6 ms·

Democracy is all about giving the people what they want, good and hard. I'm sorry they got it "wrong" from your point of view last year, but in three years they

Democracy is all about giving the people what they want, good and hard. I'm sorry they got it "wrong" from your point of view last year, but in three years they get to try again. I don't think your version of "serious damage" from this issue matches most voters. Even if this were a parliamentary system where sufficient public outcry could force new elections, or a "do over" recall was available (a terrible flaw in the state constitutions where it exists, IMHO), you'd still not be getting the U.S. administration you seem to want. You need to convince the public and then win elections, that's how change happens.

Solarsail 13y ago
Why, then, is the president limited to serving two terms? There's essentially squat keeping the president doing anything at all resembling what he said he would do during his second term. (Said by a non-American, who views this aspect of American constitutional law as distinctly anti-democratic.) I'm also completely ignoring the degree to which voters are paying attention, how much the debate is swayed by powerful people to meaningless issues while the politicians run amok of everything etc. etc.
Silhouette 13y ago
Please note that I didn't express any opinion on the specific situation in the US today. I was just commenting that the checks and balances you implied in your previous post, where a senior individual in the government can choose to fire more junior individuals, don't seem to be very reliable if the senior person themselves has limited motivation to act in the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. This lack of direct motivation is a systemic weakness in almost any electoral system that involves fixed terms of significant length, and it applies more generally than just the need to choose appropriate subordinates. What you described just happens to be one ineffective case that is relevant to the current discussion.

Solarsail 13y ago

Why, then, is the president limited to serving two terms? There's essentially squat keeping the president doing anything at all resembling what he said he would do during his second term. (Said by a non-American, who views this aspect of American constitutional law as distinctly anti-democratic.) I'm also completely ignoring the degree to which voters are paying attention, how much the debate is swayed by powerful people to meaningless issues while the politicians run amok of everything etc. etc.

Silhouette 13y ago

Please note that I didn't express any opinion on the specific situation in the US today. I was just commenting that the checks and balances you implied in your previous post, where a senior individual in the government can choose to fire more junior individuals, don't seem to be very reliable if the senior person themselves has limited motivation to act in the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. This lack of direct motivation is a systemic weakness in almost any electoral system that involves fixed terms of significant length, and it applies more generally than just the need to choose appropriate subordinates. What you described just happens to be one ineffective case that is relevant to the current discussion.