13 ms·

> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will

by panarky 11y ago

> Well, welcome to life in a democracy. The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the change we get does not represent the will of the people. A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more corporate cash into the machine. A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead [3]. People overwhelmingly disapprove using public funds to bail out reckless bankers [4], but somehow it happens anyway. There was a global uproar over SOPA and PIPA which shut down this draconian legislation. But you can't kill the zombie, and it keeps coming back, now in secret trade agreements like TPP and TTIP that citizens aren't even allowed to read. The Total Information Awareness program was suspended in 2003 [5] after a public outcry over warrantless mass surveillance. Naturally it was all reincarnated into secret NSA programs. We'll see the same thing with devices and personal encryption. This is only a temporary setback for the powers that be, they'll be back with another sensational, emotional case soon enough. The current system does not represent the will of the people. It's an oligarchy supported by a security apparatus run amok. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg-poll-americans-want-supreme-court-to-turn-off-political-spending-spigot http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomb... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... [4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/106114/six-oppose-wall-street-bailouts.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/106114/six-oppose-wall-street-bai... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness

Aleman360 11y ago
The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.
- mtgx 11y ago
  No, but I think Americans want a semblance of representation. When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig Every time there's an argument about wanting more democracy in the US, it seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants mob rule. But there's a canyon between what exists now and what a more representative government could look like.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? There's plenty of time to undo the actions of the past 10, 20, even 30 years. If you sit back on your heels, throw your arms up in the air, don't vote and say nothing, then you won't be participating in democracy. But if you do use your voice and vote then at least you can say you tried. Everything won't always go your way and we don't have a perfect system. But given our diverse population it is a pretty good one. I say that while in full agreement that there are a lot of laws that need to be reversed or undone. You'll never entirely remove money from politics. And, we should keep trying to remove it even though we know we won't end up with a perfect solution. That said, lobbyists aren't inherently evil and many share our viewpoints (for example, the EFF)
    - mdpopescu 11y ago
      Personally, I don't believe that "at least you can say you tried" is morally superior to not participating in a rigged game.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        I did not say anything about morals. I'm not superior to you. I'm just stating my opinion. Choose to do as you wish. If you choose to not participate in the formation of this government, you are free to continue living in the US or live elsewhere. You could even try to start a revolution though I wouldn't recommend it. It is entirely up to you.
- KerryJones 11y ago
  Exactly -- because the US isn't a democracy (majority rule), it's a democratic republic.
  - tjgq 11y ago
    Is that a distinction worth making? By that standard, how many countries in the world are actually democracies?
    - studentrob 11y ago
      Absolutely it is. Google the difference. A democratic republic ultimately derives power from the people. There are more checks and balances in place in America than one person one vote. More info [1] [1] http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
  - dpark 11y ago
    It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - jMyles 11y ago
      It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."
      - Thrymr 11y ago
        You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. [0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- panarky 11y ago
  Certainly not! It's much better to be ruled by sociopaths and megalomaniacs.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    Versus the stupid and the ignorant?
    - panarky 11y ago
      Yes! I'd prefer to be governed by ordinary people rather than an intelligent and wealthy adversary intentionally working against my interests.
      - sirclueless 11y ago
        The problem is that "governance by ordinary people" is not really on the table as an option. Governance by popular vote might be, but given how short-sighted and easily swayed the average loosely aware citizen is, the result is more likely to be "governance by demagogues and whoever has the most advertising dollars".
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      You realise it's not either/or? The US is a plutocracy. It's in no sense a working democracy. There's a public voting circus every couple of years, but policy - which is the only thing that really matters in politics - is largely defined by Wall St, the Fed, and by mil-ind corporate lobbying groups. All of the above are politically unaccountable and legally untouchable. See for example the ridiculous excuses made to prevent the passage of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_A...
      - thothamon 11y ago
        This sort of thing is said all the time, but we do see significant policy changes based on voting, such as the switch to Barack Obama from George W. Bush. It's not clear to me that the corporations drove that in a major way. Another example is Herbert Hoover to Franklin Roosevelt. I imagine you wouldn't suggest that the corporations wanted the Socialist ideas proposed by Roosevelt. Just because an election or a vote doesn't go your way, or the government doesn't shift dramatically every election, doesn't mean the nation does not have a working democracy.
bko 11y ago
Yes and nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels [0] You're cherry-picking topics you (presumably) agree on. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-be...
- panarky 11y ago
  Is your point that people who believe in angels have no capability to govern themselves, so they should be grateful to their corporate overlords? Or is your point that people who believe in angels need to be surveilled without warrants and have their meager earnings confiscated to enrich the elite?
  - bko 11y ago
    My point is that the current popular opinion based on a casual response to an (unbiased?) question should not necessarily be used to determine the policy of a nation.
rayiner 11y ago
Your examples are all pretty disingenuous. > A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only minor changes. 62% think it's about right or doesn't go far enough. Those polls also have some very interesting statistics. 30% of those polled think that the government should take all steps necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks, even if that means violating basic civil liberties. 65% think otherwise, but 55% of those polled do not think the government's programs violate civil liberties. 55% of those polled in 2006 were okay with the Bush administration's wiretaps. 53% of those polled in 2006 thought that the Bush administration was about right or did not go far enough in restricting peoples' civil liberties to fight terrorism. > A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more corporate cash into the machine. In a 2010 poll, 68% of those polled thought the government should be able to prevent the sale of violent video games to minors: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1588/children-violence.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/1588/children-violence.aspx. Yet in 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a California law doing precisely that (Brown v. EMA). I think few people on HN would say that was wrongly decided. Given that the Supreme Court reviews laws that have been passed by elected legislatures, it is almost guaranteed that when it strikes down a law, it will be going against popular opinion. > A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead [3]. Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. But in the meantime, who the "majority of Americans voted for" is not how we decide the election of the President.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. I was with you until this part. States gave us a path to gay marriage, and allow people to move to different areas that hold different values than the whole nation. I'd suggest trying instant runoff voting before moving to something as drastic as abolishing states. I think IRV would allow people to express their votes and opinions more clearly than the system we have today.
imgabe 11y ago
The system is designed specifically to thwart the majority sometimes. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Now, the thwarting doesn't always happen when the majority is wrong, but we might be grateful for the electoral college for instance, this time around. The breadth and complexity of the issues the government has to deal with are far beyond what any one citizen could keep track of, that's why we don't have a direct democracy.
- zavi 11y ago
  > Sometimes the majority is wrong s/sometimes/most of the time
noelsusman 11y ago
The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 2000 election was a clusterfuck, but it has happened exactly once since 1888. Besides, if a few hundred votes go the other way in Florida then we wouldn't even be talking about it. On bankers, 60% isn't overwhelming, and the government decided to go against the will of the people because they thought it was the best course of action. Most experts agree that it was the lesser of two evils. You can go read the TPP for yourself. It's been out for three months. [1] Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. [2] None of this matters though because the will of the people is not supposed to be the final say in government action. There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. [1] https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...
- mchahn 11y ago
  > Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.
  - phamilton 11y ago
    The people whose jobs are to determine that say otherwise.
  - jayess 11y ago
    Aren't outlets of the free press primarily corporations?
  - 11y ago
LordKano 11y ago
A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead That's a feature, not a bug. The Electoral College was specifically designed to mitigate the power of densely populated areas.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
All of those things are real problems. But it sounds like you're looking for an excuse to throw up your hands and give up. That's not going to make things any better. Sometimes the will of the people prevails, and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, it's really disheartening; sometimes all our effort is for naught. But if we don't even try, it will always be for naught.
winstonewert 11y ago
Actually, neither candidate got a majority in 2000 election, either nationally or in Florida.

by panarky 11y ago

Aleman360 11y ago

The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.

mtgx 11y ago
No, but I think Americans want a semblance of representation. When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig Every time there's an argument about wanting more democracy in the US, it seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants mob rule. But there's a canyon between what exists now and what a more representative government could look like.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no? There's plenty of time to undo the actions of the past 10, 20, even 30 years. If you sit back on your heels, throw your arms up in the air, don't vote and say nothing, then you won't be participating in democracy. But if you do use your voice and vote then at least you can say you tried. Everything won't always go your way and we don't have a perfect system. But given our diverse population it is a pretty good one. I say that while in full agreement that there are a lot of laws that need to be reversed or undone. You'll never entirely remove money from politics. And, we should keep trying to remove it even though we know we won't end up with a perfect solution. That said, lobbyists aren't inherently evil and many share our viewpoints (for example, the EFF)
  - mdpopescu 11y ago
    Personally, I don't believe that "at least you can say you tried" is morally superior to not participating in a rigged game.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      I did not say anything about morals. I'm not superior to you. I'm just stating my opinion. Choose to do as you wish. If you choose to not participate in the formation of this government, you are free to continue living in the US or live elsewhere. You could even try to start a revolution though I wouldn't recommend it. It is entirely up to you.
KerryJones 11y ago
Exactly -- because the US isn't a democracy (majority rule), it's a democratic republic.
- tjgq 11y ago
  Is that a distinction worth making? By that standard, how many countries in the world are actually democracies?
  - studentrob 11y ago
    Absolutely it is. Google the difference. A democratic republic ultimately derives power from the people. There are more checks and balances in place in America than one person one vote. More info [1] [1] http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
- dpark 11y ago
  It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jMyles 11y ago
    It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."
    - Thrymr 11y ago
      You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. [0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
panarky 11y ago
Certainly not! It's much better to be ruled by sociopaths and megalomaniacs.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Versus the stupid and the ignorant?
  - panarky 11y ago
    Yes! I'd prefer to be governed by ordinary people rather than an intelligent and wealthy adversary intentionally working against my interests.
    - sirclueless 11y ago
      The problem is that "governance by ordinary people" is not really on the table as an option. Governance by popular vote might be, but given how short-sighted and easily swayed the average loosely aware citizen is, the result is more likely to be "governance by demagogues and whoever has the most advertising dollars".
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    You realise it's not either/or? The US is a plutocracy. It's in no sense a working democracy. There's a public voting circus every couple of years, but policy - which is the only thing that really matters in politics - is largely defined by Wall St, the Fed, and by mil-ind corporate lobbying groups. All of the above are politically unaccountable and legally untouchable. See for example the ridiculous excuses made to prevent the passage of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_A...
    - thothamon 11y ago
      This sort of thing is said all the time, but we do see significant policy changes based on voting, such as the switch to Barack Obama from George W. Bush. It's not clear to me that the corporations drove that in a major way. Another example is Herbert Hoover to Franklin Roosevelt. I imagine you wouldn't suggest that the corporations wanted the Socialist ideas proposed by Roosevelt. Just because an election or a vote doesn't go your way, or the government doesn't shift dramatically every election, doesn't mean the nation does not have a working democracy.

bko 11y ago

Yes and nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angels [0] You're cherry-picking topics you (presumably) agree on. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-be...

panarky 11y ago
Is your point that people who believe in angels have no capability to govern themselves, so they should be grateful to their corporate overlords? Or is your point that people who believe in angels need to be surveilled without warrants and have their meager earnings confiscated to enrich the elite?
- bko 11y ago
  My point is that the current popular opinion based on a casual response to an (unbiased?) question should not necessarily be used to determine the policy of a nation.

rayiner 11y ago

Your examples are all pretty disingenuous. > A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps getting renewed. First, what polls say is not the same as what the electorate believes. Actual voters skew older and more conservative that the general public. Second, your poll doesn't show that Americans are dissatisfied with the Patriot Act. 63% of those polled think it requires no or only minor changes. 62% think it's about right or doesn't go far enough. Those polls also have some very interesting statistics. 30% of those polled think that the government should take all steps necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks, even if that means violating basic civil liberties. 65% think otherwise, but 55% of those polled do not think the government's programs violate civil liberties. 55% of those polled in 2006 were okay with the Bush administration's wiretaps. 53% of those polled in 2006 thought that the Bush administration was about right or did not go far enough in restricting peoples' civil liberties to fight terrorism. > A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more corporate cash into the machine. In a 2010 poll, 68% of those polled thought the government should be able to prevent the sale of violent video games to minors: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1588/children-violence.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/1588/children-violence.aspx. Yet in 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a California law doing precisely that (Brown v. EMA). I think few people on HN would say that was wrongly decided. Given that the Supreme Court reviews laws that have been passed by elected legislatures, it is almost guaranteed that when it strikes down a law, it will be going against popular opinion. > A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead [3]. Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. But in the meantime, who the "majority of Americans voted for" is not how we decide the election of the President.

studentrob 11y ago
> Frankly, I think we should not only abolish the electoral college, but the states as well. I was with you until this part. States gave us a path to gay marriage, and allow people to move to different areas that hold different values than the whole nation. I'd suggest trying instant runoff voting before moving to something as drastic as abolishing states. I think IRV would allow people to express their votes and opinions more clearly than the system we have today.

imgabe 11y ago

The system is designed specifically to thwart the majority sometimes. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Now, the thwarting doesn't always happen when the majority is wrong, but we might be grateful for the electoral college for instance, this time around. The breadth and complexity of the issues the government has to deal with are far beyond what any one citizen could keep track of, that's why we don't have a direct democracy.

zavi 11y ago
> Sometimes the majority is wrong s/sometimes/most of the time

noelsusman 11y ago

The American government is not supposed to be a direct representation of the will of the people, but let's go through this anyway. On the PATRIOT Act, the link you provided shows that 63% of Americans either want to keep the entire thing or make minor changes. Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The 2000 election was a clusterfuck, but it has happened exactly once since 1888. Besides, if a few hundred votes go the other way in Florida then we wouldn't even be talking about it. On bankers, 60% isn't overwhelming, and the government decided to go against the will of the people because they thought it was the best course of action. Most experts agree that it was the lesser of two evils. You can go read the TPP for yourself. It's been out for three months. [1] Americans are divided in their opinions on NSA surveillance. [2] None of this matters though because the will of the people is not supposed to be the final say in government action. There founding fathers did not believe in direct democracy. [1] https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran... [2] http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-ph...

mchahn 11y ago
> Citizens United came from the Supreme Court, an institution that is explicitly designed to be shielded from the will of the people as much as possible. The people have nothing to do with that decision. It is just plain unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution never meant for personal rights to be applied to corporations.
- phamilton 11y ago
  The people whose jobs are to determine that say otherwise.
- jayess 11y ago
  Aren't outlets of the free press primarily corporations?
- 11y ago

LordKano 11y ago

A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was installed instead That's a feature, not a bug. The Electoral College was specifically designed to mitigate the power of densely populated areas.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

All of those things are real problems. But it sounds like you're looking for an excuse to throw up your hands and give up. That's not going to make things any better. Sometimes the will of the people prevails, and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, it's really disheartening; sometimes all our effort is for naught. But if we don't even try, it will always be for naught.

winstonewert 11y ago

Actually, neither candidate got a majority in 2000 election, either nationally or in Florida.