3 ms·

US is in almost no way democratic. There is not enough unity for that. The idea and reasoning behind Democracy was that a people (i.e. a demos) rules itself. Bu

US is in almost no way democratic. There is not enough unity for that. The idea and reasoning behind Democracy was that a people (i.e. a demos) rules itself. But in US there is no longer one people, and it's fracturing even faster and more.

prasadjoglekar 4mo ago
All the more reason to let states and local governments do more. Rather than a unitary congress or executive that only 1/2 the people (+/-) like.
- 9dev 4mo ago
  The only way to fix things would be proportional representation and moving away from the two party system.
  - Guvante 4mo ago
    On the one hand giving parties more power sounds a little gross. On the other hand I don't know a solve for every bill having less than a handful of votes that are bipartisan...
    - wffurr 4mo ago
      3 or 5 member multi-member voting districts determined by a geographic clustering algorithm using approval voting.
      - Guvante 4mo ago
        Honestly I am surprised that tackling a method of easily collecting approval votes hasn't been done yet. Like even in the abstract "here is what a voting sheet would look like" that isn't meaningfully more complex. To be clear I think it is a hard problem and so far is the biggest detractor to alternative voting schemes. However given all that I agree with your point that it is a meaningful path forward.
- Guvante 4mo ago
  A lot of things are easier at the federal level. After all the federal budget is so large because you can swap states but you can't get away from the IRS.
psychoslave 4mo ago
There is not much example of actual democracy at scale though. Even Switzerland which is often cited as the closest form of actual democratic governance is still not ticking all of the basics of a democratic checklist.
- simonask 4mo ago
  No. The average Democracy Index of Western Europe is 8.05 (full democracy), while the US scores 7.65 (flawed democracy, trending downwards). Just below Poland, just above Botswana. You might shrug and say "well pobody's nerfect", but the disparity between the American narrative and the reality is actually quite extreme. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
  - holoduke 4mo ago
    That index is a product of the institute itself. Funded by non democratic values. Worthless junk / progoganda piece if you ask me.
    - simonask 4mo ago
      It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely better than this lazy dismissal.
    - flawn 4mo ago
      Then check V-Dem, you might argue they're flawed as well but then I'd suggest you to provide counterexamples for why the US should be considered a functioning democracy, and is not on the way to a fully authoritarian state.
  - psychoslave 4mo ago
    Is the index measuring how wealth distribution minimize disparity? How policies debates are driven by spontaneous needs from general public, and how solutions are proposed and refined through open to everyone debates, how programs (not some random face) are voted be it as whole or per compatible submodules? How imperative mandate are dully applicated and how any tentative of corruption is punished with several years of being forbidded of taking any mandate?
simonask 4mo ago
I don't think it's helpful to be flippant in this analysis. The US falls in the category of flawed democracies, together with Botswana, Indonesia, India, Mongolia, Philippines, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and many other countries with, shall we say, significant potential for development. I don't think anybody who has actually lived under a pre-democratic regime would call the US "no way democratic". There are many democratic aspects of the US, and it has reasonably strong institutions. But it seems that most Americans have not yet realized what category they're in, and think that the US is some kind of front-runner. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
- flanked-evergl 4mo ago
  That index confuses voting or even liberal democracy with democracy. A multitude of different peoples voting to rule over the others is not democratic and will never be democratic. Just because the voting process is secure does not make it democratic. What makes it democratic is that a people rules themselves, nothing else. Zulus ruling over Xhosas is not democratic just because the Zulus give the Xhosas votes because Zulus and Xhosas are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Xhosa born on territory ruled by Zulus does not make him a Zulu. Jews ruling over Palestinians is not democratic just because the Palestinians have votes because Jews and Palestinians are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Palestinian born on territory ruled by Jews does not make him a Jew. Reinventing the dictionary will only confuse you, it won't change reality. Nominalism is not only stupid, it's wrong.
  - simonask 4mo ago
    This betrays a simplistic understanding of democracy. In short, its meaning cannot be derived from decomposing its etymology, and your take here is ... certainly unique. Democracy is not just voting. Actual full democracy is predicated on a fairly large number of fundamental rights, as well as duties. Democracy is antithetical to majority rule, in which the rights of minorities can be ignored or trampled by the majority. Zulus ruling over Xhosas can never be democratic, because nobody is "ruling over" anybody else in a democracy, no matter their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people call what I'm describing here "liberal" democracy, but that's to distract from the fundamental fact that there is no meaningful definition of democracy that isn't liberal. If we're not free and equal, we cannot participate in democracy, and therefore it isn't democracy.

prasadjoglekar 4mo ago

All the more reason to let states and local governments do more. Rather than a unitary congress or executive that only 1/2 the people (+/-) like.

9dev 4mo ago
The only way to fix things would be proportional representation and moving away from the two party system.
- Guvante 4mo ago
  On the one hand giving parties more power sounds a little gross. On the other hand I don't know a solve for every bill having less than a handful of votes that are bipartisan...
  - wffurr 4mo ago
    3 or 5 member multi-member voting districts determined by a geographic clustering algorithm using approval voting.
    - Guvante 4mo ago
      Honestly I am surprised that tackling a method of easily collecting approval votes hasn't been done yet. Like even in the abstract "here is what a voting sheet would look like" that isn't meaningfully more complex. To be clear I think it is a hard problem and so far is the biggest detractor to alternative voting schemes. However given all that I agree with your point that it is a meaningful path forward.
Guvante 4mo ago
A lot of things are easier at the federal level. After all the federal budget is so large because you can swap states but you can't get away from the IRS.

psychoslave 4mo ago

There is not much example of actual democracy at scale though. Even Switzerland which is often cited as the closest form of actual democratic governance is still not ticking all of the basics of a democratic checklist.

simonask 4mo ago
No. The average Democracy Index of Western Europe is 8.05 (full democracy), while the US scores 7.65 (flawed democracy, trending downwards). Just below Poland, just above Botswana. You might shrug and say "well pobody's nerfect", but the disparity between the American narrative and the reality is actually quite extreme. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
- holoduke 4mo ago
  That index is a product of the institute itself. Funded by non democratic values. Worthless junk / progoganda piece if you ask me.
  - simonask 4mo ago
    It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely better than this lazy dismissal.
  - flawn 4mo ago
    Then check V-Dem, you might argue they're flawed as well but then I'd suggest you to provide counterexamples for why the US should be considered a functioning democracy, and is not on the way to a fully authoritarian state.
- psychoslave 4mo ago
  Is the index measuring how wealth distribution minimize disparity? How policies debates are driven by spontaneous needs from general public, and how solutions are proposed and refined through open to everyone debates, how programs (not some random face) are voted be it as whole or per compatible submodules? How imperative mandate are dully applicated and how any tentative of corruption is punished with several years of being forbidded of taking any mandate?

simonask 4mo ago

I don't think it's helpful to be flippant in this analysis. The US falls in the category of flawed democracies, together with Botswana, Indonesia, India, Mongolia, Philippines, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and many other countries with, shall we say, significant potential for development. I don't think anybody who has actually lived under a pre-democratic regime would call the US "no way democratic". There are many democratic aspects of the US, and it has reasonably strong institutions. But it seems that most Americans have not yet realized what category they're in, and think that the US is some kind of front-runner. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

flanked-evergl 4mo ago
That index confuses voting or even liberal democracy with democracy. A multitude of different peoples voting to rule over the others is not democratic and will never be democratic. Just because the voting process is secure does not make it democratic. What makes it democratic is that a people rules themselves, nothing else. Zulus ruling over Xhosas is not democratic just because the Zulus give the Xhosas votes because Zulus and Xhosas are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Xhosa born on territory ruled by Zulus does not make him a Zulu. Jews ruling over Palestinians is not democratic just because the Palestinians have votes because Jews and Palestinians are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Palestinian born on territory ruled by Jews does not make him a Jew. Reinventing the dictionary will only confuse you, it won't change reality. Nominalism is not only stupid, it's wrong.
- simonask 4mo ago
  This betrays a simplistic understanding of democracy. In short, its meaning cannot be derived from decomposing its etymology, and your take here is ... certainly unique. Democracy is not just voting. Actual full democracy is predicated on a fairly large number of fundamental rights, as well as duties. Democracy is antithetical to majority rule, in which the rights of minorities can be ignored or trampled by the majority. Zulus ruling over Xhosas can never be democratic, because nobody is "ruling over" anybody else in a democracy, no matter their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, and so on. Some people call what I'm describing here "liberal" democracy, but that's to distract from the fundamental fact that there is no meaningful definition of democracy that isn't liberal. If we're not free and equal, we cannot participate in democracy, and therefore it isn't democracy.