4 ms·

Checks and balances are alive and well. No system of governance will prevent an action if everyone in that system supports it, nor should it. We are the proble

Checks and balances are alive and well. No system of governance will prevent an action if everyone in that system supports it, nor should it. We are the problem, we keep electing people who support this crap.

newman314 13y ago
Correction: we keep allowing political parties to give us less than ideal candidates that combined with the first-past-the-post election method ends up having people voting for what they perceive to be the least evil candidate and not an actual representation of, for and by the people.
- rayiner 13y ago
  First past the post election system is a problem, but the fact is that only a hip minority of people vote for what they perceive to be the "least evil" candidate. I went to grad school in Chicago, and all the people I know who support Obama genuine think he's a great candidate. Maybe not their ideal candidate, but one they can get behind that they think will be able to build a coalition. If you look at American policy, it's closely representative of the views of typical voters. High levels of welfare spending for the middle class (i.e. Social Security and Medicare?) What could be more representative of a voting population that consists to a large degree of middle aged middle class folks nearing retirement who won't be burdened with the bill? Foreign wars? How many liberals urged Obama to intervene in Syria even after their ostensible opposition to Iraq? How many liberals supported arming Syrian rebels after complaining for years about arming anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan? On either side of the aisle, Americans are broadly willing to resort to military solutions. The drug war? I grew up in the 1990's and remember being surrounded by suburban soccer moms who thought drugs were more evil than Hitler. The drug war was built on a solid coalition of social conservatives and Reagan Democrats that's only now chipping at the edges as a younger generation becomes parents themselves. First past the post has notable theoretical weaknesses, but that weakness tends to be entrenching the voice of the mainstream consensus, to the exclusion of minority viewpoints. Americans love to bitch about the government, but very few would change anything in a substantial way. They argue over issues at the edges because that's the only thing they disagree about. They might disagree with the amount of penalty BP should receive, but people on the right don't want to get rid of the regulatory regime surrounding oil drilling, nor do people on the left want to abandon drilling entirely.
  - dTal 13y ago
    It is true that, by and large, public opinion has a massive effect on policy. The problem with democracy as it exists today is that policy also has a massive effect on public opinion - i.e. propaganda is effective. So it's not an effective check on power.

newman314 13y ago

Correction: we keep allowing political parties to give us less than ideal candidates that combined with the first-past-the-post election method ends up having people voting for what they perceive to be the least evil candidate and not an actual representation of, for and by the people.

rayiner 13y ago
First past the post election system is a problem, but the fact is that only a hip minority of people vote for what they perceive to be the "least evil" candidate. I went to grad school in Chicago, and all the people I know who support Obama genuine think he's a great candidate. Maybe not their ideal candidate, but one they can get behind that they think will be able to build a coalition. If you look at American policy, it's closely representative of the views of typical voters. High levels of welfare spending for the middle class (i.e. Social Security and Medicare?) What could be more representative of a voting population that consists to a large degree of middle aged middle class folks nearing retirement who won't be burdened with the bill? Foreign wars? How many liberals urged Obama to intervene in Syria even after their ostensible opposition to Iraq? How many liberals supported arming Syrian rebels after complaining for years about arming anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan? On either side of the aisle, Americans are broadly willing to resort to military solutions. The drug war? I grew up in the 1990's and remember being surrounded by suburban soccer moms who thought drugs were more evil than Hitler. The drug war was built on a solid coalition of social conservatives and Reagan Democrats that's only now chipping at the edges as a younger generation becomes parents themselves. First past the post has notable theoretical weaknesses, but that weakness tends to be entrenching the voice of the mainstream consensus, to the exclusion of minority viewpoints. Americans love to bitch about the government, but very few would change anything in a substantial way. They argue over issues at the edges because that's the only thing they disagree about. They might disagree with the amount of penalty BP should receive, but people on the right don't want to get rid of the regulatory regime surrounding oil drilling, nor do people on the left want to abandon drilling entirely.
- dTal 13y ago
  It is true that, by and large, public opinion has a massive effect on policy. The problem with democracy as it exists today is that policy also has a massive effect on public opinion - i.e. propaganda is effective. So it's not an effective check on power.