5 ms·

The implication of "no real democracy" is not necessarily "rigged/fake elections", especially since the definition of "democracy" is vague at best, highly relat

The implication of "no real democracy" is not necessarily "rigged/fake elections", especially since the definition of "democracy" is vague at best, highly relative, and difficult to specify. Say, for example, you have a traditional British parliamentary system (that's in use in many countries around the world). This imaginary country has 50 seats in government spread around geographically... there are some obvious issues that may arise here: - Distribution of seats: should be it population-proportionate? Or should it account for land mass? Or economic output? There is already a huge point of contention here. - Determination of seat: if Party A wins 51% of the popular vote in every single district, then will claim 100% governance of the entire country, despite the fact that 49% of the population voted for someone else. This problem is exacerbated in countries that have more than two major political parties, where the ruling party can be given the mandate despite having what would appear to be a shockingly small portion of the popular vote. - Appointed vs. elected positions: many countries do not have elected posts throughout the government. Which roles should be appointed instead of elected, and if so by whom? There are many legitimate claims that you don't have "real democracy" - i.e., the government does not accurately represent the will of the people, before you get into claims of illegitimate and rigged elections.

tropin 16y ago
>> if Party A wins 51% of the popular vote in every single district, then will claim 100% governance of the entire country What about 51% of the votes in 51% of the districts?
- potatolicious 16y ago
  Ahah, in most places that's 51% of governance - which will appease the macro-scale proportional-representation folk, but is not without issues. Let's say you are in a rural district with a great deal of natural lumber resources. There's a party that's for clearcutting, and two parties adamantly against it. The party for clearcutting gets 35% of the vote and wins the election - is it democratic that governance power in the local district is handed to the minority vote? Of course, the "easy" solution to this is to do things California-style - i.e. put every major controversial issue up to a popular vote, to remove the association of specific issues to party lines. That has its dangers also - here in Seattle it's resulted in deadlock on major issues and just a complete clogging of government. Even if we ignore local governance, the drawing of district boundaries can also be used to disenfranchise certain demographics. In one city I used to live in, they redrew the districts to carve up the urban-center population and mixed them in with the suburban voter base. In this way, pro-urban issues didn't have a chance, and urban residents couldn't win representation effectively. Is that democracy? etc etc. These issues never end - "democracy" is hard to define.
protomyth 16y ago
I am quite fond of the original intent of the US Constitution with upper house being territory-based and the lower house being population-based. I don't like the direct election of the Senators since it separates them too much from the concerns of the state. I guess I would prefer to have the state legislatures appoint them or else remove the 2 senators and substitute the state's governor (travel time / communication not being that big an issue).

tropin 16y ago

>> if Party A wins 51% of the popular vote in every single district, then will claim 100% governance of the entire country What about 51% of the votes in 51% of the districts?

potatolicious 16y ago
Ahah, in most places that's 51% of governance - which will appease the macro-scale proportional-representation folk, but is not without issues. Let's say you are in a rural district with a great deal of natural lumber resources. There's a party that's for clearcutting, and two parties adamantly against it. The party for clearcutting gets 35% of the vote and wins the election - is it democratic that governance power in the local district is handed to the minority vote? Of course, the "easy" solution to this is to do things California-style - i.e. put every major controversial issue up to a popular vote, to remove the association of specific issues to party lines. That has its dangers also - here in Seattle it's resulted in deadlock on major issues and just a complete clogging of government. Even if we ignore local governance, the drawing of district boundaries can also be used to disenfranchise certain demographics. In one city I used to live in, they redrew the districts to carve up the urban-center population and mixed them in with the suburban voter base. In this way, pro-urban issues didn't have a chance, and urban residents couldn't win representation effectively. Is that democracy? etc etc. These issues never end - "democracy" is hard to define.

protomyth 16y ago

I am quite fond of the original intent of the US Constitution with upper house being territory-based and the lower house being population-based. I don't like the direct election of the Senators since it separates them too much from the concerns of the state. I guess I would prefer to have the state legislatures appoint them or else remove the 2 senators and substitute the state's governor (travel time / communication not being that big an issue).