4 ms·

In theory, a representative democracy keeps checks and balances by the people still routinely communicating with each other as if it were a direct democracy and

In theory, a representative democracy keeps checks and balances by the people still routinely communicating with each other as if it were a direct democracy and if the representatives are not acting in accordance with the direct findings, then it's off with their heads. But in practice that's a lot of work. The reality is that most people don't want to be involved and are happy to have some figurehead do the work for them, even if that means complaining about it later.

postpawl 3y ago
In reality, those with significant wealth and power end up shaping policy. This can lead to public disengagement, as many feel the system is not truly representing their interests.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > those with significant wealth [...] end up shaping policy. Yes, of course. Those with wealth hire people, often referred to as lobbyists, to put in the hard work. Technically, representative democracy requires everyone to be, or have, their own lobbyist, but in practice that's a lot of work that most people don't want to put in. They prefer to defer to a figurehead. It's easier that way. And, as such, give up power because of it.
  - postpawl 3y ago
    The challenge isn't that people don't want to engage; it's that the demands of daily life, such as working long hours to make ends meet, leave little room for the kind of sustained political involvement that wealthier individuals can afford. When we say that people delegate their power to figureheads, it might be more a reflection of an unequal system that doesn't effectively support widespread civic participation, rather than a choice made out of apathy.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Of course the system is not something that magically descended to the heavens, it is simply what people have agreed to go by. If it is unequal, it is so because the people have decided that they want it to be unequal. No doubt because, as you point out, the typical person would rather spend their time making ends meet (i.e. pay for the luxuries of life) than the worry about making agreements with their neighbours day-in, day-out. You can technically survive on very little time commitment to "make ends meet". Just look at the homeless population. It is not a life you would want to live, but it could be done if you truly saw the need to assert your power. But, understandably, most people would rather focus on their personal goals and let the figurehead worry about the community problems. What's the alternative? It's just people at the end of the day. There is no magic. Those who do the work are going to do the work the best way they know how. Even if they value your input and want nothing more than to work with you so that you can show your better way, they are not going to scour the globe to find you. If you don't put the effort in to make yourself known on a regular basis you will be forgotten about.
      - postpawl 3y ago
        Although people have a role in forming societal structures, it's not a simple matter of choice when entrenched interests shape the rules. The perception that individuals consent to inequality by focusing on their own lives misses the broader context of systemic barriers. Expecting people to prioritize civic action over making a decent living underestimates the challenges they face. The system needs to facilitate equal participation through reforms in political finance, such as addressing the implications of Citizens United, or revisiting institutional frameworks that may dilute the majority's voice (the Senate). It's about creating conditions where engagement is a realistic option for all, not just those who can afford the time and expense.
        soco 3y ago
        I think you folks actually agree here: you say "creating conditions" in a rather impersonal way (because who's gonna create them?) while they say that without implication, those conditions will never appear by themselves. And none of you said it would be easy.
  - advael 3y ago
    Considering how many people have to work multiple jobs wherein they're mistreated and given no leeway to even do stuff like take work off when sick or see a doctor regularly, I think the reason they aren't participating in the democratic process has more to do with how much time and energy they have to spare on what we've made a pretty arcane and onerous process that ultimately seems to mostly decide influence based primarily on wealth than a lack of interest in bettering their situation
  - quantified 3y ago
    And maybe there's a nonprofit business model for lobbyist groups to represent people? It takes a lot of people to pool together the funds that a single wealthy individual can muster, but those funds represent potentially quite a few votes.
- sheepscreek 3y ago
  The word we’re all looking for is “systemic”. Disclaimer: The following might make you feel hopeless - I apologize for that in advance. I guess I’m a little in shock right now by the latest Sam Altman news about him looking to pour trillions into driving people out of jobs and possibly jeopardizing humanity. This is indeed like Oppenheimer all over again. I can see it now. Or maybe I need a fresh perspective. Comments are welcome. /Disclaimer Yes people don’t want to get involved. Yes they are stretched thin. Corporate America puts such onerous demands on them that apathy becomes rampant. It only furthers the agendas of powerful figureheads. Their self-actualization goals influence how the society is governed (top-tier in Maslov’s hierarchy). Individual needs of the people - the worker bees - suffer as a direct consequence. There is no longer the “life” part in work-life (the weekends maybe, if you take out kid duty and household chores). There’s no easy way out, and as much as I love everything being done in the name of scientific progress, I don’t like the cost we are paying for it as a society. We’re an unhappy bunch - this wasn’t the American dream, or any dream. I think what’s increasingly missing is some culture - like non-commercial good music. People doing stuff because they were motivated by themselves - not commissioned art. Maybe what we need is a renaissance. Why? To help people losen up a bit, so they can start to remember what living used to feel like. Then maybe, just maybe, people will also start to care more about each other. And dare I say, they might even have some time to volunteer in the service of others. Also, I am not saying everyone fits the above narrative. There are people who do this today - they have dedicated their lives to service. But it’s not the norm, it’s not even 20% of the population. People like me are the norm. We wish well, we want what’s better. But wanting doesn’t automatically translate into actions - that requires motivation and dedication. Which comes from being inspired. And you can’t get inspired by anything when your life is about surviving each day.
mhitza 3y ago
> But in practice that's a lot of work. In practice there are no built-in mechanics to deal with representatives. Wait X years for reelection is not the option. Liquid Democracy would be a possible solution, in which you have the right to vote on all policy directly, or delegate and revoke your voting rights at any moment to a representative. That would be the only way to deal with representatives that promise one thing in campaigns and do something different once they are in office (aside from the many other benefits it would bring).
- randomdata 3y ago
  > In practice there are no built-in mechanics to deal with representatives. There is if the population agrees that the representative is not acting in accordance to wishes of the population: Off with their head – literally. What are they going to do about it with no head? In practice, representatives by and large do act in accordance with the wishes of the constituency to the best of their ability. The larger problem they face is a constituency that doesn't want to be involved. I expect at least 95% of the population have never even spoken to their representative even just once. But the representatives are only human. They do not possess mind reading abilities, so they can only go on what the tiny fraction of the population who are active submit. But, of course, the tiny fraction of the population who are active are probably not representative of the entire population as a whole, and so you get large disconnects even when the representatives are acting in good faith.
bluescrn 3y ago
A representative democracy ends up representing the money, not the people
- randomdata 3y ago
  Sure. All governance, no matter how it is shaped, ends up representing the money. Remember, money is a token of debt. If you give someone money, you promise to give them something of yourself in return at a future point in time. When you are indebted to someone they hold power over you. There is no system or framework that can avoid that shift in power when you indebt yourself to another. The only way to avoid it is to avoid debt. But ultimately that's just people.

postpawl 3y ago

In reality, those with significant wealth and power end up shaping policy. This can lead to public disengagement, as many feel the system is not truly representing their interests.

randomdata 3y ago
> those with significant wealth [...] end up shaping policy. Yes, of course. Those with wealth hire people, often referred to as lobbyists, to put in the hard work. Technically, representative democracy requires everyone to be, or have, their own lobbyist, but in practice that's a lot of work that most people don't want to put in. They prefer to defer to a figurehead. It's easier that way. And, as such, give up power because of it.
- postpawl 3y ago
  The challenge isn't that people don't want to engage; it's that the demands of daily life, such as working long hours to make ends meet, leave little room for the kind of sustained political involvement that wealthier individuals can afford. When we say that people delegate their power to figureheads, it might be more a reflection of an unequal system that doesn't effectively support widespread civic participation, rather than a choice made out of apathy.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Of course the system is not something that magically descended to the heavens, it is simply what people have agreed to go by. If it is unequal, it is so because the people have decided that they want it to be unequal. No doubt because, as you point out, the typical person would rather spend their time making ends meet (i.e. pay for the luxuries of life) than the worry about making agreements with their neighbours day-in, day-out. You can technically survive on very little time commitment to "make ends meet". Just look at the homeless population. It is not a life you would want to live, but it could be done if you truly saw the need to assert your power. But, understandably, most people would rather focus on their personal goals and let the figurehead worry about the community problems. What's the alternative? It's just people at the end of the day. There is no magic. Those who do the work are going to do the work the best way they know how. Even if they value your input and want nothing more than to work with you so that you can show your better way, they are not going to scour the globe to find you. If you don't put the effort in to make yourself known on a regular basis you will be forgotten about.
    - postpawl 3y ago
      Although people have a role in forming societal structures, it's not a simple matter of choice when entrenched interests shape the rules. The perception that individuals consent to inequality by focusing on their own lives misses the broader context of systemic barriers. Expecting people to prioritize civic action over making a decent living underestimates the challenges they face. The system needs to facilitate equal participation through reforms in political finance, such as addressing the implications of Citizens United, or revisiting institutional frameworks that may dilute the majority's voice (the Senate). It's about creating conditions where engagement is a realistic option for all, not just those who can afford the time and expense.
      - soco 3y ago
        I think you folks actually agree here: you say "creating conditions" in a rather impersonal way (because who's gonna create them?) while they say that without implication, those conditions will never appear by themselves. And none of you said it would be easy.
- advael 3y ago
  Considering how many people have to work multiple jobs wherein they're mistreated and given no leeway to even do stuff like take work off when sick or see a doctor regularly, I think the reason they aren't participating in the democratic process has more to do with how much time and energy they have to spare on what we've made a pretty arcane and onerous process that ultimately seems to mostly decide influence based primarily on wealth than a lack of interest in bettering their situation
- quantified 3y ago
  And maybe there's a nonprofit business model for lobbyist groups to represent people? It takes a lot of people to pool together the funds that a single wealthy individual can muster, but those funds represent potentially quite a few votes.
sheepscreek 3y ago
The word we’re all looking for is “systemic”. Disclaimer: The following might make you feel hopeless - I apologize for that in advance. I guess I’m a little in shock right now by the latest Sam Altman news about him looking to pour trillions into driving people out of jobs and possibly jeopardizing humanity. This is indeed like Oppenheimer all over again. I can see it now. Or maybe I need a fresh perspective. Comments are welcome. /Disclaimer Yes people don’t want to get involved. Yes they are stretched thin. Corporate America puts such onerous demands on them that apathy becomes rampant. It only furthers the agendas of powerful figureheads. Their self-actualization goals influence how the society is governed (top-tier in Maslov’s hierarchy). Individual needs of the people - the worker bees - suffer as a direct consequence. There is no longer the “life” part in work-life (the weekends maybe, if you take out kid duty and household chores). There’s no easy way out, and as much as I love everything being done in the name of scientific progress, I don’t like the cost we are paying for it as a society. We’re an unhappy bunch - this wasn’t the American dream, or any dream. I think what’s increasingly missing is some culture - like non-commercial good music. People doing stuff because they were motivated by themselves - not commissioned art. Maybe what we need is a renaissance. Why? To help people losen up a bit, so they can start to remember what living used to feel like. Then maybe, just maybe, people will also start to care more about each other. And dare I say, they might even have some time to volunteer in the service of others. Also, I am not saying everyone fits the above narrative. There are people who do this today - they have dedicated their lives to service. But it’s not the norm, it’s not even 20% of the population. People like me are the norm. We wish well, we want what’s better. But wanting doesn’t automatically translate into actions - that requires motivation and dedication. Which comes from being inspired. And you can’t get inspired by anything when your life is about surviving each day.

mhitza 3y ago

> But in practice that's a lot of work. In practice there are no built-in mechanics to deal with representatives. Wait X years for reelection is not the option. Liquid Democracy would be a possible solution, in which you have the right to vote on all policy directly, or delegate and revoke your voting rights at any moment to a representative. That would be the only way to deal with representatives that promise one thing in campaigns and do something different once they are in office (aside from the many other benefits it would bring).

randomdata 3y ago
> In practice there are no built-in mechanics to deal with representatives. There is if the population agrees that the representative is not acting in accordance to wishes of the population: Off with their head – literally. What are they going to do about it with no head? In practice, representatives by and large do act in accordance with the wishes of the constituency to the best of their ability. The larger problem they face is a constituency that doesn't want to be involved. I expect at least 95% of the population have never even spoken to their representative even just once. But the representatives are only human. They do not possess mind reading abilities, so they can only go on what the tiny fraction of the population who are active submit. But, of course, the tiny fraction of the population who are active are probably not representative of the entire population as a whole, and so you get large disconnects even when the representatives are acting in good faith.

bluescrn 3y ago

A representative democracy ends up representing the money, not the people

randomdata 3y ago
Sure. All governance, no matter how it is shaped, ends up representing the money. Remember, money is a token of debt. If you give someone money, you promise to give them something of yourself in return at a future point in time. When you are indebted to someone they hold power over you. There is no system or framework that can avoid that shift in power when you indebt yourself to another. The only way to avoid it is to avoid debt. But ultimately that's just people.