3 ms·

> Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect

> Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. That’s irrelevant isn’t it? You elect based on your own self-interest and expect your candidate to follow theirs. There isn’t a single “what’s best for society” anyway so the pull between competing ideas means the most popular ones win. With a tempering effect from the courts. What we did not expect was political parties. These are in effect conjoining at least the legislative and executive branches. Also the electoral college ruined things. Not for the trivial reason you may think but by eliminating runoff elections.

SamBam 7y ago
I think the parties part is the key, especially how it has infected the judicial branch as well. Madison claimed that the defense against the tyranny of the majority was that "...the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights [...] consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects." It seems that parties, and particularly blind obedience to the head of the party (whether the president, the speaker, etc), has diminished the "number of interests and sects." (Note, this is my understanding of Madison, but not as a scholar of US history.)
chongli 7y ago
There isn’t a single “what’s best for society” anyway A lot of people believe that though. They see democracy as the key to discovering this idea and bringing everyone on board with it. I’ve heard this position described as “mistake theory,” in contrast to conflict theory [1]. In other words, for some people the goal of government is to find the right balance of incentives and disincentives. For others, government will always be a power struggle between mutually incompatible interests. Democracy makes little sense in such a situation. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
peterwwillis 7y ago
> What we did not expect was political parties The founding fathers did. They saw how political factions brought about the bloody English civil wars, and many feared they'd tear the new nation apart. But some people like Jefferson saw them as a part of human nature, a necessary evil. As of our second president (1797) we had a two-party system. But by 1812, the Democratic-Republican party gained control of both Congress and the presidency, and effectively destroyed the Federalist party, giving us effectively one party control of government (the "Era of Good Feelings" in which nationalism flourished in the afterglow of the war of 1812). But in 1830 the new Democratic Party gained control, and we've had two since then.

SamBam 7y ago

I think the parties part is the key, especially how it has infected the judicial branch as well. Madison claimed that the defense against the tyranny of the majority was that "...the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights [...] consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects." It seems that parties, and particularly blind obedience to the head of the party (whether the president, the speaker, etc), has diminished the "number of interests and sects." (Note, this is my understanding of Madison, but not as a scholar of US history.)

chongli 7y ago

There isn’t a single “what’s best for society” anyway A lot of people believe that though. They see democracy as the key to discovering this idea and bringing everyone on board with it. I’ve heard this position described as “mistake theory,” in contrast to conflict theory [1]. In other words, for some people the goal of government is to find the right balance of incentives and disincentives. For others, government will always be a power struggle between mutually incompatible interests. Democracy makes little sense in such a situation. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/

peterwwillis 7y ago

> What we did not expect was political parties The founding fathers did. They saw how political factions brought about the bloody English civil wars, and many feared they'd tear the new nation apart. But some people like Jefferson saw them as a part of human nature, a necessary evil. As of our second president (1797) we had a two-party system. But by 1812, the Democratic-Republican party gained control of both Congress and the presidency, and effectively destroyed the Federalist party, giving us effectively one party control of government (the "Era of Good Feelings" in which nationalism flourished in the afterglow of the war of 1812). But in 1830 the new Democratic Party gained control, and we've had two since then.