Do you vote? (poll)

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 2, 2012

Catawba said:
Do you think our Democracy would be made stronger or weaker by more participation by the public into making our Democracy work?

Honestly? I don't think it would make much of a difference either way.

Catawba · Jan 2, 2012

Viktyr Korimir said:
Honestly? I don't think it would make much of a difference either way.

I am glad everyone doesn't feel that way.

spud_meister · Jan 2, 2012

Viktyr Korimir said:
You're Asian, spud. Hell, your people can't even drive on the right side of the road.

Am not, Australia hasn't been connected to Asia since Pangea, and I'm not fond of Sushi. And I can drive on the right side of the road, I was the other night until I had to go back to the left lane to avoid a truck.

GPS_Flex · Jan 2, 2012

Catawba said:
"We the People"

In that case, weaker.

Tucker Case · Jan 2, 2012

Catawba said:
I believe that the more people that vote, the more representative is our government.

While the false dichotomy of the two-party system exists, our government will never be representative, no matter how many people vote.

Just look at the small sample here at DP. If you were breaking us up into "parties" you'd have a hell of a lot more than just two of them. And we are a relatively small community.

When you think about 230 million voting-aged people in the US, the idea that a simple two-party dichotomy can actually be representative of the people is a joke.

And then on top of that, the dichotomy is actually just two largely like-minded groups that only really differ in their views about fairly irrelevant nonsense or the exact way to go about engaging in the same general style of governance.

Tucker Case · Jan 2, 2012

Catawba said:
Show me a successful Democracy with an apathetic electorate?

Do you think the US is a successful democracy? If so, then you have your example. Our electorate is definitively apathetic. Even those who do vote, do so thinking that they are voting the lesser of two evils most of the time, which is pathetic.

If you do not consider the US a successful democracy, then I respond with "Show me a successful democracy" as you are deeming it. (I would personally consider Switzerland an example of a successful democracy, but they are one of the very few countries on the planet that has a truly representative democracy)

Catawba · Jan 2, 2012

Tucker Case said:
While the false dichotomy of the two-party system exists, our government will never be representative, no matter how many people vote.

Just look at the small sample here at DP. If you were breaking us up into "parties" you'd have a hell of a lot more than just two of them. And we are a relatively small community.

When you think about 230 million voting-aged people in the US, the idea that a simple two-party dichotomy can actually be representative of the people is a joke.

And then on top of that, the dichotomy is actually just two largely like-minded groups that only really differ in their views about fairly irrelevant nonsense or the exact way to go about engaging in the same general style of governance.

Tucker Case said:
Do you think the US is a successful democracy? If so, then you have your example. Our electorate is definitively apathetic. Even those who do vote, do so thinking that they are voting the lesser of two evils most of the time, which is pathetic.

If you do not consider the US a successful democracy, then I respond with "Show me a successful democracy" as you are deeming it. (I would personally consider Switzerland an example of a successful democracy, but they are one of the very few countries on the planet that has a truly representative democracy)

I can't come up with another country's system that I think is more representative than ours, and there is nothing I see that locks us in to just voting for two parties. What has not happened is for a third party to build enough support to be viable. Even when we get to that point, we will still be voting for the lesser evil among the three parties or 4 parties, or however many parties.

The only problem I see with our political system is the influence of corporate money, but that has nothing to do with our voting system.

Tucker Case · Jan 3, 2012

Catawba said:
I can't come up with another country's system that I think is more representative than ours

Then you have an example of a successful democracy with an apathetic electorate.

Although I'd say that Switzerland's system is far more representative than ours. By a country mile.

and there is nothing I see that locks us in to just voting for two parties.

We can vote otherwise, but it doesn't serve any purpose due to the fact that the false dichotomy has taken control of th esystem to the degree that it prevents any third party form being effective.

What has not happened is for a third party to build enough support to be viable.

Because the system is designed in a way that prevents it from ever happening. winner-take-all electoral college votes a meaningless popular vote, for example. People vote third party and then the guy they didn't want to win ends up winning (see Clinton winning due to Perot's presence the first go round and W winning because of Nader's presence.).

Then, despite the fact that these candidates probably had no bearing on the results in their state in any way, and their preferred candidate of the big two parties might even have won their state, they think that the vote that they cast for the third party guy is what caused their hated candidate to win the overall election.

The system appeals to American arrogance in order to maintain the two-party dichotomy. Americans like to pretend that they are important in the grand scheme of things, when they are probably only important in a very small region of influence. It's a rigged system though that gives the illusion of a representative democracy.

But many people don't vote because they understand the system is rigged.

Even when we get to that point, we will still be voting for the lesser evil among the three parties or 4 parties, or however many parties.

Which will be more representative.

The only problem I see with our political system is the influence of corporate money, but that has nothing to do with our voting system.

The system is designed in such a way that it promotes the influence of corporate money. The dogmatic party-line approach wouldn't be as viable in a system that does not maintain the dichotomy and illusion of representation.

grip · Jan 3, 2012

Tucker nailed it. It's a game of "smoke and mirrors", where the two parties focus on irrelevant issues that emote powerful knee jerk reactions. They create sides but have one underlying motivation, which is to gain a seat of power through corporate influence. You would have to remove the organizing impact that "soft money" has had on politics and legislating through lobby's to even begin to get back to a representative democracy. There's nothing wrong with big industry per se, except as groups they've had too powerful an impact on our system of governing. Decisions are not being made on what's best for society or people as a whole but rather what produces more 1/4 profits for the bottom line. The Tea Party will go the way of the Green Party into being absorbed and diffused without big sponsors.

Catawba · Jan 3, 2012

Tucker Case said:
Then you have an example of a successful democracy with an apathetic electorate.

If more were involved, it would be a more successful democracy IMO.

Although I'd say that Switzerland's system is far more representative than ours. By a country mile.

I wouldn't. I stay in contact with some folks that live in Switzerland who are constantly frustrated at how slow it is to get anything passed. Women weren't given the right to vote in Switzerland until 1971 on the federal level, and it was 1990 before the last canton was forced by federal court to allow women to vote.

We can vote otherwise, but it doesn't serve any purpose due to the fact that the false dichotomy has taken control of th esystem to the degree that it prevents any third party form being effective.

Because the system is designed in a way that prevents it from ever happening. winner-take-all electoral college votes a meaningless popular vote, for example. People vote third party and then the guy they didn't want to win ends up winning (see Clinton winning due to Perot's presence the first go round and W winning because of Nader's presence.).

Then, despite the fact that these candidates probably had no bearing on the results in their state in any way, and their preferred candidate of the big two parties might even have won their state, they think that the vote that they cast for the third party guy is what caused their hated candidate to win the overall election.

The system appeals to American arrogance in order to maintain the two-party dichotomy. Americans like to pretend that they are important in the grand scheme of things, when they are probably only important in a very small region of influence. It's a rigged system though that gives the illusion of a representative democracy.

But many people don't vote because they understand the system is rigged.

I think that is a cop out. If we had local and state governments filled by third party candidates, but they still couldn't get elected to national office, I might buy it.
What seems more realistic to me is that there has not been a strong grassroots effort for a particular third party because there hasn't been one yet that appeals to the majority of the country.

Which will be more representative.

You've still got to build the broad based support for a particular third party. That is the step that has been missing.

The system is designed in such a way that it promotes the influence of corporate money. The dogmatic party-line approach wouldn't be as viable in a system that does not maintain the dichotomy and illusion of representation.

What's your solution?

Tucker Case · Jan 9, 2012

Catawba said:
If more were involved, it would be a more successful democracy IMO.

You asked to be shown a successful democracy with an apathetic electorate. You were shown one, and by your standards it is a successful democracy despite having an apathetic electorate.

So what is your position, exactly? It seems to either be changing or, at the very least, it is extremely contradictory.

I wouldn't. I stay in contact with some folks that live in Switzerland who are constantly frustrated at how slow it is to get anything passed. Women weren't given the right to vote in Switzerland until 1971 on the federal level, and it was 1990 before the last canton was forced by federal court to allow women to vote.

Is it 1990?

How do you define "successful"? By what existed 20 or 40 years ago? If so, why?

Or do you judge it by the speed at which things get passed? If so, you don't really want a democracy, you want a dictatorship. They get things passed very quickly. Real democracy is, by it's very nature, a slow process.

I think that is a cop out.

Acknowledging the fact that your vote doesn't really matter in our system is a cop out? Why? It's not like there is any evidence contradicting the idea that your vote doesn't matter. Quite teh opposite, actually. there is an overwhelming amount of data available that shows that your vote doesn't really matter.

If we had local and state governments filled by third party candidates, but they still couldn't get elected to national office, I might buy it.

Why? Explain your reasoning.

What seems more realistic to me is that there has not been a strong grassroots effort for a particular third party because there hasn't been one yet that appeals to the majority of the country.

Riiiiight. That's why there is a prevailing belief is that you should vote for the "lesser of two evils" by those naive enough to think their vote actually matters.

You've still got to build the broad based support for a particular third party. That is the step that has been missing.

But doing that is impossible because the system (as it currently exists) prevents it from happening. Can a third party candidate participate in one of the televised debates these days? Ask around and you'll see that it is the predominant belief that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, regardless of what their views are. People think that for a reason, and it isn't because the idea of a third party is the problem.

What's your solution?

The first step would be to wake individuals up from their oblivion and get them to realize that the game is rigged.

I have little faith of that ever really happening, though, since the vast majority of people are, IMO, idiots who would rather believe a comforting lie than face a harsh truth. It doesn't matter how many times we see presidential elections won by the guy who lost the popular vote, or how many times the two parties swap positions on issues, nor how many of our rights are taken for the sake of safety, people want to believe the nonsense that we are a democracy. When people are willing participants in their own deception, no progress towards change is possible.

We are now a fully entrenched soundbite society. We are the ADD nation. Our attention can only focus for about 30 seconds before we are off chasing another dog with a fluffy tail.

Think of it this way, only in a society riddled with idiots could it be possible for people to actually believe that one's views about abortion, global warming, taxation practices, religion, gay marriage, and military interventionism should be related to each other.

But that's the reality of the US right now.

Catawba · Jan 9, 2012

Tucker Case said:
You asked to be shown a successful democracy with an apathetic electorate. You were shown one, and by your standards it is a successful democracy despite having an apathetic electorate.

So what is your position, exactly? It seems to either be changing or, at the very least, it is extremely contradictory.

My position is that it could be even more successful if it their were greater representation.

Is it 1990? How do you define "successful"? By what existed 20 or 40 years ago? If so, why?

Or do you judge it by the speed at which things get passed? If so, you don't really want a democracy, you want a dictatorship. They get things passed very quickly. Real democracy is, by it's very nature, a slow process.

Their government has not changed structure since then, it is still slow to act, which was the point. In my opinion 30 years is too long a period after legislation passes to get enacted. Our government for example is not that slow, yet we are not a dictatorship.

Acknowledging the fact that your vote doesn't really matter in our system is a cop out?

What I'm saying is the biggest reason third party candidates aren't being elected is because their views are more extreme than the majority of voters.

Riiiiight. That's why there is a prevailing belief is that you should vote for the "lesser of two evils" by those naive enough to think their vote actually matters.

Afraid you lost me, you want me to take my vote (which you say doesn't matter) and use it to vote for a party you would prefer?

But doing that is impossible because the system (as it currently exists) prevents it from happening. Can a third party candidate participate in one of the televised debates these days? Ask around and you'll see that it is the predominant belief that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, regardless of what their views are. People think that for a reason, and it isn't because the idea of a third party is the problem.

When third party candidates build enough support they get on the debates. Ross Perot comes to mind. The Libertarian Party is usually on the ballot in most every state, they just don't build must support because their views are so extreme.

The first step would be to wake individuals up from their oblivion and get them to realize that the game is rigged.

I would agree we need to get corporate money out of the process, and the Citizens United ruling is going to be very bad for politics.

I have little faith of that ever really happening, though, since the vast majority of people are, IMO, idiots who would rather believe a comforting lie than face a harsh truth. It doesn't matter how many times we see presidential elections won by the guy who lost the popular vote, or how many times the two parties swap positions on issues, nor how many of our rights are taken for the sake of safety, people want to believe the nonsense that we are a democracy. When people are willing participants in their own deception, no progress towards change is possible.

We are now a fully entrenched soundbite society. We are the ADD nation. Our attention can only focus for about 30 seconds before we are off chasing another dog with a fluffy tail.

Think of it this way, only in a society riddled with idiots could it be possible for people to actually believe that one's views about abortion, global warming, taxation practices, religion, gay marriage, and military interventionism should be related to each other.

But that's the reality of the US right now.

That has always been the reality. A representative government will only be as strong and smart as the people it elects from within them to represent them. If you want to change politics you have change people. The more evolved we become as a society, or not, so will be the case with our representative government.

Tucker Case · Jan 10, 2012

Catawba said:
My position is that it could be even more successful if it their were greater representation.

If you want greater representation, why are you supporting a system that prevents greater representation?

Their government has not changed structure since then, it is still slow to act, which was the point. In my opinion 30 years is too long a period after legislation passes to get enacted. Our government for example is not that slow, yet we are not a dictatorship.

So your entire definition of "successful democracy" is based on the speed at which it works?

Sounds contradictory to me. The more representative a democracy is, the slower it works. this is because a truly representative democracy will have many views represented. Our system works more quickly because it is not very representative or democratic.

Try this thought experiment:

Get 100 people different people together and try to get them to decide on the toppings for a single pizza. When you get at least 51 people to agree on toppings, you can order the pizza.

Then have the 100 vote for 10 of their number to represent them in the pizza topping decision making process. When 6 of those 10 representatives agree on toppings, the pizza can be ordered.

Now tell everybody that there are two pizza topping parties: The Hawaiian style pizza party and the Barbecue style pizza party and that they can vote for one of those two parties or abstain from voting altogether. When one of those choices has 51% of the vote, the pizza can be ordered.

The first group is the true democracy group. That is the most democratic and representative group, since each individual's views are represented. It would take about 30 years for a pizza to be ordered in that group.

The second group is the representative democracy group that has multiple parties. It will still take a while to order the pizza, because there are many different views being represented, but the compromise is going to be based on the representative views of the people involved.

The final group is basically a metaphor for our two-party system. A pizza will be picked fairly quickly, but chances are that people who dislike both options will not vote, and those who do vote will be voting for the option they prefer from the choices, even if they are not enamored with either choice. Sure, some people will actually love the option that they vote for and would have made that choice even in a direct democracy, but they'll be a very small minority. The people in this scenario are only superficially represented because the options have been artificially limited for the sake of expediency.

The point is: the more representative a democracy is, the less quickly it works. Speed is inversely proportional to degree of representation in a democracy. This is the nature of democracy.

If you define successful democracy by how quickly things get passed, then you must consider less representative democracies to be successful ones and more representative democracies to be unsuccessful ones.

Even more importantly, "successful democracies" (as defined by speed at which things get done) would have a more apathetic electorate than "unsuccessful" democracies would have (if we assume that apathy in the electorate is related to the degree of representation in the governmental process).

What I'm saying is the biggest reason third party candidates aren't being elected is because their views are more extreme than the majority of voters.

Two things:

1. Define extreme

2. A truly representative democracy wouldn't be based on the majority opinion (that's not really representative at all). Minority opinions would be represented because the idea of a representative democracy is to represent all of the views.

Afraid you lost me, you want me to take my vote (which you say doesn't matter) and use it to vote for a party you would prefer?

No, I'm saying that the prevailing view is that when one votes, one's only choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils. Hawaiian or Barbecue, rather than something you actually might want.

When third party candidates build enough support they get on the debates. Ross Perot comes to mind.

So why do we pretend to be representative when we only support the majority views?

The Libertarian Party is usually on the ballot in most every state, they just don't build must support because their views are so extreme.

So you believe that minority views don't deserve representation?

That has always been the reality.

To a degree, yes, but it is a snowballing effect. As time goes on, there are more people who fall prey to the problem

A representative government will only be as strong and smart as the people it elects from within them to represent them.

Are you changing your definition of a successful democracy to "strong and smart representatives" now?

If so, do you still consider the Us to be a successful democracy?

If you want to change politics you have change people. The more evolved we become as a society, or not, so will be the case with our representative government.

Of course, but when people would rather believe a comforting lie than a harsh truth, you won't be able to change their minds.

Baralis · Jan 10, 2012

Boo Radley said:
It's my duty as a citizen. Democracy requires participation.

(not necessarily meaning you)

I think this attitude is part of Americas problem. People believe that it is their duty to vote but stay largely ignorant of the candidates so basically vote blindly, many going party lines. I of course have no issue with people voting but I also believe that if you are going to vote and potentially change our country in a significant way that it is your duty to inform yourself prior to voting.

Catawba · Jan 10, 2012

Tucker Case said:
If you want greater representation, why are you supporting a system that prevents greater representation?

That is your presumption, not mine.

So your entire definition of "successful democracy" is based on the speed at which it works?

No, but clearly 30 years from legislation to enactment is far from ideal.

Sounds contradictory to me. The more representative a democracy is, the slower it works. this is because a truly representative democracy will have many views represented. Our system works more quickly because it is not very representative or democratic.

I am open to parties that are more liberal, I just don't see them gaining much ground in a country that is far to the right.

Try this thought experiment:

Get 100 people different people together and try to get them to decide on the toppings for a single pizza. When you get at least 51 people to agree on toppings, you can order the pizza.

Then have the 100 vote for 10 of their number to represent them in the pizza topping decision making process. When 6 of those 10 representatives agree on toppings, the pizza can be ordered.

Now tell everybody that there are two pizza topping parties: The Hawaiian style pizza party and the Barbecue style pizza party and that they can vote for one of those two parties or abstain from voting altogether. When one of those choices has 51% of the vote, the pizza can be ordered.

The first group is the true democracy group. That is the most democratic and representative group, since each individual's views are represented. It would take about 30 years for a pizza to be ordered in that group.

The second group is the representative democracy group that has multiple parties. It will still take a while to order the pizza, because there are many different views being represented, but the compromise is going to be based on the representative views of the people involved.

The final group is basically a metaphor for our two-party system. A pizza will be picked fairly quickly, but chances are that people who dislike both options will not vote, and those who do vote will be voting for the option they prefer from the choices, even if they are not enamored with either choice. Sure, some people will actually love the option that they vote for and would have made that choice even in a direct democracy, but they'll be a very small minority. The people in this scenario are only superficially represented because the options have been artificially limited for the sake of expediency.

The point is: the more representative a democracy is, the less quickly it works. Speed is inversely proportional to degree of representation in a democracy. This is the nature of democracy.

Democracy may have its faults but I prefer it to other systems.

If you define successful democracy by how quickly things get passed, then you must consider less representative democracies to be successful ones and more representative democracies to be unsuccessful ones.

Even more importantly, "successful democracies" (as defined by speed at which things get done) would have a more apathetic electorate than "unsuccessful" democracies would have (if we assume that apathy in the electorate is related to the degree of representation in the governmental process).

I don't define a successful democracy solely by not taking 30 years to reach a decision, I also define it by how well it represents the people it serves. Right now, our country consists of very right leaning aggressive people. We get the government we deserve. When society evolves, so will our government, as long as it is representative. It is our responsibility to make sure it stays representative.

Two things:

1. Define extreme

In politics, I define it as outside the prudent way most people think we should proceed.

2. A truly representative democracy wouldn't be based on the majority opinion (that's not really representative at all). Minority opinions would be represented because the idea of a representative democracy is to represent all of the views.

The way problems for minorities have been addressed in the past (in most societies) is they build a base of support that includes more and more mainstream folks working to help their cause. That's what third parties need to do as well. In the past, third party members, such as the Libertarian Party are so divergent in their goals, they can't reach a consensus amongst themselves.

No, I'm saying that the prevailing view is that when one votes, one's only choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils. Hawaiian or Barbecue, rather than something you actually might want.

85% of what the Democrats have proposed is what I want! No other option, including third parties have a platform that I am more in sync with.

So why do we pretend to be representative when we only support the majority views?

So you believe that minority views don't deserve representation?

No, I think we need to encourage more minority voting. That is why I have been opposed to efforts to restrict votes. The more minorities that vote, the better they are represented.

Are you changing your definition of a successful democracy to "strong and smart representatives" now?

If so, do you still consider the Us to be a successful democracy?

There are very few things I believe there is a single cause for, as I explained above.

Of course, but when people would rather believe a comforting lie than a harsh truth, you won't be able to change their minds.

My guess is that enlightenment cannot be hastened by impatience, as tempting as it is for us all to think so.

Tucker Case · Jan 11, 2012

Catawba said:
That is your presumption, not mine.

So do you want greater representation or do you not want greater representation. I'm confused.

No, but clearly 30 years from legislation to enactment is far from ideal.

So much so that it should be the main consideration with regards to a democracy being successful or not 22 years after it happened? Seems contradictory.

I am open to parties that are more liberal, I just don't see them gaining much ground in a country that is far to the right.

I'm not sure how this relates to my point there, but I have to ask why you think that only the majority deserves representation in government.

Democracy may have its faults but I prefer it to other systems.

I wasn't trying to point out it's faults. I was pointing out the error in your logic. Your barometer for success is contradictory. I'll explain more after the next quote..

I don't define a successful democracy solely by not taking 30 years to reach a decision, I also define it by how well it represents the people it serves.

The point was that these are contradictory positions. The more representative a democracy is, the longer it takes to reach a decision about something, and the longer it takes to enforce those decisions. The pizza example was designed to illustrate this. The more representative the system was, the longer it would take to order a pizza.

If your goal is the middle ground, then logically you would have to reject our system because it is at the extreme end of less representation. In fact, it has the lowest level of representation possible while still remaining a democracy nominally.

Right now, our country consists of very right leaning aggressive people.

I absolutely disagree. I know very many people who do not fit this bill. Perhaps the majority is right leaning and aggressive, but it's a far cry from being 100%.

We get the government we deserve.

So you think that the minority opinion deserves to not be represented?

When society evolves, so will our government, as long as it is representative.

Our government is only minimally representative though.

It is our responsibility to make sure it stays representative.

Then why are you supporting a system which prevents that by arguing that only the majority deserves representation?

In politics, I define it as outside the prudent way most people think we should proceed.

So you are falling prey to the appeal to majority fallacy?

The way problems for minorities have been addressed in the past (in most societies) is they build a base of support that includes more and more mainstream folks working to help their cause.

This is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because that is how things have been done in the past does not mean it is a good or adequate way fo doing things.

That's what third parties need to do as well.

How is this possible under the current system?

In the past, third party members, such as the Libertarian Party are so divergent in their goals, they can't reach a consensus amongst themselves.

For you to hold the position that you have, you must have the basic premise that people who hold minority opinions do not deserve representation in government (which is how the current system operates). It is the only way to reach a logically valid conclusion that our government is representative.

Are you aware that you are using this premise in your logic? If you are, what is your logic for said premise. If not, then think about the logic required to reach your conclusions and how the conclusions would be dependent on that premise.

(I say this even though I do not believe that the two parties actually cover the majority opinion. That is a premise that you are operating under as well, but one that I believe is flawed. I've challenged that premise already, though, with my pizza analogy so I am not challenging it here. We can operate under the hypothetical that true premise for the purposes of this section of the debate)

85% of what the Democrats have proposed is what I want! No other option, including third parties have a platform that I am more in sync with.

This simply means that you are someone who prefers Hawaiian style pizza. For you, it isn't a choice between the lesser of two evils so much as it is getting what you want and wanting to keep a system that gives you the opportunity to get what you want.

What about the rest of society, though, that does not have their views so well represented by either of the two parties?

No, I think we need to encourage more minority voting.

Are you using "minority" in the ethnic sense here, because I am not. I'm talking about views.

That is why I have been opposed to efforts to restrict votes.

By claiming the US is a successful democracy despite it's system which allows a two-party stranglehold, you are actively supporting the lack of representation of minority views.

The more minorities that vote, the better they are represented.

Not in our system where the winner takes all. Only majority opinions can possibly get represented.

There are very few things I believe there is a single cause for, as I explained above.

Your own argumetns imply that this is false, though. for example, you cited a single cause for Switzerland being a less successful democracy than the US (even though it is far more representative than the US), and that cause was 20+ years old.

It's very difficult to follow your logic when it shifts from moment to moment depending on what you are trying to support. When you want to argue that something is less succesfful, a single cause is perfectly fine. when you want to support your claim that the other country is more succesfull, you keep moving the goal posts and claiming that it s multipel factors.

Well, which is it? Because the factors you cite for the US one moment actually help Switzerland more than the US, but then you exclude them from consideration when discussing Switzerland. There's no consistency.

Hell, this whole thing started based on your request to be shown a successful democracy that has an apathetic electorate in an attempt to imply that voter apathy hurts the democracy. When you were given such an example, you brushed it off and switched gears entriely.

It's really beginning to seem like an exercise in sophistry, so I must request that you provide a solid framework for your determination of "successful democracy" vs. "unsuccessful democracy". A simple list of the factors you feel are involved with this subjective determination coupled with the directions that things should go for success and failure of a democracy. For example:

Representation of the views of the population: More representative = more successful

Without such a list, your logical framework becomes prone to fallacies such as moving the goalposts (which appears to already be present) and can become very inconsistent and employ circular reasoning (again, things that seem to already be present)

My guess is that enlightenment cannot be hastened by impatience, as tempting as it is for us all to think so.

When minority opinions are quelled and fail to get representation, enlightenment is impossible because the majority is incapable of enlightenment. As George Carlin so eloquently put it: Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

Enlightenment is something that is only possible for a minority of people. When we suppress that view by failing to represent it, we actively prevent enlightenment.

grip · Jan 11, 2012

This is a short version from Wiki describing our system of government.

"The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered and has an elected or otherwise non-monarchical head of state. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives nor necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. The power of representatives is usually curtailed by a constitution or other measures to balance representative power. An independent judiciary, which may have the power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional (e.g. constitutional court, supreme court)."

The reason our founding fathers created such a system of governing was to prevent the kind of tyranny from the aristocrats that enveloped the monarchies and feudal system of Europe. I think the elite have circumvented our current system of government and are achieving the same lack of caring and decency through manipulation and money. The more the majority votes the more we seemingly agree with the current condition of governing, which is what I believe the politicians want. They have split the electorate into two classes or groups and have us drinking the same kool-aid that supports their cause, which is individual power. Trust they don't care about the majority of knee jerk social issues that are presented because they aren't personally affected by them and are rarely something the government can legislate or control. The real concerns of economy, energy, ecology, healthcare and security aren't even entirely within their grasp and can't be all solved by throwing more money at them. The whole US debt problem is actually way out of control and even proponents of big government are back peddling for smarter solutions, rather than bigger bureaucracy. I won't vote to agree with a system that is failing and doesn't present representatives that have anything even vaguely in common with my interests. If and when they get the special interests, excessive influence out of DC will I consider casting my approval for a person claiming to have my views even remotely in their mind.

When Larry the Cable Guy seems like a better alternative than what we'll have this November you could say the US may need a clean up.

Catawba · Jan 12, 2012

Tucker Case said:
So do you want greater representation or do you not want greater representation. I'm confused.

The more people that are actively involved in the government process the better IMO, including taking issues to the street non-violently. I admire the Occupy movement for that reason.

I'm not sure how this relates to my point there, but I have to ask why you think that only the majority deserves representation in government.

I never said that. See the post by grip that addresses how our system addresses minority concerns, in addition to taking their issues to the streets as they did during Women's Rights and the Civil Rights movements.

The point was that these are contradictory positions. The more representative a democracy is, the longer it takes to reach a decision about something, and the longer it takes to enforce those decisions. The pizza example was designed to illustrate this. The more representative the system was, the longer it would take to order a pizza.

Your pizza ordering analogy fails to address the representatives we choose to order our pizza for us.

I absolutely disagree.

So do I. I was talking about the majority, not 100%. There is a reason we continually vote in center right politicians for president, and have never once voted in a liberal.

Our government is only minimally representative though.

Compared to what?

So you are falling prey to the appeal to majority fallacy?

No, simply recognition of our democratic system.

How is this possible under the current system?

What is this new system that people agree on? This was a problem of the Libertarian party, they could never reach consensus on goals.

What about the rest of society, though, that does not have their views so well represented by either of the two parties?

Who would you like to represent everyone and what is stopping you from building public support for that person?

Are you using "minority" in the ethnic sense here, because I am not. I'm talking about views.

So am I.

By claiming the US is a successful democracy despite it's system which allows a two-party stranglehold, you are actively supporting the lack of representation of minority views.

I read fiction where the government makes every single person happy, its called utopia. I've not seen any perfect government in this planets history however.

Not in our system where the winner takes all. Only majority opinions can possibly get represented.

How do you change it without building majority support for change? It seems you need the majority which you hold in disdain.

Enlightenment is something that is only possible for a minority of people. When we suppress that view by failing to represent it, we actively prevent enlightenment.

Enlightenment is a possibility for everyone, and will be required for the Utopian government you wish we had.

Tucker Case · Jan 12, 2012

Catawba said:
The more people that are actively involved in the government process the better IMO, including taking issues to the street non-violently. I admire the Occupy movement for that reason.

Out of curiosity, did you equally admire the tea party movement?

Personally, I respect both movements for their attempts to change things (and I agreed with many points from both movements as well), but I think that both fell prey to the bull**** of the two-party dichotomy so early on that they doomed themselves and became exactly what they should have been rebelling against. They should have worked together, since their goals were not in opposition to each other, but instead they became opposite ends of the spectrum because both movements allowed themselves to become co-opted by the parties. That's where I lost respect for both of them. They became the very **** they should have been opposing because they failed to see how the two-party system (of two very similar parties, no less) is the root cause of the problems they both went after.

I never said that. See the post by grip that addresses how our system addresses minority concerns, in addition to taking their issues to the streets as they did during Women's Rights and the Civil Rights movements.

When I say "minority opinion", I'm using the word "minority" in it's technical form (i.e. proportionally), not the form that is used to describe ethnicity or gender (I actually think that the word used in that sense can be almost derogatory so I very rarely use it in that bastardized form).

Your pizza ordering analogy fails to address the representatives we choose to order our pizza for us.

How did it fail to address that?

So do I. I was talking about the majority, not 100%. There is a reason we continually vote in center right politicians for president, and have never once voted in a liberal.

Why do you assume that the people who keep getting elected represent the majority view? It's not like presidents are directly elected, and with the two-party system firmly embedded there aren't any options that aren't center right available for people to vote on even if they did vote for president's directly.

Compared to what?

Most parliamentary systems, for starters. They all have greater representation of views than the US does.

No, simply recognition of our democratic system.

But the problem is that you are basing your arguments on the premise that the US system is a good one, and that makes your arguments an appeal to majority.

Your entire point is that our system works as a representative democracy and that in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.

My point is that our system doesn't work as a representative democracy because in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.

Now if the argument was that our government works, and therefore it's poor representation of minority opinion is irrelevant, I would have no problem with your position. I'd still disagree, but that'd be about it.

But since you are claiming to support the concept of representative democracy (which is what I support), your arguments become contradictory because our government does a very poor job of representing the views of it's people.

What is this new system that people agree on? This was a problem of the Libertarian party, they could never reach consensus on goals.

Out of curiosity, why do you think this is valid response to my question?

I said nothing at all about a new system that people agree on, so it's pretty much just pure gibberish to ask me to describe something that you invented. What's worse is that you appear to have done this in order to avoid answering the question I asked.

Who would you like to represent everyone and what is stopping you from building public support for that person?

Where did you get the absurd idea that I wanted one person representing everyone? I'm arguing for something entirely opposite from that.

So am I.

You keep citing women's rights and civil rights in the context of minority, so it's very confusing. These weren't really minority opinions that weren't represented, they were issues regarding so-called "minorities", but they actually had a large enough following to be majority opinion. In a sense, you could say that they were majority opinions that weren't represented in our laws (which gets into the concept of majority opinion in the ruling class versus majority opinion in the population at large. This is a very important point that shouldn't be glossed over, but it required one to first acknowledge that our government does a poor job representing it's people before it can even be discussed to any great depth).

I read fiction where the government makes every single person happy, its called utopia. I've not seen any perfect government in this planets history however.

Nice strawman. I'm not looking for a government that makes everyone happy, not have I even come remotely close to implying that. That nonsense is something you made up in lieu of a real rebuttal.

I'm looking for a government that actually has legitimate representation for it's people instead of a load of bull**** disguised as representation. Big difference.

You, however, are arguing for the status quo and using the cop out of "I've never seen perfection, so I support this load of horse **** because I buy into the nonsense that it is a good system."

And while we're on the subject of cop outs, I noticed you didn't even bother to give a clear framework for how you are defining "successful democracy". This is disappointing because it makes it kind of clear to me that your definitions will change to suit your desires rather than be based on a solid concept.

In other words, it gives the impression that if you want a country to be defined as a "successful democracy", you will define it as such and they retroactively design your definition of "successful democracy" to fit that country rather than have a basic framework you use to make the judgments.

If this really is the case, one becomes logically obligated to dismiss your judgments of what is or is not a succesful democracy since it would be known that you are not using an honest metric for these judgments.

If it isn't the case, however, then producing such a framework allows me to view your designations from an objective standpoint.

If you want, I will gladly produce the framework that I employ in such designations. I could do so very easily because without such a framework I would be utterly incapable of making an intelligent and honest judgment of what is or is not a "successful democracy" in my estimation.

How do you change it without building majority support for change? It seems you need the majority which you hold in disdain.

Here's the thing, though. There is already a majority that believes our system is ****ed up. Even the flag waving 'patriots" who think the constitution is the bees knees are aware that they are poorly represented. Just listen ot them bitch about how there's never really a True Conservative© running for office. (BTW, I'm assuming that "True Conservative©" has been copyrighted by Rush Limbaugh)

The problem isn't convincing them of that which they already know, it's convincing them that the line of bull**** that they've been fed about "no system is perfect and therefore anything we do to try to fix this one would make things worse" is bull****. That's the tricky part.

The key is convincing people that the system itself can be improved upon. I mean, it's pretty absurd that many people in this country believe that a system that is almost 225 years old cannot be improved upon in any way.

To do that, we will have to deal with those who are dependent on the status quo staying in place. Unfortunately those are also the people in control.

Because of that it might not be possible to make a real change in the system without violence. This is the real problem, though, because while it doesn't work very well, it really isn't so bad that that it is worth dying in order to change it.

Enlightenment is a possibility for everyone, and will be required for the Utopian government you wish we had.

Two things:

1. Most people are incapable of enlightenment. They are capable of being led by the enlightened, though.
2. The bull**** about me wanting a utopia is still a dishonest strawman. You are free to rely on dishonesty in lieu of an intelligent, logical rebuttal to my positions, but it's fairly pointless to do so because I have no qualms about calling out such dishonesty.

grip · Jan 12, 2012

All they have to do is enact campaign finance reform, term limits and no lobbying positions for former politicians for 3 years. Or some combination thereof. If big business can't overly influence the legislation to favor their goals, then we'll be returning to a fairly balanced, representative democracy. Otherwise a minority of aristocrats are having the most impact on the laws and regulations for the sake of monopolizing government control over economic outcomes.

Catawba · Jan 12, 2012

Tucker Case said:
Out of curiosity, did you equally admire the tea party movement?

Personally, I respect both movements for their attempts to change things (and I agreed with many points from both movements as well), but I think that both fell prey to the bull**** of the two-party dichotomy so early on that they doomed themselves and became exactly what they should have been rebelling against. They should have worked together, since their goals were not in opposition to each other, but instead they became opposite ends of the spectrum because both movements allowed themselves to become co-opted by the parties. That's where I lost respect for both of them. They became the very **** they should have been opposing because they failed to see how the two-party system (of two very similar parties, no less) is the root cause of the problems they both went after.

I equally admired their standing up to protest, not necessarily each of their causes, just as with OWS.

How did it fail to address that?

Because we do not have 190 million people ordering pizza. We elect representatives to order our pizza for us.

Why do you assume that the people who keep getting elected represent the majority view? It's not like presidents are directly elected, and with the two-party system firmly embedded there aren't any options that aren't center right available for people to vote on even if they did vote for president's directly.

Why not work to build support for a platform you prefer for public office? But how do you build public support? It requires consensus, does it not? Than you are back to limiting minority opinion. I'm not seeing the perfect roadmap to utopia.

Most parliamentary systems, for starters. They all have greater representation of views than the US does.

Your entire point is that our system works as a representative democracy and that in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.

My point is that our system doesn't work as a representative democracy because in order to get minority opinion represented in our government it must first be converted from a minority opinion to a majority opinion.

Now if the argument was that our government works, and therefore it's poor representation of minority opinion is irrelevant, I would have no problem with your position. I'd still disagree, but that'd be about it.

But since you are claiming to support the concept of representative democracy (which is what I support), your arguments become contradictory because our government does a very poor job of representing the views of it's people.

I'm not seeing all the countries with parliamentary systems showing they are represented by their government any better than we are.

Out of curiosity, why do you think this is valid response to my question?

The point I was trying to make was that change in politics requires consensus. Since it is impossible to reach consensus by 300 million people on every issue, compromise is required. With compromise, comes a minority opinion not being acted on. What is your way around that?

Where did you get the absurd idea that I wanted one person representing everyone? I'm arguing for something entirely opposite from that.

Which is...........what?

You keep citing women's rights and civil rights in the context of minority, so it's very confusing. These weren't really minority opinions that weren't represented, they were issues regarding so-called "minorities", but they actually had a large enough following to be majority opinion. In a sense, you could say that they were majority opinions that weren't represented in our laws (which gets into the concept of majority opinion in the ruling class versus majority opinion in the population at large. This is a very important point that shouldn't be glossed over, but it required one to first acknowledge that our government does a poor job representing it's people before it can even be discussed to any great depth).

What do you suggest?

I'm looking for a government that actually has legitimate representation for it's people instead of a load of bull**** disguised as representation. Big difference.

How?

If you want, I will gladly produce the framework that I employ in such designations. I could do so very easily because without such a framework I would be utterly incapable of making an intelligent and honest judgment of what is or is not a "successful democracy" in my estimation.

I'm actually more interested in how you get your system adopted without majority support, which by your definition, would exclude minority opposition.

Here's the thing, though. There is already a majority that believes our system is ****ed up. Even the flag waving 'patriots" who think the constitution is the bees knees are aware that they are poorly represented. Just listen ot them bitch about how there's never really a True Conservative© running for office. (BTW, I'm assuming that "True Conservative©" has been copyrighted by Rush Limbaugh)

The problem isn't convincing them of that which they already know, it's convincing them that the line of bull**** that they've been fed about "no system is perfect and therefore anything we do to try to fix this one would make things worse" is bull****. That's the tricky part.

The key is convincing people that the system itself can be improved upon. I mean, it's pretty absurd that many people in this country believe that a system that is almost 225 years old cannot be improved upon in any way.

To do that, we will have to deal with those who are dependent on the status quo staying in place. Unfortunately those are also the people in control.

Because of that it might not be possible to make a real change in the system without violence. This is the real problem, though, because while it doesn't work very well, it really isn't so bad that that it is worth dying in order to change it.

Civil war is your plan?

Catawba · Jan 12, 2012

grip said:
All they have to do is enact campaign finance reform, term limits and no lobbying positions for former politicians for 3 years. Or some combination thereof. If big business can't overly influence the legislation to favor their goals, then we'll be returning to a fairly balanced, representative democracy. Otherwise a minority of aristocrats are having the most impact on the laws and regulations for the sake of monopolizing government control over economic outcomes.

I think most people would agree those are reasonable approaches to fixing some of the worst problems in our system.

grip · Jan 12, 2012

Catawba said:
I think most people would agree those are reasonable approaches to fixing some of the worst problems in our system.

Well, they're reasonable threats that will never see reality as a whole. But it would be to everyone's advantage to get the corporate influence down a little. They'll end up conquering the known world and owning all the wealth but that would leave everyone else poor. I wouldn't want to be the ruler of a nation of bums but that's what's happening because they've got the electorate divided and conquered.

Tucker Case · Jan 12, 2012

Catawba said:
I equally admired their standing up to protest, not necessarily each of their causes, just as with OWS.

Fair enough.

Because we do not have 190 million people ordering pizza. We elect representatives to order our pizza for us.

Then my analogy most certainly addressed it. There were three scenarios, one direct democracy, and two representative democracies. Ours was the third.

Why not work to build support for a platform you prefer for public office?

Because that would not address the underlying problems in the system.

But how do you build public support? It requires consensus, does it not? Than you are back to limiting minority opinion.

You have clearly failed to grasp the simplest points of my position.

I'm not seeing the perfect roadmap to utopia.

Ah, I see that dishonesty is your preferred approach. So be it. :shrug:

I'm not seeing all the countries with parliamentary systems showing they are represented by their government any better than we are.

Well, what you see and what exists are not necessarily the same thing. Many parliamentary systems have proportional representation. You are not required to see that this is a superior method for representation of public opinion for it to actually be superior representation of public opinion.

The point I was trying to make was that change in politics requires consensus. Since it is impossible to reach consensus by 300 million people on every issue, compromise is required. With compromise, comes a minority opinion not being acted on. What is your way around that?

My way of working "around it" is to point out that it is a false dilemma.

I'm not saying minority opinion must be acted upon, I'm saying that minority opinions deserve representation in government, even though tehy are the minority opinion. Our system does not allow minority views representation, thus preventing a significant proportion of the population to be unrepresented.

Which is...........what?

That all people of a nation deserve representation and that our current system prevents this from occuring.

This would, by necessity due to the sheer diversity of thought, require many representatives, not one.

No single person can represent all views. I'm not simply limiting my position to the executive branch.

What do you suggest?

At the federal level I would restructuring the way that representation is determined, first and foremost, so that there is proportional representation by state in the house.

Instead of each congressional district being able to vote for a representative, the state would vote in a "primary" type election determining what proportion of the seats each party on the ballot would have.

Since congressional representatives have changed their primary loyalties from their geographical district and local concerns in national issues to their party and national concerns on national issues, the geographical districts have become obsolete. This is one way that the current system maintains the status quo. By not altering an obsolete method for determining representation in the information age.

Then, once these primaries have determined the proportion of seats for each party for each state, party members would then vote for the people who will fill those seats in secondary elections (which would be voting for the individuals who would then represent them).

Essentially this would be a Party-list proportional method of determining seats and would achieve the highest degree of proportional representation possible. It would replace the current First past the post style of elections.

For senate seats, I would lean towards an instant runoff style election where the top two candidates win. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it still improves upon the current approach slightly.

I'd be in favor of something similar for President which would be far superior to the electoral college system. I'd also make it so that all candidates are on every ballot across the nation and that all candidates from every party that is represented in congress be allowed to participate in debates. (no party that is currently representing Americans would be too small to field a presidential candidate if it chooses to).

How?

Proportional representation instead of the minimally representative first-past-the-post method that the US currently uses.

Despite your repeated attempts to portray my position dishonestly, this is not utopia but a very real thing that exists in many nations across the globe.

I'm actually more interested in how you get your system adopted without majority support, which by your definition, would exclude minority opposition.

Good for you. When you are intellectually honest enough to fulfill my request (which is on it's third incarnation now), I'll fulfill yours.

Now, it's possible that you are avoiding the request due to the fact that you are incapable of fulfilling my request? If so, then all you need to say is that you don't have a logical metric by which you judge "successful democracies".

Civil war is your plan?

What part of the last sentence did you not comprehend? It explicitly states why civil war was not really an option. Did you miss it or ignore it?

Catawba · Jan 12, 2012

Tucker Case said:
You have clearly failed to grasp the simplest points of my position.

I am hopeful you will eventually explain it.

That all people of a nation deserve representation and that our current system prevents this from occuring.
This would, by necessity due to the sheer diversity of thought, require many representatives, not one.

No single person can represent all views. I'm not simply limiting my position to the executive branch.

All the current systems prevent representation of every individuals position, that is my point.

At the federal level I would restructuring the way that representation is determined, first and foremost, so that there is proportional representation by state in the house.

Instead of each congressional district being able to vote for a representative, the state would vote in a "primary" type election determining what proportion of the seats each party on the ballot would have.

Since congressional representatives have changed their primary loyalties from their geographical district and local concerns in national issues to their party and national concerns on national issues, the geographical districts have become obsolete. This is one way that the current system maintains the status quo. By not altering an obsolete method for determining representation in the information age.

Then, once these primaries have determined the proportion of seats for each party for each state, party members would then vote for the people who will fill those seats in secondary elections (which would be voting for the individuals who would then represent them).

Essentially this would be a Party-list proportional method of determining seats and would achieve the highest degree of proportional representation possible. It would replace the current First past the post style of elections.

For senate seats, I would lean towards an instant runoff style election where the top two candidates win. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it still improves upon the current approach slightly.

I'd be in favor of something similar for President which would be far superior to the electoral college system. I'd also make it so that all candidates are on every ballot across the nation and that all candidates from every party that is represented in congress be allowed to participate in debates. (no party that is currently representing Americans would be too small to field a presidential candidate if it chooses to). Proportional representation instead of the minimally representative first-past-the-post method that the US currently uses.

Despite your repeated attempts to portray my position dishonestly, this is not utopia but a very real thing that exists in many nations across the globe.

Go for it!

Do you vote? (poll)

Do you vote?

Yes: in all elections (national and local)

Yes: but only in national and some local

Yes: but only national

Maybe: it depends on the election

No: I'm not old enough, yet.

No: not at all

No: I'm not legally permitted

Other

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Disappointed Evolutionist

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Disappointed Evolutionist

Matthew 16:3

Slow 🅖 Hand

Disappointed Evolutionist

Matthew 16:3

Disappointed Evolutionist

Matthew 16:3

Disappointed Evolutionist

Matthew 16:3

Slow 🅖 Hand

Disappointed Evolutionist

Matthew 16:3

Slow 🅖 Hand

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Slow 🅖 Hand

Matthew 16:3

Disappointed Evolutionist