain can do it for many issues. Implementing that solution within the political structure that exists is what is often impossible.

Democracy usually means that most bills (theoretically, solutions to problems) will be compromises. That is, where someone took a workable plan and watered it down and sprinkled it with pork and confusion.

It is frustrating sometimes... but I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.
 
Democracy usually means that most bills (theoretically, solutions to problems) will be compromises. That is, where someone took a workable plan and watered it down and sprinkled it with pork and confusion.

It is frustrating sometimes... but I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

The problem with compromise on spending cuts is that the two parties so far have wanted to compromise on 0.1% cut vs 0.2% cut. No one is willing to talk about real cuts.
 
The USA citizens just don't seem to be very good at picking leaders.

Which country's citizens would you prefer to pick our leaders?
 
The problem with compromise on spending cuts is that the two parties so far have wanted to compromise on 0.1% cut vs 0.2% cut. No one is willing to talk about real cuts.


True. It is very disheartening, when we ought to be talking 10-20% across the board, closing "duplicate" bureaus and "no results for 20 years" programs, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom