3 ms·

This is the core flaw of the democratic system. Once a person gets elected, democracy effectively ends. Many of their policies may be harmful to the country, an

This is the core flaw of the democratic system. Once a person gets elected, democracy effectively ends. Many of their policies may be harmful to the country, and their promises may not be fulfilled, but there is no punishment mechanism. As long as they step down from office, the media may criticize or mock them, yet no one really cares about the damage they caused. Leaving aside the fact that offshore wind power is already a mature technology, at the current stage of human development we should be promoting this kind of clean energy as much as possible. I remember a scientist once said that resources like oil are non-renewable, and simply burning them is actually a waste. We should try to use them for other purposes whenever possible, since there are so many renewable energy sources available. Of course, the lifespan of a country is shorter than that of oil, and the lifespan of a politician is even shorter than that of a country. That, too, is one of the tragedies of human society.

defrost 7mo ago
* This is the core flaw of the (USofA) democratic system. * Once a person gets elected, (USofA) democracy effectively ends. * Many of their policies may be harmful to the country, and their promises may not be fulfilled, but there is no punishment mechanism (in the USofA). All democratic systems are not the USofA .. the USofA hasn't progressed much since inception.
- adrianN 7mo ago
  Which countries do substantially better?
  - defrost 7mo ago
    Ones that can remove corrupt officials, not merely toothlessly impeach them to no actual end. Ones that can call a new election on a dime (relative to the lumbering US system) and don't fetishize a Little King absolute ruler. Looking about, Australia (as one example) took a hard look at both the US and UK systems and ran with a hybrid of their own design - "Washminster". Australia has shortcomings, as do all systems, but they do have the ability to churn Prime Ministers at a quick pace until they get a good one .. with no great impact on the functioning of the country, they have proportional voting - and get a wider spread than a simplistic monolithic two party standoff as a result, better seperation of Legal, Civil, Policy, and Military than currently evidenced in the US. All the same, there are 190+ countries in the world .. and the USofA is just one - and certainly not the poster child for a well run democracy.
- yanhangyhy 7mo ago
  1. how did the HS2 project go in UK? anybody get punished? is it so clean that no corruption happens in this project even it spends so many money with very little progress? 2. Should someone be held responsible for Germany’s energy problems? 3. Sanae Takaichi is the prime minister of Japan with the highest vote share in recent years. Because of her poor foreign policy, Japan’s relations with South Korea, Russia, and China have all worsened, and her approval rating is now continuously declining.Should she be held responsible for these things? Or is it enough that she can simply be voted out next time? 4. Mongolia has the second-highest proportion of prostitutes in the world(#1 is Philippines, which has a simpilar system compare to USA) . Among the countries near Mongolia, it is considered by the media to be the most free and democratic. Why is Mongolia’s system unable to solve this problem? Or is this problem something that does not need to be solved? Does nobody need to be responsible for it?
  - defrost 7mo ago
    It's unclear what any of this has to do with the implication in your GP comment that "democracy" and the "USofA system" were one and the same. Flaws of the US system are not necessarily flaws in generic democracy, and may or may not be issues in other democracies.
    - yanhangyhy 7mo ago
      i think they share similar systems and it's a flaw in generic democray. to be clear, i mean no Accountability.
Ajedi32 7mo ago
> This is the core flaw of the democratic system. Once a person gets elected, democracy effectively ends. That's an intentional feature of representative democracy, not a bug. Letting voters micromanage every individual decision would be direct democracy. > there is no punishment mechanism In the next election voters can and will exact a punishment if they don't like the direction things are going. Politicians live in constant fear of this. It is true that term limits reduce the effect of this threat somewhat, but in a system with shared governance not everyone gets term limited at the same time so there's still a strong collective effect. The issue in this case is just that too much power has been concentrated in the hands of one term limited person; the executive branch was not designed to wield this much unilateral power over domestic policy.

defrost 7mo ago

* This is the core flaw of the (USofA) democratic system. * Once a person gets elected, (USofA) democracy effectively ends. * Many of their policies may be harmful to the country, and their promises may not be fulfilled, but there is no punishment mechanism (in the USofA). All democratic systems are not the USofA .. the USofA hasn't progressed much since inception.

adrianN 7mo ago
Which countries do substantially better?
- defrost 7mo ago
  Ones that can remove corrupt officials, not merely toothlessly impeach them to no actual end. Ones that can call a new election on a dime (relative to the lumbering US system) and don't fetishize a Little King absolute ruler. Looking about, Australia (as one example) took a hard look at both the US and UK systems and ran with a hybrid of their own design - "Washminster". Australia has shortcomings, as do all systems, but they do have the ability to churn Prime Ministers at a quick pace until they get a good one .. with no great impact on the functioning of the country, they have proportional voting - and get a wider spread than a simplistic monolithic two party standoff as a result, better seperation of Legal, Civil, Policy, and Military than currently evidenced in the US. All the same, there are 190+ countries in the world .. and the USofA is just one - and certainly not the poster child for a well run democracy.
yanhangyhy 7mo ago
1. how did the HS2 project go in UK? anybody get punished? is it so clean that no corruption happens in this project even it spends so many money with very little progress? 2. Should someone be held responsible for Germany’s energy problems? 3. Sanae Takaichi is the prime minister of Japan with the highest vote share in recent years. Because of her poor foreign policy, Japan’s relations with South Korea, Russia, and China have all worsened, and her approval rating is now continuously declining.Should she be held responsible for these things? Or is it enough that she can simply be voted out next time? 4. Mongolia has the second-highest proportion of prostitutes in the world(#1 is Philippines, which has a simpilar system compare to USA) . Among the countries near Mongolia, it is considered by the media to be the most free and democratic. Why is Mongolia’s system unable to solve this problem? Or is this problem something that does not need to be solved? Does nobody need to be responsible for it?
- defrost 7mo ago
  It's unclear what any of this has to do with the implication in your GP comment that "democracy" and the "USofA system" were one and the same. Flaws of the US system are not necessarily flaws in generic democracy, and may or may not be issues in other democracies.
  - yanhangyhy 7mo ago
    i think they share similar systems and it's a flaw in generic democray. to be clear, i mean no Accountability.

Ajedi32 7mo ago

> This is the core flaw of the democratic system. Once a person gets elected, democracy effectively ends. That's an intentional feature of representative democracy, not a bug. Letting voters micromanage every individual decision would be direct democracy. > there is no punishment mechanism In the next election voters can and will exact a punishment if they don't like the direction things are going. Politicians live in constant fear of this. It is true that term limits reduce the effect of this threat somewhat, but in a system with shared governance not everyone gets term limited at the same time so there's still a strong collective effect. The issue in this case is just that too much power has been concentrated in the hands of one term limited person; the executive branch was not designed to wield this much unilateral power over domestic policy.