5 ms·

There are two interpretations of democracy. In one interpretation, the purpose of democracy is accountability of the leaders and the government. Representative

There are two interpretations of democracy. In one interpretation, the purpose of democracy is accountability of the leaders and the government. Representative democracy is a means to an end from that interpretation: you don't vote so that the leaders represent you, you vote to keep them in check. The other interpretation, is an intentional misunderstanding that is promoted, which says that the purpose of democracy is to "represent" the people. What does representation means? Whatever the leading polarization line the media is pushing. Most likely, polarization across left/right, race, sex, ethnicity, religion. Exactly the non constructive sort of representation, the one that requires minimum accountability. The U.S. media and elite have perfected the art of brainwashing towards the representation interpretation, and against the accountability interpretation (also branded "populism"). The polarization is no accident. It is the strategy producing minimum accountability, which produces maximum power.

jmole 3y ago
Maybe we should stop voting for people and start voting directly for policy.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  On a small scale this is initiative and referendum. On the large scale this results in a small proportion of unelected people who have a lot of time on their hands controlling things. A large chunk would probably be relatively well-to-do retirees.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Speaking as a California resident, who has to deal with the remainders of the fashion for direct democracy a hundred years ago, I think this is mostly a bad idea. One, people enact policies, so we still have to choose leaders. Two, rule-by-ballot-prop is a messy business, with many dubious propositions making it to the ballot not because they're particularly good, but because people with money can pay to make it happen. And three, it depends upon people putting a lot of time into understanding complicated issues. I'm a smart, dutiful person who tries to keep up and who spends many hours every election trying to understand. For me it still often comes down to deciding who to trust. The only advantage I see to it is when it gives politicians cover to do things that they agree with the populace on but don't want to get yelled at about. E.g., legalizing marijuana. Unfortunately, there are also bad examples, like CA Prop 8, which was just trying to put bigotry in the state constitution.
  - schuyler2d 3y ago
    As someone from New York you should temper that with at least having some way to get popular ideas passed without full government capture. Take a look at Colorado's system which is implemented quite well. I think it's too attention-expensive for every law but it's an important guardrail against corrupt state politics.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> Most likely, polarization across race, sex, ethnicity, religion. Exactly the non constructive sort of representation, the one that requires minimum accountability. Most black Democrats are not voting for the black Republican candidate. Most female Republicans are not voting for the female Democrat candidate. The Catholic Joe Biden lost most of the Catholic vote to Trump. And every time a person like Theodore Roosevelt, Ross Perot, or Donald Trump throws their hat in the ring you get a lot of two-party disaffected people voting for them.
wpietri 3y ago
I don't think these things are in practice separable. E.g., America's founding ended up being an agreement between well-off white men to limit power to well-off white men [1]. We can't blame "the media" for that. Neither can we blame "the media" for things like America's war over whether black people were livestock [2], or how the only successful coup in American history was about white men keeping that power [3]. We've done better over the years, of course, and we should be proud of that. But an important way to keep leaders in check is to have leaders with many backgrounds and experiences. Because their power doesn't just get used once every election, but every time a word is added to our laws. [1] https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-v... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...
throw0101b 3y ago
> In one interpretation […] > The other interpretation […] Where are/were these interpretations of "democracy" defined? What (who?) makes them definitive? What makes them the only two? What makes one correct and the other incorrect? Any links or ISBNs that you could provide would be most appreciated.
- enugu 3y ago
  Something like the accountability interpretation has been championed by David Deutsch, who bases a lot of his thought on Karl Popper. So voters kicking out an incumbent is seen as analogous to scientists abandoning a hypothesis after falsification by an experiment.
none_to_remain 3y ago
Here's one: electoral democracy is a method of avoiding wars of succession by counting each factions' supporters so the weaker factions can pre-emptively surrender

jmole 3y ago

Maybe we should stop voting for people and start voting directly for policy.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
On a small scale this is initiative and referendum. On the large scale this results in a small proportion of unelected people who have a lot of time on their hands controlling things. A large chunk would probably be relatively well-to-do retirees.
wpietri 3y ago
Speaking as a California resident, who has to deal with the remainders of the fashion for direct democracy a hundred years ago, I think this is mostly a bad idea. One, people enact policies, so we still have to choose leaders. Two, rule-by-ballot-prop is a messy business, with many dubious propositions making it to the ballot not because they're particularly good, but because people with money can pay to make it happen. And three, it depends upon people putting a lot of time into understanding complicated issues. I'm a smart, dutiful person who tries to keep up and who spends many hours every election trying to understand. For me it still often comes down to deciding who to trust. The only advantage I see to it is when it gives politicians cover to do things that they agree with the populace on but don't want to get yelled at about. E.g., legalizing marijuana. Unfortunately, there are also bad examples, like CA Prop 8, which was just trying to put bigotry in the state constitution.
- schuyler2d 3y ago
  As someone from New York you should temper that with at least having some way to get popular ideas passed without full government capture. Take a look at Colorado's system which is implemented quite well. I think it's too attention-expensive for every law but it's an important guardrail against corrupt state politics.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> Most likely, polarization across race, sex, ethnicity, religion. Exactly the non constructive sort of representation, the one that requires minimum accountability. Most black Democrats are not voting for the black Republican candidate. Most female Republicans are not voting for the female Democrat candidate. The Catholic Joe Biden lost most of the Catholic vote to Trump. And every time a person like Theodore Roosevelt, Ross Perot, or Donald Trump throws their hat in the ring you get a lot of two-party disaffected people voting for them.

wpietri 3y ago

I don't think these things are in practice separable. E.g., America's founding ended up being an agreement between well-off white men to limit power to well-off white men [1]. We can't blame "the media" for that. Neither can we blame "the media" for things like America's war over whether black people were livestock [2], or how the only successful coup in American history was about white men keeping that power [3]. We've done better over the years, of course, and we should be proud of that. But an important way to keep leaders in check is to have leaders with many backgrounds and experiences. Because their power doesn't just get used once every election, but every time a word is added to our laws. [1] https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-v... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...

throw0101b 3y ago

> In one interpretation […] > The other interpretation […] Where are/were these interpretations of "democracy" defined? What (who?) makes them definitive? What makes them the only two? What makes one correct and the other incorrect? Any links or ISBNs that you could provide would be most appreciated.

enugu 3y ago
Something like the accountability interpretation has been championed by David Deutsch, who bases a lot of his thought on Karl Popper. So voters kicking out an incumbent is seen as analogous to scientists abandoning a hypothesis after falsification by an experiment.

none_to_remain 3y ago

Here's one: electoral democracy is a method of avoiding wars of succession by counting each factions' supporters so the weaker factions can pre-emptively surrender