Can there ever be too much democracy

1069 · May 13, 2010

Kate said:
In any country?

I believe mostly not, but sometimes the people can be wrong or not know what they are getting into. What are your guys' opinions?

Well, yeah.
Any true democracy would be "too much" democracy.
Would you want to live in a country where people could just vote to reinstate black slavery? Majority wins?
How about a nation where men could vote to expel females from the workplace, or from public entirely?

In my opinion.... well, a lot of societies that I really respect don't feel that "majority rule" is a functional way of doing things.
If 49% of people vote against something and 51% vote for it, and so the government implements it... well, 49% of the population is still unhappy. Everyone is at odds.
These societies believe in discussing things and compromising until everyone- or as close to 'everyone' as possible- is satisfied.
Of course, this would not be particularly feasible in a large society like ours.
It mainly works in small- tribal, really- communities.

mikhail · May 13, 2010

Its all about liberal democracy.If you left everything to a vote everyone would end up voting for no taxes and massive public spending.

Kandahar · May 13, 2010

phattonez said:
Better that our politicians just decide what's best for us,

No, it's really not. Politicians may be opportunistic and some of them may not fully understand the issues...but that's still a lot better than the voters who are completely clueless on nearly all issues, not to mention irresponsible and short-sighted.

phattonez said:
because California politicians have such a good reputation in that regard.

Actually the California politicians have a poor record because of a voter referendum. I'm specifically referring to the foolish decision of Californians to require a supermajority to raise taxes, but not spending. Is it any wonder that the state is bankrupt when the voters have made it easy to spend more, and hard to raise taxes to pay for it?

This is the result of direct democracy. Voters spend 30 seconds reading some initiative to limit the government's ability to raise taxes, think "I don't like taxes," and pull the YES lever without so much as giving the matter a second thought. This is just one of many examples, but it perfectly illustrates the point that voters cannot be trusted to have an informed opinion on much of anything. At best, they have a vague notion of what policies they want, and which candidate could better implement those policies.

Kandahar · May 13, 2010

phattonez said:
You don't think that the representatives would do the exact same thing? They are, after all, voted in by the people.

They are voted in by the people, but they don't always do what a majority of the people want. Even the most reelection-conscious politician won't ALWAYS blow with the political winds on every single issue. A Congress full of election-conscious politicians is still better than direct democracy.

hazlnut · May 13, 2010

phattonez said:
You don't think that the representatives would do the exact same thing? They are, after all, voted in by the people.

By 'the same thing' do you mean vote way the people want?

On most issues, the people don't have all the information. They don't have a background/understanding of public policy and economics. They don't have law degrees or MBA's...

LiberalAvenger · May 13, 2010

mikhail said:
Its all about liberal democracy.If you left everything to a vote everyone would end up voting for no taxes and massive public spending.

Isn't that what has been happening since Clinton left office with a surplus?

mikhail · May 13, 2010

LiberalAvenger said:
Isn't that what has been happening since Clinton left office with a surplus?

well i would say including when he was in office but your right at least he tried a little.

TurtleDude · May 13, 2010

Goshin said:
There can absolutely be too much democracy. It's called populism, demagogery and mob rule. The Founders feared it as much as they feared autarchy, and wrote the Constitution accordingly: they gave us a measured dose of democracy leavened with a variety of safeguards and diluted representation.

We've arguably gone too deep into democracy already, with the popular election of Senators, rather than their appointment by State legislatures.

In a pure democracy, 51% could vote that it was okay to rape, pillage, plunder and kill the 49% minority. Not good.

A little democracy is a fine thing. Too much can be like too much food, too much booze, or too much medicine.

progressive income tax was designed to appeal to such mob mentality.

it gave congress far more power than the founders ever wanted

TurtleDude · May 13, 2010

earthworm said:
Pure or complete democracy will require a much high level of education and intelligence of the people.
As of today, we are no-where close.
Witness the tea bag rallies.
Or our Congress.
And we have just 40% of the people voting.
Now I know why democracy failed in Greece, and why dictatorships flourish.

the problem in the USA is representation without taxation of far too many people

LiberalAvenger · May 13, 2010

TurtleDude said:
the problem in the USA is representation without taxation of far too many people

I agree. I never had any kids but I had to pay taxes my whole life for other people's kids.

Kandahar · May 13, 2010

TurtleDude said:
progressive income tax was designed to appeal to such mob mentality.

That's not an issue of democracy though. The people don't vote on the income tax, Congress does.

TurtleDude said:
it gave congress far more power than the founders ever wanted

Two things:
A) There's a constitutional amendment allowing for an income tax, so what the Founders wanted is a moot point.
B) The scope of congressional power has nothing to do with how much or how little democracy we have.

TurtleDude · May 13, 2010

LiberalAvenger said:
I agree. I never had any kids but I had to pay taxes my whole life for other people's kids.

I went to private schools as does my son

but one can argue an educated society is best for everyone

welfare merely creates more parasites who take more and more

educated people produce wealth and need and demand less handouts

TurtleDude · May 13, 2010

Kandahar said:
That's not an issue of democracy though. The people don't vote on the income tax, Congress does.

Two things:
A) There's a constitutional amendment allowing for an income tax, so what the Founders wanted is a moot point.
B) The scope of congressional power has nothing to do with how much or how little democracy we have.

I fail to see the relevance of your pseudo response to what I was saying.

It was a power grab by congress and appeals to the mob mentality

Kandahar · May 13, 2010

TurtleDude said:
I fail to see the relevance of your pseudo response to what I was saying.

It was a power grab by congress and appeals to the mob mentality

But it's not an issue of democracy (i.e. the topic of this thread). You can have a government with expansive powers or limited powers. You can have a democracy with expansive voting rights or limited voting rights. You can have any combination of expansive/limited powers and expansive/limited voting rights; they have nothing to do with one another.

Infinite Chaos · May 14, 2010

Kandahar said:
Yes, there definitely can. California is a perfect example of this, with its referendum system which has bankrupted the state.

Are you arguing that the system of application itself is the problem - or direct democracy itself?

Kandahar said:
-- I'm specifically referring to the foolish decision of Californians to require a supermajority to raise taxes, but not spending --

This is the bit I'm curious about - was it the system that you criticise or the people who vote using that system?

Kandahar said:
No, it's really not. Politicians may be opportunistic and some of them may not fully understand the issues...but that's still a lot better than the voters who are completely clueless on nearly all issues, not to mention irresponsible and short-sighted.

I find this strange - the Swiss example has delivered a system where the voting electorate is more informed and more aware of the actions and working of their law makers. Swiss elected lawmakers still make the majority of laws and these laws can be put to test if the electorate chooses - and the result is that lawmakers have to be more careful about their decisions because they know they are scrutinised.

This would work as a system in a community of 10 just as easily as with a community of 1 billion.

For a public vote on a law to be triggered, 50,000 Swiss voters have to be collected within 100 days of the publication of any new law. The ratio of cases where a public referendum is triggered is in every 4 out of 100 cases, because the parliamentary process enjoys a very high level of legitimacy.

Seems all the critique of the American voting public that I see here is because the version of direct democracy applied is open to making bad decisions. Then again - even though most US posters seem to say it doesn't work - a lot of internet research indicates that many US States allow for versions of direct democracy.

Direct Democracy in Switzerland - workings

Kandahar · May 14, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
Are you arguing that the system of application itself is the problem - or direct democracy itself?

Direct democracy itself. Whether its implemented through ballot initiatives or referenda or simply-majority constitutional amendments, you'd get largely the same results. California's system is particularly awful, but direct democracy in general suffers from the same problems.

Infinite Chaos said:
This is the bit I'm curious about - was it the system that you criticise or the people who vote using that system?

The system. I just use California as an example because it's the most obvious example in the United States. It's nothing against Californians specifically. I think you'd find a similar pattern among the electorates of most other states if they had a California-style system. The people will vote themselves access to more and more spending, but won't increase their taxes to pay for it.

With that said, it probably wouldn't be as severe of a problem in other states. California is the absolute worst state to have this kind of system because it is so enormous.

Infinite Chaos said:
I find this strange - the Swiss example has delivered a system where the voting electorate is more informed and more aware of the actions and working of their law makers. Swiss elected lawmakers still make the majority of laws and these laws can be put to test if the electorate chooses - and the result is that lawmakers have to be more careful about their decisions because they know they are scrutinised.

Switzerland has roughly one-fifth the population of California, and is not nearly as diverse. It's also a decentralized confederation of cantons, whereas US states are extremely centralized. Furthermore, Switzerland has a well-educated population and a strong culture of civic responsibility which simply does not exist anywhere in the United States.

Infinite Chaos said:
This would work as a system in a community of 10 just as easily as with a community of 1 billion.

How so? Scaling government up tends to make it more complex proportionally. By the same token, communism works great in a family of 4, but not so great in a nation of 100 million.

Infinite Chaos said:
Seems all the critique of the American voting public that I see here is because the version of direct democracy applied is open to making bad decisions.

So do you think California would function better if it emulated the Swiss system? What changes would you make? And what would stop the people of California from voting to straitjacket their government again?

Infinite Chaos said:
Then again - even though most US posters seem to say it doesn't work - a lot of internet research indicates that many US States allow for versions of direct democracy.

...which is why most of us think it doesn't work.

LiberalAvenger · May 14, 2010

TurtleDude said:
I went to private schools as does my son

but one can argue an educated society is best for everyone

welfare merely creates more parasites who take more and more

educated people produce wealth and need and demand less handouts

Schooling aside, you still get a tax credit for having babies which I do not. Who's the parasite?

You probably own your own home. You get a tax credit for the interest you pay.

I rent. I get nothing. Who's the parasite?

PeteEU · May 14, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
Don't know too much about Switzerland's direct democracy failings but that seems to put nearly every political decision in the hands of the Swiss public.

We don't read of Switzerland as a land of instability and chaos.

Switzerland was the last country in the industrialized world to give women the right to vote because of this system. This happened first in 1971 and only for federal elections. Local elections ban on women voting continued for many years more in some cantons.

Infinite Chaos · May 14, 2010

Kandahar said:
-- Switzerland has roughly one-fifth the population of California, and is not nearly as diverse. It's also a decentralized confederation of cantons, whereas US states are extremely centralized. Furthermore, Switzerland has a well-educated population and a strong culture of civic responsibility which simply does not exist anywhere in the United States.

Kandahar said:
-- With that said, it probably wouldn't be as severe of a problem in other states. California is the absolute worst state to have this kind of system because it is so enormous.

Kandahar said:
-- The system. I just use California as an example because it's the most obvious example in the United States. It's nothing against Californians specifically. I think you'd find a similar pattern among the electorates of most other states if they had a California-style system. The people will vote themselves access to more and more spending, but won't increase their taxes to pay for it.

Kandahar said:
-- Whether its implemented through ballot initiatives or referenda or simply-majority constitutional amendments, you'd get largely the same results. California's system is particularly awful, but direct democracy in general suffers from the same problems.

I've restructured your post - not added any words - hopefully to demonstrate my point that it's not direct democracy itself but how it's applied in different states that is the problem. I still believe the size of Switzerland is a red herring for those who think DD itself cannot work.

Kandahar said:
--How so? Scaling government up tends to make it more complex proportionally. By the same token, communism works great in a family of 4, but not so great in a nation of 100 million.

If you take a nation of 500million and explore how you could decentralise it in the way Switzerland has with its cantons you then have a more manageable system. It's one of the reasons the EU has been studying Direct Democracy - not that I'm a fan of the EU or the Euro - and Europe has a population (no figures in front of me) of approximately 800 million plus across all the different countries.

Kandahar said:
-- So do you think California would function better if it emulated the Swiss system? What changes would you make? And what would stop the people of California from voting to straitjacket their government again?

I will I'm afraid evade answering this, I'm not American and most discussions I've ever had with American posters on this or any other forum regarding any changes in the US usually end because of my lack of knowledge of how anything is affected by your constitution. It's why I made my proviso in an earlier post in this thread that I was not and had no intention of discussing the US. I'm discussing DD in general only I'm afraid.

hazlnut · May 14, 2010

TurtleDude said:
I went to private schools as does my son

but one can argue an educated society is best for everyone

welfare merely creates more parasites who take more and more

educated people produce wealth and need and demand less handouts

Welfare comes in many forms--your 'parasite' comment is a gross mischaracterization of the many types of people who receive welfare. You're attempting to portray them all as the urban welfare mom--a negative racial stereotype.
*Vets receive welfare.
*Disabled persons receive welfare.
*Parents of children who weren't born as healthy as your son receive welfare.
*The 'educated' AIG execs, Auto execs, Agricultural execs, all except some form of government handouts.

Re: Educated People and their Wealth...

As an educated person, I'm sure you know that industry relies on a working class to produce wealth. Pragmatic safety nets, welfare, are how we keep the working class from becoming demoralized during periods of economic recession/depression.

When the educated CEO mismanages his company and factories have to close, we help the working class to get by while we regroup and restructure.

As an educated person who creates wealth, I'm sure you understand the basic philosophy and purpose of welfare--to promote the basic well-being of individuals in need. Programs are not perfect and will periodically need an overhaul, reform.

Perhaps you should [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996"]read up on the ways we've reformed[/ame] welfare to serve the greater purpose maintaining a basic standard of living while getting people back to work.

Kandahar · May 14, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
I've restructured your post - not added any words - hopefully to demonstrate my point that it's not direct democracy itself but how it's applied in different states that is the problem. I still believe the size of Switzerland is a red herring for those who think DD itself cannot work.

The size is important. Even in the United States, direct democracy works adequately well in small, homogeneous communities in Vermont. But when you try to scale it up to the size of a state, it doesn't work anymore.

Infinite Chaos said:
If you take a nation of 500million and explore how you could decentralise it in the way Switzerland has with its cantons you then have a more manageable system.

The centralization or decentralization of a government seems far more important than whether it has direct democracy or representative democracy. I think it's backwards to want to tinker with the degree of centralization in order to accommodate the degree of public involvement in legislation.

Infinite Chaos said:
It's one of the reasons the EU has been studying Direct Democracy - not that I'm a fan of the EU or the Euro - and Europe has a population (no figures in front of me) of approximately 800 million plus across all the different countries.

My hunch is that that can't possibly work for an entity as large and diverse as the EU. Keep in mind that the EU is already extremely decentralized...much moreso than Switzerland. With the exception of monetary policy, nearly all government decisions in the EU are made at the national or lower level, rather than the supranational level. Personally I think the EU needs to concentrate on getting representative democracy to work before they worry about expanding it to the people.

Infinite Chaos said:
I will I'm afraid evade answering this, I'm not American and most discussions I've ever had with American posters on this or any other forum regarding any changes in the US usually end because of my lack of knowledge of how anything is affected by your constitution. It's why I made my proviso in an earlier post in this thread that I was not and had no intention of discussing the US. I'm discussing DD in general only I'm afraid.

Fair enough. Basically what happened in California with direct democracy was that Californians voted for constitutional amendments limiting their government's ability to raise taxes. The people of California have also consistently voted for one spending increase after another. This caused a huge deficit, which is why California is now teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

I don't really see any easy way to prevent that sort of thing in ANY direct democracy system. Average voters don't consider the unintended consequences of the policies they vote for; that's true regardless of what sort of direct democracy system is in place.

Infinite Chaos · May 16, 2010

Kandahar said:
The size is important. Even in the United States, direct democracy works adequately well in small, homogeneous communities in Vermont. But when you try to scale it up to the size of a state, it doesn't work anymore.

I appreciate your views regarding the system in the US - however I am not convinced as I am certain that problems exist more because of the way it is applied where there are problems in the US than because of direct democracy itself.

Kandahar said:
-- My hunch is that that can't possibly work for an entity as large and diverse as the EU.

There have been quite a few studies and academic papers written on this. What stops the application is the very real problem of firstly taking away current sovereign powers that reside in separate governments in order to then create a decentralised direct democracy system for those EU countries that would use it.
Hope that makes sense!

Kandahar said:
Keep in mind that the EU is already extremely decentralized...much moreso than Switzerland. With the exception of monetary policy, nearly all government decisions in the EU are made at the national or lower level, rather than the supranational level. Personally I think the EU needs to concentrate on getting representative democracy to work before they worry about expanding it to the people.

This is why they're exploring direct democracy. There's a lot of resistance to giving up national and sovereign powers in order for such a system to work.

It's partly also the reason for the rise in interest in "regionalism" (but not in the way one European poster here used to advocate) where EU regions get local funding and support from the centre and make local decisions on the expenditure. What exists is a sort of halfway house - regions are seeking autonomy (ironically they've been given the raison d'etre to exist through the EU and some regions remain anti-EU - but the irony exists that without the EU, there wouldn't be the funds to support the growth in regional centres and decisionmaking) but the overarching structure of representative democracy is where the major decisions are made.

That same overarching representative body is much disliked by many as an expensive and powerless chamber.

Kandahar said:
-- Fair enough.

Thank you! I don;t mind discussing world / european / british affairs with Americans but I find some Americans can be very anti no US posters discussing US affairs. Easier just to avoid the subject.

Mell · May 17, 2010

''I believe mostly not''

I think the same. But, I think many have an over simplified view of what democracy means. It is not simply the 'bludgeoning of the people by the people', or the the majority rules.

A functioning and progressive democracy is vital for any country to maintain peace and a healthy standard or living.

Mell · May 17, 2010

''I didn't think there could be "too much democracy", but the longer I live, the more apparent it is to me that most people cannot handle it with responsibility, and feel obliged to abuse it for their own self-interests.''

What would you replace it with though?

phattonez · May 17, 2010

Mell said:
''I didn't think there could be "too much democracy", but the longer I live, the more apparent it is to me that most people cannot handle it with responsibility, and feel obliged to abuse it for their own self-interests.''

What would you replace it with though?

Constitutionally-limited republic. Emphasis on constitutionally-limited.

Can there ever be too much democracy

blond bombshell

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

blond bombshell

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Enemy Combatant

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Well-known member

Catholic