6 ms·

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.
- panarky 11y ago
  Excellent video, I hadn't seen that. Predictably, the argument devolves into one about direct democracy vs. representative democracy, and that's really not the issue at all. The issue is that the current system consistently acts contrary to the will of the people. To quote the Princeton study from your video: The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
  - erichocean 11y ago
    > The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. That's a feature, not a bug.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  I'm curious about this capital-P People. Does working for a corporation revoke membership in this club?
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.

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.
panarky 11y ago
Excellent video, I hadn't seen that. Predictably, the argument devolves into one about direct democracy vs. representative democracy, and that's really not the issue at all. The issue is that the current system consistently acts contrary to the will of the people. To quote the Princeton study from your video: The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
- erichocean 11y ago
  > The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. That's a feature, not a bug.
oldmanjay 11y ago
I'm curious about this capital-P People. Does working for a corporation revoke membership in this club?

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.