5 ms·

The US is also hardly a democracy, even if the politicians were perfect. The voting system of the US (and the UK too), is just horrendous. The simple fact that

by ama729 13y ago

The US is also hardly a democracy, even if the politicians were perfect. The voting system of the US (and the UK too), is just horrendous. The simple fact that in some cases less than 40 or 30% of the population can choose an election (if you don't believe me, look it up on youtube, CGP Grey made a video about it), show it's hard to take seriously the claim that the US is a democracy.

digitalengineer 13y ago
Well in my western european country I can not even directly choose a president, major, sheriff, or local representative. I'd say the us is 't so bad...
- maaaats 13y ago
  Sheriff, as in head of police? Why should he or she be chosen by the public? That seems like a big, red flag to me. In my "western european country" they are selected as you would hire a boss to a company, and they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners).
  - mcv 13y ago
    I think this is a big part of the different views of democracy between the US and Europe. Should the laws themselves be the reflection of the will of the people, or should the way those laws are enforced be a reflection of the will of the people? Personally I believe enforcement should be neutral and unbiased, whereas the creation of those laws are the realm of politics and where the will of the people should count. The US clearly has the opposite opinion. Personally I think that leads to arbitrary and unreliable enforcement, justice only for the majority (or even the rich).
  - Lazare 13y ago
    Some areas of the US have experimented with electing some surprising things, including police chiefs and even judges. The system is flawed, and it doesn't work very well. However! It's only very slightly flawed, and it works about as well as all the other systems. The key is this: > they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners). Right. But the government is chosen by the electorate, who are the ultimate "owners" in your analogy. The difference between electing a governor (or state congress, or whatever) and having him appoint a judge, or just electing the judge directly turns out to be really, really minimal. If an electorate would have elected a far-right (or far-left) whackjob to be a police chief, then they'll elect the kind of governor who will appoint a far-right (or far-left) whackjob as police chief. I happen to strongly dislike Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, but I don't see why Governor Jan Brewer could be counted upon to appoint someone better (google those names and you'll see why). The people there support policies I dislike, and they will find ways to implement them unless forceably stopped. That's democracy. (Conversely, at one time Senators were appointed by state governments; they are now directly elected. Doesn't seem to have had a ton of impact. Conservative states went from electing conservative state governments which appointed conservative senators to just electing conservative senators. I think the earlier system might have been better, but I'll be damned if I can point to any concrete evidence either way.) People seem to get the government they deserve. :)
    - wcarss 13y ago
      I've always had the understanding that electing judges and police chiefs is an issue because they have more important things to worry about than elections. If they had to think about "whether this is an election year" and how their actions might impact their public image, that could interfere with them acting as impartial agents of the state. The legislative branch is to be elected to make and change laws, which represent the will of the people. The executive and judicial branches are appointed by the legislative branch and not de-appointed. This keeps houses of power (writing of law, execution of law, interpretation of law) at arm's length, and makes change slow and difficult. That's actually theoretically a good thing, under some assumptions: that the will of the people is fickle and ill-informed; that we have a pretty good system already; and that forces which last a long time are likelier to be for good than bad in our society. Any of those assumptions could be off-base, but if you're fine with them, then a slow government where each branch is at arm's length and has minimal effect on each other's composition at any given moment is effective. Elections for all branches of government would make them all fluid and reactive to public will. That may be fine, but it would mean a much higher capacity for fast change in our lives, both for the positive and the negative. Sorry if I'm not clearly making a point -- I don't really disagree with you, but I feel that there are well-defined reasons in our political system for not electing members of the other branches of government.
- weavejester 13y ago
  You can't choose a local representative? Which western european country do you live in?
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    The Netherlands.
  - berkes 13y ago
    Dutch too, here. And we can elect local representatives. Multiple layers of "local" even. We elect the city council, we elect a province council and we elect a national parliaments. All three have actual power and make actual, practical differences. What we cannot elect, is the mayor, or the head of the province. Both are placed by the King. The problem in the Netherlands is not that we cannot elect local representatives, as that is simply false: we can. The problem is that we are not a pure democracy like a republic would be, but that the head of the state, with actual political power, is Elected By God. Not the people.
    - ama729 13y ago
      > The problem is that we are not a pure democracy like a republic would be, but that the head of the state, with actual political power, is Elected By God. Not the people. Is it really a problem though? In practice, they (European rulers) have little actual power, so it's not unlike the president of Portugal, except it's a bit fancier during state visits...
      - XorNot 13y ago
        The various European monarchs have the power to use their absolute power exactly once. It might do something. But shortly thereafter its unlikely they would retain the legal authority to do it.
      - berkes 13y ago
        I am not saying it is a problem; merely stating that a monarchy undermines the concept of a democracy like the parent comment wanted to illustrate. But, now that you ask: I personally feel a monarchy is a problem, in a purely academical way: the idea that some person, instated by God, rules me, and not the democratically elected government, goes against my principles. Academic, yes, because in practice, a King will hardly ever use the given power; and even if so, he'll do exactly once. "But she is such a nice person" is what people often said about our Queen. And "Willem is really a very likable person" about our current. As a person, and maybe even as a ruler, I trust Willem, our king, a lot more to make the right choices then our current MP will do. In practice, there is little wrong with a monarchy, in our day-to-day lives. But in theory, there is a lot wrong with the concept. And one needs not look very far in history to see how kings and emperors, or others placed outside a democracy have misbehaved.
calibraxis 13y ago
Yes, the US founders opposed democracy; naturally, if the country were run by its population, the vast majority of whom aren't wealthy, they'd abolish debts, redistribute land, etc. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15....) Then Andrew Jackson used the term democracy as political marketing (probably had the same impact as calling yourself "anarchist"), and the US system co-opted it and rebranded itself as a democracy. Because people naturally would like to govern their lives, rather than political and wealthy elites. I recommend Graeber's _The Democracy Project_ for more on this; he's an anthropologist who helped found Occupy, and popularized the 99% slogan.
- vixen99 13y ago
  'if the country were run by its population, the vast majority of whom aren't wealthy, they'd abolish debts, redistribute land'. A crass assumption if I may say so.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    When the vast majority of farmers who work the land are generally held in debt they consider unfair, yeah, they're going to do that. You're forgetting that the Free Silver movement was about exactly this - farmers trapped in debt due to a deflationary gold-backed dollar were agitating for the silver dollar which would be inflationary and thus allow them to escape it. Deny them that, and they're going to switch to something else - like taking a long hard look at what's considered "fair". You might also note that the modern US has exactly this concept - bankruptcy. It has consequences, but debt can in fact just disappear.
- nabla9 13y ago
  You are assuming that English and international use of the term democracy was developed by American and for America. That's not the case. The evolution of the use of the word happened in England and France. Frenchman Marquis d’Argenson (1694-1757) was first to define representative democracy in the way it's used today.
eludwig 13y ago
"Every nation gets the government it deserves" -Joseph de Maistre If (enough) people really wanted it to be different, it would be.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  Like in Iran? Where they over throw the dictator and US came in to install a new one?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    I seem to recall them overthrowing the one the US installed, too.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      The USA military-industrial complex may be soulless and evil, but it isn't dumb. The problem with the governments installed post-WWII in West Germany, France, Italy, and Japan was that they never evolved into belligerents. Iran, Iraq, Israel, China, Korea, etc. demonstrate a more sophisticated model. Repeat business FTW! (While USA invasion has turned out well for some nations, that hasn't happened recently. If you care for your nation and its inhabitants, you really ought to do your damnedest to stay off the list.)

by ama729 13y ago

digitalengineer 13y ago

Well in my western european country I can not even directly choose a president, major, sheriff, or local representative. I'd say the us is 't so bad...

maaaats 13y ago
Sheriff, as in head of police? Why should he or she be chosen by the public? That seems like a big, red flag to me. In my "western european country" they are selected as you would hire a boss to a company, and they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners).
- mcv 13y ago
  I think this is a big part of the different views of democracy between the US and Europe. Should the laws themselves be the reflection of the will of the people, or should the way those laws are enforced be a reflection of the will of the people? Personally I believe enforcement should be neutral and unbiased, whereas the creation of those laws are the realm of politics and where the will of the people should count. The US clearly has the opposite opinion. Personally I think that leads to arbitrary and unreliable enforcement, justice only for the majority (or even the rich).
- Lazare 13y ago
  Some areas of the US have experimented with electing some surprising things, including police chiefs and even judges. The system is flawed, and it doesn't work very well. However! It's only very slightly flawed, and it works about as well as all the other systems. The key is this: > they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners). Right. But the government is chosen by the electorate, who are the ultimate "owners" in your analogy. The difference between electing a governor (or state congress, or whatever) and having him appoint a judge, or just electing the judge directly turns out to be really, really minimal. If an electorate would have elected a far-right (or far-left) whackjob to be a police chief, then they'll elect the kind of governor who will appoint a far-right (or far-left) whackjob as police chief. I happen to strongly dislike Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, but I don't see why Governor Jan Brewer could be counted upon to appoint someone better (google those names and you'll see why). The people there support policies I dislike, and they will find ways to implement them unless forceably stopped. That's democracy. (Conversely, at one time Senators were appointed by state governments; they are now directly elected. Doesn't seem to have had a ton of impact. Conservative states went from electing conservative state governments which appointed conservative senators to just electing conservative senators. I think the earlier system might have been better, but I'll be damned if I can point to any concrete evidence either way.) People seem to get the government they deserve. :)
  - wcarss 13y ago
    I've always had the understanding that electing judges and police chiefs is an issue because they have more important things to worry about than elections. If they had to think about "whether this is an election year" and how their actions might impact their public image, that could interfere with them acting as impartial agents of the state. The legislative branch is to be elected to make and change laws, which represent the will of the people. The executive and judicial branches are appointed by the legislative branch and not de-appointed. This keeps houses of power (writing of law, execution of law, interpretation of law) at arm's length, and makes change slow and difficult. That's actually theoretically a good thing, under some assumptions: that the will of the people is fickle and ill-informed; that we have a pretty good system already; and that forces which last a long time are likelier to be for good than bad in our society. Any of those assumptions could be off-base, but if you're fine with them, then a slow government where each branch is at arm's length and has minimal effect on each other's composition at any given moment is effective. Elections for all branches of government would make them all fluid and reactive to public will. That may be fine, but it would mean a much higher capacity for fast change in our lives, both for the positive and the negative. Sorry if I'm not clearly making a point -- I don't really disagree with you, but I feel that there are well-defined reasons in our political system for not electing members of the other branches of government.
weavejester 13y ago
You can't choose a local representative? Which western european country do you live in?
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  The Netherlands.
- berkes 13y ago
  Dutch too, here. And we can elect local representatives. Multiple layers of "local" even. We elect the city council, we elect a province council and we elect a national parliaments. All three have actual power and make actual, practical differences. What we cannot elect, is the mayor, or the head of the province. Both are placed by the King. The problem in the Netherlands is not that we cannot elect local representatives, as that is simply false: we can. The problem is that we are not a pure democracy like a republic would be, but that the head of the state, with actual political power, is Elected By God. Not the people.
  - ama729 13y ago
    > The problem is that we are not a pure democracy like a republic would be, but that the head of the state, with actual political power, is Elected By God. Not the people. Is it really a problem though? In practice, they (European rulers) have little actual power, so it's not unlike the president of Portugal, except it's a bit fancier during state visits...
    - XorNot 13y ago
      The various European monarchs have the power to use their absolute power exactly once. It might do something. But shortly thereafter its unlikely they would retain the legal authority to do it.
    - berkes 13y ago
      I am not saying it is a problem; merely stating that a monarchy undermines the concept of a democracy like the parent comment wanted to illustrate. But, now that you ask: I personally feel a monarchy is a problem, in a purely academical way: the idea that some person, instated by God, rules me, and not the democratically elected government, goes against my principles. Academic, yes, because in practice, a King will hardly ever use the given power; and even if so, he'll do exactly once. "But she is such a nice person" is what people often said about our Queen. And "Willem is really a very likable person" about our current. As a person, and maybe even as a ruler, I trust Willem, our king, a lot more to make the right choices then our current MP will do. In practice, there is little wrong with a monarchy, in our day-to-day lives. But in theory, there is a lot wrong with the concept. And one needs not look very far in history to see how kings and emperors, or others placed outside a democracy have misbehaved.

calibraxis 13y ago

Yes, the US founders opposed democracy; naturally, if the country were run by its population, the vast majority of whom aren't wealthy, they'd abolish debts, redistribute land, etc. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15....) Then Andrew Jackson used the term democracy as political marketing (probably had the same impact as calling yourself "anarchist"), and the US system co-opted it and rebranded itself as a democracy. Because people naturally would like to govern their lives, rather than political and wealthy elites. I recommend Graeber's _The Democracy Project_ for more on this; he's an anthropologist who helped found Occupy, and popularized the 99% slogan.

vixen99 13y ago
'if the country were run by its population, the vast majority of whom aren't wealthy, they'd abolish debts, redistribute land'. A crass assumption if I may say so.
- XorNot 13y ago
  When the vast majority of farmers who work the land are generally held in debt they consider unfair, yeah, they're going to do that. You're forgetting that the Free Silver movement was about exactly this - farmers trapped in debt due to a deflationary gold-backed dollar were agitating for the silver dollar which would be inflationary and thus allow them to escape it. Deny them that, and they're going to switch to something else - like taking a long hard look at what's considered "fair". You might also note that the modern US has exactly this concept - bankruptcy. It has consequences, but debt can in fact just disappear.
nabla9 13y ago
You are assuming that English and international use of the term democracy was developed by American and for America. That's not the case. The evolution of the use of the word happened in England and France. Frenchman Marquis d’Argenson (1694-1757) was first to define representative democracy in the way it's used today.

eludwig 13y ago

"Every nation gets the government it deserves" -Joseph de Maistre If (enough) people really wanted it to be different, it would be.

digitalengineer 13y ago
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
Ihmahr 13y ago
Like in Iran? Where they over throw the dictator and US came in to install a new one?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  I seem to recall them overthrowing the one the US installed, too.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    The USA military-industrial complex may be soulless and evil, but it isn't dumb. The problem with the governments installed post-WWII in West Germany, France, Italy, and Japan was that they never evolved into belligerents. Iran, Iraq, Israel, China, Korea, etc. demonstrate a more sophisticated model. Repeat business FTW! (While USA invasion has turned out well for some nations, that hasn't happened recently. If you care for your nation and its inhabitants, you really ought to do your damnedest to stay off the list.)