5 ms·

We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that

We don't really live in democracies? So the fact that a President of the United States was elected who appointed two liberal leaning Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by a freely and fairly elected Senate and now serve their terms without fear of being removed for making an unpopular decision, making Roe v. Wade less likely to be overturned, and the recent Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases to be adjudicated the way they were didn't happen? If that's not democracy I'd love to hear what you think is. Saying we don't live in a democracy is a popular thing to say (obviously, seeing as this is the top comment) but it's just wrong. Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama had two very separate plans for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and healthcare reform if they were elected. The fact that the country and the world is the way it is today, for better or worse, is because people went out and voted in a free and fair election, and then did it again and again and again in primaries and general elections for local, state, and federal offices in the US. The Constitution of the United States says that, had the sitting President of the United States or myself been alive during the start of our country, we would be 3/5ths of a human being... yet he runs the place, and I had the right to have campaigned and voted for him twice had I been inclined. That's democracy in action. The fact that he, myself, the two previously mentioned Supreme Court justices, and anyone else got to exercise our right to vote, knowing if we were intimidated or denied for any reason the judicial system would support our right, is democracy in action. The fact that I can get on HN, reddit, a blog, or walk outside and type/say pretty much whatever vile things I want about the leaders of my country and any other country, is democracy in action. Obviously Americans are lucky to live in a time and place where we have the ability to perfect our Union. Please don't disrespect the work of countless often forgotten women, men, and children from around the globe who have sacrificed, willingly or otherwise, very significant parts of, and all too often their entire lives for democracy, by acting like their actions didn't help contribute to others being able to live in (or one day live in) democracies.

laumars 13y ago
I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made. Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Public and everyday voter never could. And even if you could say without a doubt that no corruptions, secret deals with mates nor any conflict of interests existed in any of those in congress (etc), you still have the issue with regards to how much power some some government agencies have and how their not run by elected officials. Sometimes it feels like all we're voting on is our favourite puppet and whoever gets voted in will just continue on the same regime that his predecessor left. Sometimes it feels like our votes are completely meaningless as if the government suspects something to be unpopular, then they'll just go ahead and do it anyway; but more covertly.
- someguyonhn 13y ago
  I completely understand that OP isn't a fan of their current democracy. But let's be honest and not hyperbolic about what the situation really is. Again, I can't speak for every nation, but in America our democracy undeniably has its flaws and shortcoming but there is nothing I've ever heard of that is realistically stopping a movement with enough political will from making a change. But instead of disagreeing on semantics about "real" or "pseudo" democracies, what "real power" is, etc., I'd be interested to know how you, OP, or anyone else would answer these two straightforward questions. 1. What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy? 2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening? (And I don't just mean, you might get out-campaigned, I mean no matter how hard you tried nothing could be done.) Not being able to change what is wrong is I think a fairly simple starting point for defining something that is not a "real democracy". The fact is, at least in the US any criticism of government that most people have is something that, if there is enough political will from the electorate, if you, me, and anyone else will knock on doors, talk to our neighbors, find candidates, run ourselves if necessary, can't be stopped. I know people often phrase questions as backhanded insults on discussion forums, but please know I'm being genuine when I say I would be excited to hear you or anyone else describe specifically what needs to change in government, and then explain specifically why it's impossible for those changes to take place. I believe any changes are definitely possible if the political will is there.
  - laumars 13y ago
    I've already answered your points when I addressed what I thought was wrong with the current state of democracy. You seem to have taken my post as an argument about semantics when it really wasn't; I was just expressing that I think you've taken the OP too literally when he said that we don't live in a democracy. Obviously we have elections, but his (and my) point was that the elections don't really change much because the real power usually ends up being those with the deepest pockets or those in charge of government organisations - neither of which the everyday man can elect nor control. I do think you're right that it is theoretically possible for a truly impartial and incorruptible individual to make change; but I think that's hugely unlikely because I can't see them ever getting enough sponsorship to pay for their election campaign, nor for them to play dirty enough to win enough voters (since politicians and businesses will spin all sorts of negative PR about unfavourable candidates). For what it's worth, I don't think "true democracy" would ever work because at some point we have to acknowledge that nobody is educated enough on every subject to make an informed opinion about it. Which means we need to rely on a smaller subset of individuals to make those informed decisions for us. The problem lies with whether we can trust those individuals or not. Sadly I don't trust our government nor the election process to generate any desirable individuals in the foreseeable future. :(

laumars 13y ago

I think the OP's point is that it's a pseudo-democracy. We might vote in a president or political party, but we have no real power over the decisions made. Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Public and everyday voter never could. And even if you could say without a doubt that no corruptions, secret deals with mates nor any conflict of interests existed in any of those in congress (etc), you still have the issue with regards to how much power some some government agencies have and how their not run by elected officials. Sometimes it feels like all we're voting on is our favourite puppet and whoever gets voted in will just continue on the same regime that his predecessor left. Sometimes it feels like our votes are completely meaningless as if the government suspects something to be unpopular, then they'll just go ahead and do it anyway; but more covertly.

someguyonhn 13y ago
I completely understand that OP isn't a fan of their current democracy. But let's be honest and not hyperbolic about what the situation really is. Again, I can't speak for every nation, but in America our democracy undeniably has its flaws and shortcoming but there is nothing I've ever heard of that is realistically stopping a movement with enough political will from making a change. But instead of disagreeing on semantics about "real" or "pseudo" democracies, what "real power" is, etc., I'd be interested to know how you, OP, or anyone else would answer these two straightforward questions. 1. What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy? 2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening? (And I don't just mean, you might get out-campaigned, I mean no matter how hard you tried nothing could be done.) Not being able to change what is wrong is I think a fairly simple starting point for defining something that is not a "real democracy". The fact is, at least in the US any criticism of government that most people have is something that, if there is enough political will from the electorate, if you, me, and anyone else will knock on doors, talk to our neighbors, find candidates, run ourselves if necessary, can't be stopped. I know people often phrase questions as backhanded insults on discussion forums, but please know I'm being genuine when I say I would be excited to hear you or anyone else describe specifically what needs to change in government, and then explain specifically why it's impossible for those changes to take place. I believe any changes are definitely possible if the political will is there.
- laumars 13y ago
  I've already answered your points when I addressed what I thought was wrong with the current state of democracy. You seem to have taken my post as an argument about semantics when it really wasn't; I was just expressing that I think you've taken the OP too literally when he said that we don't live in a democracy. Obviously we have elections, but his (and my) point was that the elections don't really change much because the real power usually ends up being those with the deepest pockets or those in charge of government organisations - neither of which the everyday man can elect nor control. I do think you're right that it is theoretically possible for a truly impartial and incorruptible individual to make change; but I think that's hugely unlikely because I can't see them ever getting enough sponsorship to pay for their election campaign, nor for them to play dirty enough to win enough voters (since politicians and businesses will spin all sorts of negative PR about unfavourable candidates). For what it's worth, I don't think "true democracy" would ever work because at some point we have to acknowledge that nobody is educated enough on every subject to make an informed opinion about it. Which means we need to rely on a smaller subset of individuals to make those informed decisions for us. The problem lies with whether we can trust those individuals or not. Sadly I don't trust our government nor the election process to generate any desirable individuals in the foreseeable future. :(