3 ms·

Anyone on HN ever seriously questioned popular democracy? (genuinely curious)

by awt 10y ago

douche 10y ago
If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of those who actually hammered out the US Constitution, there are strong threads of distaste and fear for the consequences of unfettered popular democracy. The mostly wealthy, land-owning, businessmen and aristocrats who met in Philadelphia envisioned a largely oligarchic, Roman-style Republic, not a Democracy of universal suffrage, liable to succumb to the shifting winds of populism and demagoguery. Only the House was to be directly elected; senators would be selected by their respective state legislatures, not a direct plebiscite. Moreover, they mostly restricted what limited voting rights there were, to white adult male property owners, those with "skin in the game." Largely, it was a slight modification to the British system that they were already familiar with.
- awt 10y ago
  I'm asking about you though, not the founders.
  - douche 10y ago
    I can't say I'm always thrilled with the results. Popular referendums seem to be disastrous, as often as not. I'd probably say that the 17th Amendment was a mistake. Dunbar's Number seems to be more true than false, and the layers of indirection help to cut down the damage. There's also the problem of fossilized borders and jurisdictions that no longer reflect current realities. It'll never happen, but some realignment of current state borders would probably be beneficial. There are the lurking proposals to split California into multiple substates. The New York metro area has more in common with its neighbors across state lines than with the people in the hinterlands of their respective states. In my home state, we have one small urban area that can effectively wag the dog of the rest of the state and ramrod through any ill-conceived notion that catches its fancy, with terrible consequences for the rest of the citizens living outside that bubble - on any election, the returns are nearly mirror images of each other for that one enclave versus the rest of the state.
dlss 10y ago
I think basically every thinking person comes to see democracy as deeply flawed in one way or another. The problem is I don't think anyone is aware of a better (non pie-in-the-sky) solution.

Anyone on HN ever seriously questioned popular democracy? (genuinely curious)

by awt 10y ago

Anyone on HN ever seriously questioned popular democracy? (genuinely curious)

If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of those who actually hammered out the US Constitution, there are strong threads of distaste and fear for the consequences of unfettered popular democracy. The mostly wealthy, land-owning, businessmen and aristocrats who met in Philadelphia envisioned a largely oligarchic, Roman-style Republic, not a Democracy of universal suffrage, liable to succumb to the shifting winds of populism and demagoguery. Only the House was to be directly elected; senators would be selected by their respective state legislatures, not a direct plebiscite. Moreover, they mostly restricted what limited voting rights there were, to white adult male property owners, those with "skin in the game." Largely, it was a slight modification to the British system that they were already familiar with.

awt 10y ago
I'm asking about you though, not the founders.
- douche 10y ago
  I can't say I'm always thrilled with the results. Popular referendums seem to be disastrous, as often as not. I'd probably say that the 17th Amendment was a mistake. Dunbar's Number seems to be more true than false, and the layers of indirection help to cut down the damage. There's also the problem of fossilized borders and jurisdictions that no longer reflect current realities. It'll never happen, but some realignment of current state borders would probably be beneficial. There are the lurking proposals to split California into multiple substates. The New York metro area has more in common with its neighbors across state lines than with the people in the hinterlands of their respective states. In my home state, we have one small urban area that can effectively wag the dog of the rest of the state and ramrod through any ill-conceived notion that catches its fancy, with terrible consequences for the rest of the citizens living outside that bubble - on any election, the returns are nearly mirror images of each other for that one enclave versus the rest of the state.

dlss 10y ago

I think basically every thinking person comes to see democracy as deeply flawed in one way or another. The problem is I don't think anyone is aware of a better (non pie-in-the-sky) solution.