4 ms·

I object to the premise of this article. Democracy isn’t broken, it’s just messy. A cursory glance at history should reveal that it has always been messy. Thin

by cal5k 9y ago

I object to the premise of this article. Democracy isn’t broken, it’s just messy. A cursory glance at history should reveal that it has always been messy. Thinking back on civics lessons we had in high school, it’s sort of weird that we teach such a romanticized version of the history of democracy to kids. It’s a guaranteed recipe for disillusionment - no matter how good your government is, it can never match up to the idealized versions of historical figures. They’re not here for us to converse with, else we’d quickly learn they are just as flawed as anyone else.

chungy 9y ago
This article is deeply flawed in everything from the premise to all of the proposed solutions. Compulsory voting, electronic voting (online or otherwise), abolishing the electoral college are all fundamentally terrible ideas that pose direct threats to the integrity of a democracy. Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy and never has been: it is a representative republic and that is an extremely important distinction. It's sorry to say but the article reads like it was written by somebody without the slightest clue about how elections work.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > Compulsory voting, (...) abolishing the electoral college are all fundamentally terrible ideas that pose direct threats to the integrity of a democracy Why? The electoral college is a pretty uniquely American institution, and Australia seem to manage OK with compulsory voting? > Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy Well then how can they be a threat to the integrity of it?
  - mentalpiracy 9y ago
    Australia does manage fine with compulsory voting, however, they operate on a parliamentary system of proportional vote distribution. America might be fine without the electoral college, but we would need to alter our first-past-the-post system.
    - lambertsimnel 9y ago
      Please note that Australia's use of proportional representation is only in senatorial and state elections. The elections that determine who gets to form a federal government (Australian House of Representatives elections) are held under the non-proportional majority-preferential system (instant-runoff voting). The US could abolish the electoral college without replacing the first-past-the-post system (assuming by that you mean single-winner plurality voting): https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation I'd like the US to both abolish the electoral college and adopt a different voting system for presidential elections. Actually, I consider the voting system used for the Australian House of Representatives more suitable for presidential elections than for parliamentary elections.
- antientropic 9y ago
  > Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy and never has been: it is a representative republic and that is an extremely important distinction. That's not an important distinction - it's misguided pedantry. The US is a republic and a (representative) democracy. Those terms are not mutually exclusive.
- lagadu 9y ago
  You're incorrect about what a democracy and a republic are. The US is both. A republic is a system where each head of state is chosen by the people in some form, not necessarily by voting (res - of, publica - public). Contrast with Monarchy. A Democracy is a system where the goverment's decision process is based on the population that it serves (demo - the people as in "demographics", cratia - to govern), this is determined by voting so decisions can be made according to the majority. In the particular case of modern democracies, because of the unyieldiness of having the whole population vote on every measure, we use what's called a representative democracy, where we choose someone to represent via voting us when deciding something. Contrast with dictatorship.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
On one hand I agree. It's not only messy, it's designed to be that way. On the other hand, we need to look no further than gerrymandering to see that something has gone wrong. Furthermore, we are barely a two-party system. We get to vote. What's lacking is choice. The Fourth Estate is also in a troubling state. Unfortunately, they're not going to report that about themselves. Finally. Let's not forget the power and influence of lobbyist. It's hard to imagine Jefferson saying, "Yes. This is it. Great job."
- JasonFruit 9y ago
  The messiness of our elections is excessive, and your points are generally good. But to our credit, it's hard to imagine a large, long-lived republic that would get a pat on the head from Jefferson. He had very strict principles that even he found difficult to maintain in practice. That being said, we need a healthy dose of principles that safeguard liberty, and the determination to hold elected officials to them.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Your last paragraph is spot on. As a start, I'd like to suggest we stop using the word leader / leadership when - as your so accurately noted - they are elected officials. Some do lead. But leader is a title that should be reserved for those who actually do. We've been duped into believing they are all leaders. They are not. We haven't even left the gate and already the first step is wrong.
- cal5k 9y ago
  I live in a parliamentary democracy (Canada). The ability to elect a minority government is actually a super useful protection mechanism because it creates 4 or or more options. 1. Majority for Liberal government 2. Majority for Conservative government 3. Minority for Liberal government 4. Minority for Conservative government 5+ Majority/minority for any of the various other parties (NDP, Green, etc.) <- doesn't really happen federally, but provincially it's definitely possible The downside in Canada is that our appointed Senate is weak compared to an elected one, and you can whip your party to vote along certain lines.
some_account 9y ago
There is no real democracy and its weird how people can think there is. People are not supposed to have the power to actually change things, and probably for good reason. How much time are we putting into really knowing the issues and researching solutions? Most people pick candidates based on how well they do in debates or based purely on superficial qualities. Oh look, Obama looks stunning today, let's vote for him. Or look, Hillary is a woman, let's vote for her. The amount of effort on this is zero, which is also exactly what we actually want. The system also makes sure no real suitable candidates have a chance. They need to be rich, first of all. Second, they need media support (media is owned by a handful of people, so they decide who gets to look good and who doesn't). Third, there are powerful people at the top who can make people catch a bullet (Reagan, Martin Luther King, etc). Fourth, there is actually a real illuminati group of people who already decides the direction of the world and what is needed to keep people distracted.
- goatlover 9y ago
  > Fourth, there is actually a real illuminati group of people who already decides the direction of the world and what is needed to keep people distracted. No group of humans is smart enough to decide the direction of the world. It's an emergent phenomenon from billions of actors.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if there actually were real Illuminati managing the world? At least someone would have some control over what's happening, hopefully someone with a clue.
philipodonnell 9y ago
Good point about democracy being not so much broken as fractious... but it seems that the youngest are usually the ones most eager to push for political change against entrenched interests (perhaps because the youngest are not entrenched yet). I expect that stems from a person growing up being told that a system works in a particular idealized way (that bill-becomes-a-law cartoon) and then discovering as they begin to interact with it as they enter adulthood that it actually works in quite different way (legalized bribery). That sort of clash of ideal-against-reality motivates them to try to improve the system back towards the ideal. If they were never taught the ideal, or worse, told that the way things work now is how its always been, would we rob ourselves of any opposing societal force beyond armed insurrection that could improve things?

by cal5k 9y ago

chungy 9y ago

This article is deeply flawed in everything from the premise to all of the proposed solutions. Compulsory voting, electronic voting (online or otherwise), abolishing the electoral college are all fundamentally terrible ideas that pose direct threats to the integrity of a democracy. Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy and never has been: it is a representative republic and that is an extremely important distinction. It's sorry to say but the article reads like it was written by somebody without the slightest clue about how elections work.

pjc50 9y ago
> Compulsory voting, (...) abolishing the electoral college are all fundamentally terrible ideas that pose direct threats to the integrity of a democracy Why? The electoral college is a pretty uniquely American institution, and Australia seem to manage OK with compulsory voting? > Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy Well then how can they be a threat to the integrity of it?
- mentalpiracy 9y ago
  Australia does manage fine with compulsory voting, however, they operate on a parliamentary system of proportional vote distribution. America might be fine without the electoral college, but we would need to alter our first-past-the-post system.
  - lambertsimnel 9y ago
    Please note that Australia's use of proportional representation is only in senatorial and state elections. The elections that determine who gets to form a federal government (Australian House of Representatives elections) are held under the non-proportional majority-preferential system (instant-runoff voting). The US could abolish the electoral college without replacing the first-past-the-post system (assuming by that you mean single-winner plurality voting): https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation I'd like the US to both abolish the electoral college and adopt a different voting system for presidential elections. Actually, I consider the voting system used for the Australian House of Representatives more suitable for presidential elections than for parliamentary elections.
antientropic 9y ago
> Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy and never has been: it is a representative republic and that is an extremely important distinction. That's not an important distinction - it's misguided pedantry. The US is a republic and a (representative) democracy. Those terms are not mutually exclusive.
lagadu 9y ago
You're incorrect about what a democracy and a republic are. The US is both. A republic is a system where each head of state is chosen by the people in some form, not necessarily by voting (res - of, publica - public). Contrast with Monarchy. A Democracy is a system where the goverment's decision process is based on the population that it serves (demo - the people as in "demographics", cratia - to govern), this is determined by voting so decisions can be made according to the majority. In the particular case of modern democracies, because of the unyieldiness of having the whole population vote on every measure, we use what's called a representative democracy, where we choose someone to represent via voting us when deciding something. Contrast with dictatorship.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

On one hand I agree. It's not only messy, it's designed to be that way. On the other hand, we need to look no further than gerrymandering to see that something has gone wrong. Furthermore, we are barely a two-party system. We get to vote. What's lacking is choice. The Fourth Estate is also in a troubling state. Unfortunately, they're not going to report that about themselves. Finally. Let's not forget the power and influence of lobbyist. It's hard to imagine Jefferson saying, "Yes. This is it. Great job."

JasonFruit 9y ago
The messiness of our elections is excessive, and your points are generally good. But to our credit, it's hard to imagine a large, long-lived republic that would get a pat on the head from Jefferson. He had very strict principles that even he found difficult to maintain in practice. That being said, we need a healthy dose of principles that safeguard liberty, and the determination to hold elected officials to them.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Your last paragraph is spot on. As a start, I'd like to suggest we stop using the word leader / leadership when - as your so accurately noted - they are elected officials. Some do lead. But leader is a title that should be reserved for those who actually do. We've been duped into believing they are all leaders. They are not. We haven't even left the gate and already the first step is wrong.
cal5k 9y ago
I live in a parliamentary democracy (Canada). The ability to elect a minority government is actually a super useful protection mechanism because it creates 4 or or more options. 1. Majority for Liberal government 2. Majority for Conservative government 3. Minority for Liberal government 4. Minority for Conservative government 5+ Majority/minority for any of the various other parties (NDP, Green, etc.) <- doesn't really happen federally, but provincially it's definitely possible The downside in Canada is that our appointed Senate is weak compared to an elected one, and you can whip your party to vote along certain lines.

some_account 9y ago

There is no real democracy and its weird how people can think there is. People are not supposed to have the power to actually change things, and probably for good reason. How much time are we putting into really knowing the issues and researching solutions? Most people pick candidates based on how well they do in debates or based purely on superficial qualities. Oh look, Obama looks stunning today, let's vote for him. Or look, Hillary is a woman, let's vote for her. The amount of effort on this is zero, which is also exactly what we actually want. The system also makes sure no real suitable candidates have a chance. They need to be rich, first of all. Second, they need media support (media is owned by a handful of people, so they decide who gets to look good and who doesn't). Third, there are powerful people at the top who can make people catch a bullet (Reagan, Martin Luther King, etc). Fourth, there is actually a real illuminati group of people who already decides the direction of the world and what is needed to keep people distracted.

goatlover 9y ago
> Fourth, there is actually a real illuminati group of people who already decides the direction of the world and what is needed to keep people distracted. No group of humans is smart enough to decide the direction of the world. It's an emergent phenomenon from billions of actors.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if there actually were real Illuminati managing the world? At least someone would have some control over what's happening, hopefully someone with a clue.

philipodonnell 9y ago

Good point about democracy being not so much broken as fractious... but it seems that the youngest are usually the ones most eager to push for political change against entrenched interests (perhaps because the youngest are not entrenched yet). I expect that stems from a person growing up being told that a system works in a particular idealized way (that bill-becomes-a-law cartoon) and then discovering as they begin to interact with it as they enter adulthood that it actually works in quite different way (legalized bribery). That sort of clash of ideal-against-reality motivates them to try to improve the system back towards the ideal. If they were never taught the ideal, or worse, told that the way things work now is how its always been, would we rob ourselves of any opposing societal force beyond armed insurrection that could improve things?