6 ms·

Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by d

by darawk 7y ago

Democracy is more alive today than it ever has been in history. What you are seeing is democracy. I think in the west we've been taught that 'democracy' is by definition good, and therefore anything bad is 'not democracy'. But the reality is that people are voting for this.

tclancy 7y ago
I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. And yes, I am definitely biased.
- darawk 7y ago
  > I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. It may also suggest that they see things differently than you do, and don't believe that they have voted for poisoned water. > You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. I think that's an extremely reductionist, and honestly objectively false characterization of what's happened. And it is that very perspective that has caused them to do this in the first place. These people had real and genuine concerns that were not being addressed by anyone other than Trump. Globalization hollowed out the middle of the country for the benefit of the coasts. This has been more or less the explicit economic agenda of the last 30 years. We can certainly debate whether this has been a net positive for the world, but there is no debate that it has been a net negative for the middle states in the US that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
gregcrv 7y ago
The original democracy was actually designed to appoint random representatives. What we are seeing is not democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- unilynx 7y ago
  Or, I want people in power that didn't want to be in power.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Because we aren't selecting random people from a district, we aren't a democracy? That seems like a strange opinion to have, especially since the definition of democracy is fairly vague, covering basically any system where the people have the authority over their government. And I'd say electing Obama and then Trump, over the screaming temper tantrums of the two separate parties, is good evidence the people still hold authority.
alharith 7y ago
Obligatory Churchill quotation.
meowface 7y ago
I don't agree. There are many different ways to implement a democracy. The choices aren't "democracy as it currently exists in the US" and "authoritarianism/monarchy/oligarchy/everything else". I also don't think people are voting for the current political architecture, or would be capable of voting for any other.
- darawk 7y ago
  I didn't say that it was the only way to do it. What I said is that the US is currently more democratic than it ever has been. Obama, and later Trump, are the most truly democratic presidents we've ever had. They were chosen by the people, without regard to the traditional elite process that more or less determines the nominee.
  - meowface 7y ago
    In what way have past presidents been determined by elites more so than they have now? The US doesn't really seem any more or less democratic than it's been for the previous 100 years. I agree this is what democracy looks like, though. Demagogues like Trump (if one agrees that he's a demagogue; many surely disagree) are a likely eventual outcome of it, though they also have an advantage in almost every other system.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > In what way have past presidents been determined by elites more so than they have now? The US doesn't really seem any more or less democratic than it's been for the previous 100 years. The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country. Having a “primary process” is a actually a very new, more democratic change; it hasn't existed since the inception of the country; historically, Presidential nominations conducted directly and exclusively by insiders; originally usually by the party’s Congressional caucus, later (starting mid-19th Century and into the latter third of the 20th) in party nominating conventions whose members were chosen exclusively (or, toward the end of the period, overwhelmingly predominantly) by insiders at the state parties. Primaries were introduced by some states in the late 19th Century but didn't become the norm until after 1968, as a response first within the Democratic Party to the controversy over the nomination of Eugene McCarthy by Democratic insiders, and just after that a reaction by the Republican Party to Democrats opening up their nominating process.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Well, no, actually, people aren't voting for this. Many people aren't voting at all, because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. In most areas, single vote per election systems prevent third parties from being viable. There's some evidence this encourages extremism as well: moderates aren't able to sufficiently differentiate themselves, causing vote splitting. And after all that, if they're still not able to win unfairly, electioneers can just go into the electronic voting machine and change the votes. And even if you manage to get the person the majority wanted to be in office into office, there's no guarantee that they'll do what they said they'd do that caused people to vote for them. I know lots of people (myself included) who view being forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine as a major betrayal by Obama.
- darawk 7y ago
  > Many people aren't voting at all Choosing not to vote is a vote. > because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Felony disenfranchisement hardly contradicts my point. And anyway, voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement are at all time lows historically, so my point stands just fine. > Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.

by darawk 7y ago

tclancy 7y ago

I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. And yes, I am definitely biased.

darawk 7y ago
> I get what you mean in the larger sense, but here that would suggest there are masses of people who voted for poisoned water, which no one would do. It may also suggest that they see things differently than you do, and don't believe that they have voted for poisoned water. > You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change. I think that's an extremely reductionist, and honestly objectively false characterization of what's happened. And it is that very perspective that has caused them to do this in the first place. These people had real and genuine concerns that were not being addressed by anyone other than Trump. Globalization hollowed out the middle of the country for the benefit of the coasts. This has been more or less the explicit economic agenda of the last 30 years. We can certainly debate whether this has been a net positive for the world, but there is no debate that it has been a net negative for the middle states in the US that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

gregcrv 7y ago

The original democracy was actually designed to appoint random representatives. What we are seeing is not democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

unilynx 7y ago
Or, I want people in power that didn't want to be in power.
merpnderp 7y ago
Because we aren't selecting random people from a district, we aren't a democracy? That seems like a strange opinion to have, especially since the definition of democracy is fairly vague, covering basically any system where the people have the authority over their government. And I'd say electing Obama and then Trump, over the screaming temper tantrums of the two separate parties, is good evidence the people still hold authority.

alharith 7y ago

Obligatory Churchill quotation.

meowface 7y ago

I don't agree. There are many different ways to implement a democracy. The choices aren't "democracy as it currently exists in the US" and "authoritarianism/monarchy/oligarchy/everything else". I also don't think people are voting for the current political architecture, or would be capable of voting for any other.

darawk 7y ago
I didn't say that it was the only way to do it. What I said is that the US is currently more democratic than it ever has been. Obama, and later Trump, are the most truly democratic presidents we've ever had. They were chosen by the people, without regard to the traditional elite process that more or less determines the nominee.
- meowface 7y ago
  In what way have past presidents been determined by elites more so than they have now? The US doesn't really seem any more or less democratic than it's been for the previous 100 years. I agree this is what democracy looks like, though. Demagogues like Trump (if one agrees that he's a demagogue; many surely disagree) are a likely eventual outcome of it, though they also have an advantage in almost every other system.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > In what way have past presidents been determined by elites more so than they have now? The US doesn't really seem any more or less democratic than it's been for the previous 100 years. The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country. Having a “primary process” is a actually a very new, more democratic change; it hasn't existed since the inception of the country; historically, Presidential nominations conducted directly and exclusively by insiders; originally usually by the party’s Congressional caucus, later (starting mid-19th Century and into the latter third of the 20th) in party nominating conventions whose members were chosen exclusively (or, toward the end of the period, overwhelmingly predominantly) by insiders at the state parties. Primaries were introduced by some states in the late 19th Century but didn't become the norm until after 1968, as a response first within the Democratic Party to the controversy over the nomination of Eugene McCarthy by Democratic insiders, and just after that a reaction by the Republican Party to Democrats opening up their nominating process.

kerkeslager 7y ago

Well, no, actually, people aren't voting for this. Many people aren't voting at all, because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. In most areas, single vote per election systems prevent third parties from being viable. There's some evidence this encourages extremism as well: moderates aren't able to sufficiently differentiate themselves, causing vote splitting. And after all that, if they're still not able to win unfairly, electioneers can just go into the electronic voting machine and change the votes. And even if you manage to get the person the majority wanted to be in office into office, there's no guarantee that they'll do what they said they'd do that caused people to vote for them. I know lots of people (myself included) who view being forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine as a major betrayal by Obama.

darawk 7y ago
> Many people aren't voting at all Choosing not to vote is a vote. > because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Felony disenfranchisement hardly contradicts my point. And anyway, voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement are at all time lows historically, so my point stands just fine. > Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.