5 ms·

"Athens puts all modern democracies to shame in who actually held office, and ensuring that those that did had real skin in the game" Well, unless you were a w

"Athens puts all modern democracies to shame in who actually held office, and ensuring that those that did had real skin in the game" Well, unless you were a woman, a slave, or under 30, in which case oh well. Let's not exaggerate the glory of Athens.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Right, but who gets to vote is just one aspect of it. Regardless of the fact more people get to vote in our democracy, our officials almost without exception are from a fairly small socioeconomic elite. This has changed remarkably little since universal suffrage some hundred odd years ago. Despite how a lot of people get to vote, not a lot of people get to rule. The key difference, in Athens, is most political appointments were by random lot. It was literally a government by the people. No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 5y ago
  > No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. > This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office. There is too many of us eligible.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    > Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. Sure, but what does voting matter if the options basically are the same? > There is too many of us eligible. Right, but I'll repeat the criticism you levied above. In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office.
    - groby_b 5y ago
      "In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office." The same as in Athens. Sure, you could throw your lot in, but... did you have the means to run for the office? Did you have supporters that "discouraged" other candidates from running? The Athenians in office I can currently recall all came from rich or influential families. (I may well be wrong - my recall is certainly extremely spotty. I'd love pointers if anybody knows of an analysis on Athenian officials & their backgrounds)
    - watwut 5y ago
      > In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office. Exact same in Athens.
- groby_b 5y ago
  I think you are confusing "eligible" and "get elected to the biggest, most visible positions". Turns out, even in Athens, for the really big jobs they were kind of picky - dokimasia is an excellent filter to remove those you don't want. (Part of the process was questioning your "moral character", which is a pretty good proxy for "has an in with the powers that be"). And if we exclude high-visibility offices, there's a lot of people who can and do run in the US, for their local offices. School boards, city council members, commissioners, etc. If we want to debate shortcomings of modern democracy, we might want to focus on the devaluation of local offices to the point of only focusing on national office.
watwut 5y ago
They also had non small population of men who were not slaves and not citizens. Had to be born to right parents too. And have wealth I think too.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  You needed to be a male citizen landowner. But part in this is because eligibility to vote was eligibility to be assigned political office. Voting wasn't just a right, it potentially came with duties as well. It's not that illogical to exclude slaves because a slave in office gives their masters influence over an official, exclude people without land because they were susceptible to bribery, and exclude women who could get pregnant.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Aristocracy with no election at all is not _that_ illogical either. But, it takes some seriously twists to call it democracy. > exclude people without land because they were susceptible to bribery This however means, Athens dont put other democracies in shame at all.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      Why is universal suffrage necessary for democracy?
      - groby_b 5y ago
        Because otherwise you decide that segments of the population shouldn't be heard. Democracy is literally "government by the people" - anything but universal suffrage means you consider some part of the population not people.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

Right, but who gets to vote is just one aspect of it. Regardless of the fact more people get to vote in our democracy, our officials almost without exception are from a fairly small socioeconomic elite. This has changed remarkably little since universal suffrage some hundred odd years ago. Despite how a lot of people get to vote, not a lot of people get to rule. The key difference, in Athens, is most political appointments were by random lot. It was literally a government by the people. No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
watwut 5y ago
> No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. > This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office. There is too many of us eligible.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  > Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. Sure, but what does voting matter if the options basically are the same? > There is too many of us eligible. Right, but I'll repeat the criticism you levied above. In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office.
  - groby_b 5y ago
    "In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office." The same as in Athens. Sure, you could throw your lot in, but... did you have the means to run for the office? Did you have supporters that "discouraged" other candidates from running? The Athenians in office I can currently recall all came from rich or influential families. (I may well be wrong - my recall is certainly extremely spotty. I'd love pointers if anybody knows of an analysis on Athenian officials & their backgrounds)
  - watwut 5y ago
    > In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office. Exact same in Athens.
groby_b 5y ago
I think you are confusing "eligible" and "get elected to the biggest, most visible positions". Turns out, even in Athens, for the really big jobs they were kind of picky - dokimasia is an excellent filter to remove those you don't want. (Part of the process was questioning your "moral character", which is a pretty good proxy for "has an in with the powers that be"). And if we exclude high-visibility offices, there's a lot of people who can and do run in the US, for their local offices. School boards, city council members, commissioners, etc. If we want to debate shortcomings of modern democracy, we might want to focus on the devaluation of local offices to the point of only focusing on national office.

watwut 5y ago

They also had non small population of men who were not slaves and not citizens. Had to be born to right parents too. And have wealth I think too.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
You needed to be a male citizen landowner. But part in this is because eligibility to vote was eligibility to be assigned political office. Voting wasn't just a right, it potentially came with duties as well. It's not that illogical to exclude slaves because a slave in office gives their masters influence over an official, exclude people without land because they were susceptible to bribery, and exclude women who could get pregnant.
- watwut 5y ago
  Aristocracy with no election at all is not _that_ illogical either. But, it takes some seriously twists to call it democracy. > exclude people without land because they were susceptible to bribery This however means, Athens dont put other democracies in shame at all.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Why is universal suffrage necessary for democracy?
    - groby_b 5y ago
      Because otherwise you decide that segments of the population shouldn't be heard. Democracy is literally "government by the people" - anything but universal suffrage means you consider some part of the population not people.