4 ms·

Switzerland is far more democratic than the US and the people are much more in control of their government. Proportional representation, no one person in charg

Switzerland is far more democratic than the US and the people are much more in control of their government. Proportional representation, no one person in charge as president and referendums on most significants actions of the legislature make for a much more decentralized system. Its very difficult for a vast industry special interests to insert itself into the process. The key is not letting people decide everything for everybody, but preserving the individual's ability to decide their own fate. The developing "democratic" disaster in the US is not what the founders wanted. They thought they had put things in place to prevent this, but they failed. And its looking like only a major crisis that our leaders cannot cover over will force us to reconsider how we operate.

jboydyhacker 16y ago
I am not sure referendums are the answer. If you look at the California example, lobbyists still have a huge impact and the state is even more non functioning than the federal government. I am not sure more referendums would be a good thing.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  and I'm not suggesting that California as a model. California does not have referendums required to approve legislative action. California doesn't allow you to leave a municipality to join or create another. California does not have proportional representation.
jellicle 16y ago
It's important to recognize that the United States is version 1.0 of democracy. The U.S. system of governance hasn't changed significantly since its inception; the 12th, 17th and 22nd amendments are the only "bugfixes", and they're quite minor. Other nations have had several advantages. Smaller populations, making experimenting and changes easier. Ability to see what the U.S. did wrong and learn from its mistakes. And so on. Democracy is at at least version 3 today, but the U.S. is stuck at version 1.0 and will be for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, the U.S. Constitution is mostly from 1789, while the Swiss Constitution is from 1999. Does anyone think there might have been some advances in the science of democracy over those 210 years?
- bbgm 16y ago
  Excellent point. What I have never understood is that while the US constitution is relatively robust and, for the better part, has withstood the test of time, it is a document written to reflect the late 18th century, yet for some reason 21st century America seems to believe that it is a near immutable document and set of ideas. There is a need for a "refresh", or at least people should be willing to consider what aspects of the constitution have not aged as well as others.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    Most of it is very, very good. But how we chose who represents us and the lack of approval we have of their actions are the big flaws. If we make a few changes, I think the ship can be put back on track. As far as what century it applies to, the problems of government are pretty timeless. When one class of people is free to exploit another, the results are the same no matter what century is it.
  - 1337p337 16y ago
    Well, part of the cleverness built into the constitution is a meta-rule describing the process for changing the constitution. Every system accumulates cruft, but if we have a mechanism to apply patches, then we can (in theory) accomplish some refactoring without an upheaval. The only issue is that modern politics in America is a lot more like trench warfare, with lines drawn and and fixed. Opinions on every issue fall along party lines, with a few exceptions.
    - mdaniel 16y ago
      I hope dearly that Lawrence Lessig succeeds in actually calling a constitutional convention (http://www.callaconvention.org http://www.callaconvention.org), if for no other reason than to strike out your "in theory" qualifier.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    While true, the problem is that our constitution also defines our civil rights and liberties. If you open the door to reexamining the Constitution, you open the door to butchering the Bill of Rights. Given how dysfunctional our political system is, I'll take an outdated and flawed constitution before letting the clowns in power now try and write a better one. Sure, maybe it's not vitally important that the Constitution outlaw the government quartering troops in our houses, but I would not like to see the people behind the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, "extraordinary rendition", and internet wiretapping get a shot at "revising" the fourth and fifth amendments.

jboydyhacker 16y ago

I am not sure referendums are the answer. If you look at the California example, lobbyists still have a huge impact and the state is even more non functioning than the federal government. I am not sure more referendums would be a good thing.

stretchwithme 16y ago
and I'm not suggesting that California as a model. California does not have referendums required to approve legislative action. California doesn't allow you to leave a municipality to join or create another. California does not have proportional representation.

jellicle 16y ago

It's important to recognize that the United States is version 1.0 of democracy. The U.S. system of governance hasn't changed significantly since its inception; the 12th, 17th and 22nd amendments are the only "bugfixes", and they're quite minor. Other nations have had several advantages. Smaller populations, making experimenting and changes easier. Ability to see what the U.S. did wrong and learn from its mistakes. And so on. Democracy is at at least version 3 today, but the U.S. is stuck at version 1.0 and will be for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, the U.S. Constitution is mostly from 1789, while the Swiss Constitution is from 1999. Does anyone think there might have been some advances in the science of democracy over those 210 years?

bbgm 16y ago
Excellent point. What I have never understood is that while the US constitution is relatively robust and, for the better part, has withstood the test of time, it is a document written to reflect the late 18th century, yet for some reason 21st century America seems to believe that it is a near immutable document and set of ideas. There is a need for a "refresh", or at least people should be willing to consider what aspects of the constitution have not aged as well as others.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  Most of it is very, very good. But how we chose who represents us and the lack of approval we have of their actions are the big flaws. If we make a few changes, I think the ship can be put back on track. As far as what century it applies to, the problems of government are pretty timeless. When one class of people is free to exploit another, the results are the same no matter what century is it.
- 1337p337 16y ago
  Well, part of the cleverness built into the constitution is a meta-rule describing the process for changing the constitution. Every system accumulates cruft, but if we have a mechanism to apply patches, then we can (in theory) accomplish some refactoring without an upheaval. The only issue is that modern politics in America is a lot more like trench warfare, with lines drawn and and fixed. Opinions on every issue fall along party lines, with a few exceptions.
  - mdaniel 16y ago
    I hope dearly that Lawrence Lessig succeeds in actually calling a constitutional convention (http://www.callaconvention.org http://www.callaconvention.org), if for no other reason than to strike out your "in theory" qualifier.
- philwelch 16y ago
  While true, the problem is that our constitution also defines our civil rights and liberties. If you open the door to reexamining the Constitution, you open the door to butchering the Bill of Rights. Given how dysfunctional our political system is, I'll take an outdated and flawed constitution before letting the clowns in power now try and write a better one. Sure, maybe it's not vitally important that the Constitution outlaw the government quartering troops in our houses, but I would not like to see the people behind the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, "extraordinary rendition", and internet wiretapping get a shot at "revising" the fourth and fifth amendments.