3 ms·

They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.

by darawk 7y ago

notacoward 7y ago
That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means. Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? Is it still democratic representation when some people's votes count for less, either because of gerrymandering or because of extra seats in the senate and electoral college for thinly populated states? Is it still democratic representation when we can't verify that our voting systems are secure, but can verify that one party is doing everything they can to block improvement? How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right?
- darawk 7y ago
  > That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means I don't think the literal meaning of democracy is a "ridiculous narrow representation of democracy". We may agree that the right to vote does not, on its own, in all cases, entirely embody all aspects of the democratic ideal. But it is certainly not a "ridiculously narrow interpretation". > Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? I'd say it is still democracy, but imperfectly implemented. The overwhelming majority of Americans are able to vote. Should it be better? Of course. But the idea that the poor in aggregate are unrepresented politically is ludicrous. > How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right? We're a lot more democratic than the USSR. To suggest otherwise is the height of privileged conceit. Modern Russia is more democratic than the USSR, and if you think our democracy is equivalent to theirs, take a trip over there and try running against Putin in the next election. See how that works out for you.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
No. False. Totally wrong. They vote every couple of years for candidates that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Regular non capital owning people in America have significantly less political power than those with money. That is not democratic representation.
- darawk 7y ago
  > They vote every couple of years for candidates Aka the definition of democracy, yes. > that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. Candidates that the wealthy don't like raise money all the time, though. Most rich people didn't like Trump. They certainly don't like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If your assertion is that money in politics systematically disenfranchises the poor, then you may want to re-examine the current democratic field. > They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    > Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor. I’m reminded of the factory workers in other countries whose indigenous land was stolen by the government so they could no longer farm. The one fertile farming land land was used to build factories. And the indigenes people, who no longer had any land to farm on, finally “chose” to work in the factory. I disagree with you strongly that voting every few years is the definition of democracy if you mean to say it is the entire definition of democracy. There’s been thousands of years of history and philosophy as it relates to democracy and voting every few years is far from the only idea people have had about it. In particular voting for representatives is participation in a representative democracy, which is one kind of democracy. There are others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies

They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.

by darawk 7y ago

They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.

That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means. Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? Is it still democratic representation when some people's votes count for less, either because of gerrymandering or because of extra seats in the senate and electoral college for thinly populated states? Is it still democratic representation when we can't verify that our voting systems are secure, but can verify that one party is doing everything they can to block improvement? How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right?

darawk 7y ago
> That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means I don't think the literal meaning of democracy is a "ridiculous narrow representation of democracy". We may agree that the right to vote does not, on its own, in all cases, entirely embody all aspects of the democratic ideal. But it is certainly not a "ridiculously narrow interpretation". > Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? I'd say it is still democracy, but imperfectly implemented. The overwhelming majority of Americans are able to vote. Should it be better? Of course. But the idea that the poor in aggregate are unrepresented politically is ludicrous. > How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right? We're a lot more democratic than the USSR. To suggest otherwise is the height of privileged conceit. Modern Russia is more democratic than the USSR, and if you think our democracy is equivalent to theirs, take a trip over there and try running against Putin in the next election. See how that works out for you.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

No. False. Totally wrong. They vote every couple of years for candidates that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Regular non capital owning people in America have significantly less political power than those with money. That is not democratic representation.

darawk 7y ago
> They vote every couple of years for candidates Aka the definition of democracy, yes. > that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. Candidates that the wealthy don't like raise money all the time, though. Most rich people didn't like Trump. They certainly don't like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If your assertion is that money in politics systematically disenfranchises the poor, then you may want to re-examine the current democratic field. > They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  > Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor. I’m reminded of the factory workers in other countries whose indigenous land was stolen by the government so they could no longer farm. The one fertile farming land land was used to build factories. And the indigenes people, who no longer had any land to farm on, finally “chose” to work in the factory. I disagree with you strongly that voting every few years is the definition of democracy if you mean to say it is the entire definition of democracy. There’s been thousands of years of history and philosophy as it relates to democracy and voting every few years is far from the only idea people have had about it. In particular voting for representatives is participation in a representative democracy, which is one kind of democracy. There are others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies