5 ms·

This is a good illustration for why I feel democracy is fundamentally broken. Democracy requires a large number of people to agree on on party/person and to re

This is a good illustration for why I feel democracy is fundamentally broken. Democracy requires a large number of people to agree on on party/person and to reach these people and to convince them to vote for your candidate, you have to spend tons of money. Either: A) You use your own money. Which means you fall under "the financial elite". B) You take money from financial elites, which means you will owe them and pay back in some form. Why else would they give you their precious money? Thus the power remains restricted to the the financial elite. The elected candidate represents the elites more than the common person because while the common person just gave the candidate a singular vote, the investor gave the candidate much needed money that helped gather all those votes

feider 11y ago
" to reach these people and to convince them to vote for your candidate, you have to spend tons of money" I recall reading from freakonomics that (according to them) inverse is actually true: candidates do not do better because they have bigger budgets, but they're likely to receive more financial support if they are more likely to get elected. Truth probably lies somewhere in between, but stating that "democracy is fundamentally broken" is just too naive.
- kobayashi 11y ago
  Having worked in federal politics, I can confirm that the notion that "democracy is fundamentally broken" is something far more frequently heard from those who have little-to-no experience in politics, than those who have seen the good and bad of politics' inner workings. In fact, I've never heard it from somebody who works in politics, and those are some of the most jaded people I've ever come across. IMHO, democracy is definitely not broken, and it's biggest threat stems from those who peddle in FUD relating to government & democracy. Essentially, things aren't as bad as most would like you to believe, and individuals getting involved in politics are the ones with the biggest influence in politics. It's far more accessible than many would have you believe, especially because politics runs on the hard work of young people, who then become insiders, write policy, and affect change.
  - afsina 11y ago
    Perhaps you have never heard this from people who works in politics precisely because they are part of the cozy system they are in and being fed from it.
    - kobayashi 11y ago
      Perhaps, but like I said, they're extremely jaded people. Nobody in politics has a rose-colored view of democracy, thinking it's a perfect form of governance. But at the same time, you can see the value it has and you can actually see change occur. Democracy isn't broken because getting involved actually has a tremendous affect on the inner workings of politics. Telling people democracy is broken actually works to break it, because people stay home and don't get involved, which is the lifeblood of democracy.
  - michaelt 11y ago
    Well, it makes sense that successful people working in a legal field would not think that field is broken - otherwise how would they rationalise dedicating their life to it? I'd expect cosmetic plastic surgeons, patent lawyers, payday loan providers, NSA employees, beauty magazine writers, oil company execs, planned parenthood employees, NRA employees, parking wardens and censorship software writers to believe their work had a genuine positive impact on society too.
    - philh 11y ago
      The question of whether a field is broken (not working how people would like it to work) is different from the question of whether it's valuable. There's a question of whether lawyers are a net good for society, and I would expect a lawyer to think 'yes' whether or not that's true. But there's also a question of, how much of a lawyer's job involves being friendly with the judge? I'd expect a lawyer to know the true answer to that, independently of whether or not [she thinks] lawyers are a net good. (At least, I'd trust the lawyer more than I'd trust a randomer.)
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
- xerophyte12932 11y ago
  I think you are missing the point. The financial support is cozying up to whoever will win. Obviously its not a free donation. The investor will eventually seek payback by having a higher voice in legislative matters. For example, motorcycle driven rickshaws were recently banned in Pakistan. The official statement says they were unsafe and a menace to society. But it doesn't take a genius to see that other forms of public transport (such as buses) stand to gain from this decision and must have had something to do with it. PS: Public transport is largely owned by private parties in Pakistan.
greggman 11y ago
What do you think would fix that?
- lukasm 11y ago
  Benevolent Dictator For Life
- k__ 11y ago
  Demarchy. The government will be selected randomly from all citizens. This could be improved with quotas like 50% have to be selected from the female citizens, 14% from the african american citizens, etc. The massive speedup in the election could then be invested in the time those random people need to form a government.
afsina 11y ago
You may find the book "Democracy, the God that failed" from Herman Hoppe interesting (or you may find him too weird). Although cronyism is one of the main culprit, he gives other reasons for the inferiority of the Democracy. Bare in mind that he is an anti-statist and anarcho-capitalist. His proposed practical solution is de-centralization of governments to as small as possible pieces. He has a related shorter variation here: https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy
- xerophyte12932 11y ago
  Thanks, seems like an interesting read. Will look into it.
  - afsina 11y ago
    Also this video: (If you do not have time, see after min 48.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIUSctVPCCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIUSctVPCCU
pjc50 11y ago
you have to spend tons of money This was what campaign finance reform was supposed to be about. It can be done differently: in the UK, the parties are not allowed to buy TV advertising! Instead there are a few fixed, free slots for the parties. The Scottish Independence referendum had a spend limit of a few million £ for each side. Much less than a lot of California ballot propositions: http://time.com/3532419/ballot-measures-corporations/ http://time.com/3532419/ballot-measures-corporations/
- xerophyte12932 11y ago
  The free slot thing is brilliant. Levels the playing field to some extent and removes the need for candidates for relying on outside investors
  - pjc50 11y ago
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p02mbgy3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p02mbgy3 (not sure whether that's available outside UK, you may have to hunt for "party political broadcast" on youtube) The way they're all introduced by a BBC continuity announcer saying "This is a party political broadcast on behalf of the Whatever party", and the fact that most of the people doing the electoral groundwork are volunteers, lends the whole thing a very British dignity. Doesn't get money out of politics entirely though. We're still beholden to the finance industry and the landlord industry.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      By the way, Germany does the same – and parties get money relative to votes and the engagement of their supporters retroactively for their election campaign, so no campaign has to be paid by sponsors.
- knodi123 11y ago
  parties not allowed to buy tv advertising? That would take about 5 minutes to work around. just have a big party official retire, and become the head of a public organization which carefully avoids colluding with the party, while funnelling private donations into privately funded ads which merely explain why one candidate is better than the other.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 11y ago
Well, representative democracy requires that a large number of people agree on a party/person. Democracy by itself only requires that a large number of people agree on something. And not all "somethings" are party/people.

feider 11y ago

" to reach these people and to convince them to vote for your candidate, you have to spend tons of money" I recall reading from freakonomics that (according to them) inverse is actually true: candidates do not do better because they have bigger budgets, but they're likely to receive more financial support if they are more likely to get elected. Truth probably lies somewhere in between, but stating that "democracy is fundamentally broken" is just too naive.

kobayashi 11y ago
Having worked in federal politics, I can confirm that the notion that "democracy is fundamentally broken" is something far more frequently heard from those who have little-to-no experience in politics, than those who have seen the good and bad of politics' inner workings. In fact, I've never heard it from somebody who works in politics, and those are some of the most jaded people I've ever come across. IMHO, democracy is definitely not broken, and it's biggest threat stems from those who peddle in FUD relating to government & democracy. Essentially, things aren't as bad as most would like you to believe, and individuals getting involved in politics are the ones with the biggest influence in politics. It's far more accessible than many would have you believe, especially because politics runs on the hard work of young people, who then become insiders, write policy, and affect change.
- afsina 11y ago
  Perhaps you have never heard this from people who works in politics precisely because they are part of the cozy system they are in and being fed from it.
  - kobayashi 11y ago
    Perhaps, but like I said, they're extremely jaded people. Nobody in politics has a rose-colored view of democracy, thinking it's a perfect form of governance. But at the same time, you can see the value it has and you can actually see change occur. Democracy isn't broken because getting involved actually has a tremendous affect on the inner workings of politics. Telling people democracy is broken actually works to break it, because people stay home and don't get involved, which is the lifeblood of democracy.
- michaelt 11y ago
  Well, it makes sense that successful people working in a legal field would not think that field is broken - otherwise how would they rationalise dedicating their life to it? I'd expect cosmetic plastic surgeons, patent lawyers, payday loan providers, NSA employees, beauty magazine writers, oil company execs, planned parenthood employees, NRA employees, parking wardens and censorship software writers to believe their work had a genuine positive impact on society too.
  - philh 11y ago
    The question of whether a field is broken (not working how people would like it to work) is different from the question of whether it's valuable. There's a question of whether lawyers are a net good for society, and I would expect a lawyer to think 'yes' whether or not that's true. But there's also a question of, how much of a lawyer's job involves being friendly with the judge? I'd expect a lawyer to know the true answer to that, independently of whether or not [she thinks] lawyers are a net good. (At least, I'd trust the lawyer more than I'd trust a randomer.)
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
xerophyte12932 11y ago
I think you are missing the point. The financial support is cozying up to whoever will win. Obviously its not a free donation. The investor will eventually seek payback by having a higher voice in legislative matters. For example, motorcycle driven rickshaws were recently banned in Pakistan. The official statement says they were unsafe and a menace to society. But it doesn't take a genius to see that other forms of public transport (such as buses) stand to gain from this decision and must have had something to do with it. PS: Public transport is largely owned by private parties in Pakistan.

greggman 11y ago

What do you think would fix that?

lukasm 11y ago
Benevolent Dictator For Life
k__ 11y ago
Demarchy. The government will be selected randomly from all citizens. This could be improved with quotas like 50% have to be selected from the female citizens, 14% from the african american citizens, etc. The massive speedup in the election could then be invested in the time those random people need to form a government.

afsina 11y ago

You may find the book "Democracy, the God that failed" from Herman Hoppe interesting (or you may find him too weird). Although cronyism is one of the main culprit, he gives other reasons for the inferiority of the Democracy. Bare in mind that he is an anti-statist and anarcho-capitalist. His proposed practical solution is de-centralization of governments to as small as possible pieces. He has a related shorter variation here: https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy

xerophyte12932 11y ago
Thanks, seems like an interesting read. Will look into it.
- afsina 11y ago
  Also this video: (If you do not have time, see after min 48.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIUSctVPCCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIUSctVPCCU

pjc50 11y ago

you have to spend tons of money This was what campaign finance reform was supposed to be about. It can be done differently: in the UK, the parties are not allowed to buy TV advertising! Instead there are a few fixed, free slots for the parties. The Scottish Independence referendum had a spend limit of a few million £ for each side. Much less than a lot of California ballot propositions: http://time.com/3532419/ballot-measures-corporations/ http://time.com/3532419/ballot-measures-corporations/

xerophyte12932 11y ago
The free slot thing is brilliant. Levels the playing field to some extent and removes the need for candidates for relying on outside investors
- pjc50 11y ago
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p02mbgy3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/p02mbgy3 (not sure whether that's available outside UK, you may have to hunt for "party political broadcast" on youtube) The way they're all introduced by a BBC continuity announcer saying "This is a party political broadcast on behalf of the Whatever party", and the fact that most of the people doing the electoral groundwork are volunteers, lends the whole thing a very British dignity. Doesn't get money out of politics entirely though. We're still beholden to the finance industry and the landlord industry.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    By the way, Germany does the same – and parties get money relative to votes and the engagement of their supporters retroactively for their election campaign, so no campaign has to be paid by sponsors.
knodi123 11y ago
parties not allowed to buy tv advertising? That would take about 5 minutes to work around. just have a big party official retire, and become the head of a public organization which carefully avoids colluding with the party, while funnelling private donations into privately funded ads which merely explain why one candidate is better than the other.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

marcosdumay 11y ago

Well, representative democracy requires that a large number of people agree on a party/person. Democracy by itself only requires that a large number of people agree on something. And not all "somethings" are party/people.