Democracy is a failure

[El Barto]

As I've been watching the midterm circle jerk, I've been more and more inclined to think that this noble experiment of ours has turned out to be a resounding failure.  As much as we like to blame the two party system, and we all know it sucks, I think that it's actually just an inevitable consequence of a bigger problem.  People don't seem to realize that what they tout as the biggest strength of a democratic government is actually it's biggest weakness.  The system will inevitably steer towards electioneering rather than governing.  The simple truth is that you can't govern if you don't get elected, but once you actually get into office, how you govern is merely a function of maintaining electability.  Nobody has ever held onto an office while telling an unpopular truth.  Right or wrong is no longer relevant.

I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation. . . .

"it is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform, tax revenue increases, growth incentives, discretionary spending reductions, orderly reductions in defense expenditures, and budget process reform."

The problem as I see it is that getting yourself elected requires selling yourself to the masses, and as I'm so fond of pointing out, the masses are fucking stupid.  As Turdblossom demonstrated with such extraordinary success, the more you boil things down to the simplest, black and white components, the more people you can get to rally behind your cause.  It's campaigning to the lowest common denominator.  A politician who even suggests that an issue is complicated and needs to be carefully considered will get clobbered in two years by an empty suit that says "IT'S US VS. THEM!!!"  The Romans figured this out 2000 years ago. 

Rather than suggesting that Americans should build a fire and put on a damn sweater, Carter should have told them to crank up the heat and buy a big V8 Cadillac because he'll take care of obtaining more oil.  After all, we deserve it.  Instead of raising taxes, Bush should have made up some of his own voodoo economics, lowered taxes, and told everybody that we're doing better than ever (until the next president comes along to inherit the problem).  "That extra $50 on my tax return is worth a helluva lot more than those imaginary problems that nobody can understand!"

This is the only result that can be obtained in a system derived off of popularity. 

Unfortunately, with great ignorance comes great arrogance.  The people who are convinced that we control the government for the better are the same people who believe this to be the greatest and most free nation on Earth.  With those beliefs, it is inconceivable that they could ever accept that the system has failed.  Convinced that our way is right, we go out and force our ways onto others whether they want it or not, completely refusing to consider that perhaps there could be a better option.  Alas, the inevitable outcome is that Americans will never resolve the problems with the government,  and in that refusal, we will eventually force ourselves into irrelevance; much like the Romans before us.







Well, this pretty much turned into an El Barto rant, but there actually is plenty of discussion to be had.  Some people might like to point out where I was full of shit.  Plenty of DTFers reside form non-American democracies.  I'm real curious to know if other people have the same feeling towards elected government.  Is it a systemic failure or just an American one?  I'm also curious if anybody can envision a way out of this mess.  Is there a means of reform that can happen in a culture so convinced that they've created the perfect society?

[lordxizor]

I would love to see everyone just serve one term. That would solve a lot of problems. Sure people would still lie to get into office, but once there, they could actually do some good without having to think about how the voters will view it in the next election. The party system is stupid as hell, but most people are too lazy or don't care enough to learn about the candidates, so I don't really see any way around it.

[rumborak]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill

I still think the biggest advantage of a democracy is that it forces the most people to shut up, since it's after all the majority who voted for this guy. Meaning, the resulting stability from that is the best feature of democracies.
Democracies certainly don't have an inherent quality control, i.e. a) what the people vote for actually makes sense or b) what the elected person will enact makes sense.

rumborak

[yorost]

You make some good points that should be more generally understood by the public.  I can't help saying it, though, the US is a republic, not a democracy.

[rumborak]

No offense, yorost, but that sentence is rather stupid. A republic is still a democracy as long as the representatives are elected by the public. Not just plebiscitary (i.e. direct) democracies are democracies.

rumborak

[yorost]

Yeah, yeah, I just couldn't help myself.

[El Barto]

I still think the biggest advantage of a democracy is that it forces the most people to shut up, since it's after all the majority who voted for this guy. Meaning, the resulting stability from that is the best feature of democracies.

rumborak

I see it as just the opposite.  The 49% who don't get what they want scream, bitch, moan, and do everything possible to obstruct. 

[rumborak]

I think you need to disentangle failures of democracy per se from a specific country's woes. The US' opposing parties' blatant obstructionism is something I have not experienced in Germany. I'm not decided yet whether this is because it's not a two-party system, or whether it's a cultural effect.

rumborak

[El Barto]

I think you need to disentangle failures of democracy per se from a specific country's woes. The US' opposing parties' blatant obstructionism is something I have not experienced in Germany. I'm not decided yet whether this is because it's not a two-party system, or whether it's a cultural effect.

rumborak

So help me out here.  I'm looking at the makeup of the Bundestag, and it appears that there are 6 major parties.  Ideologically, they're going to boil down to left/right to varying degrees.  Is there no tendency for people to vote for the biggest party on their side of the spectrum?  It seems like there should be the same tendency to consolidate votes there that results in the two party system we have here.  If I generally support the Greens, it seems like it'd still be in my best interest to vote for the Social Democrat candidate just to keep somebody completely radical (from my perspective) from leading the government. 

[emindead]

I still think the biggest advantage of a democracy is that it forces the most people to shut up, since it's after all the majority who voted for this guy. Meaning, the resulting stability from that is the best feature of democracies.

rumborak

I see it as just the opposite.  The 49% who don't get what they want scream, bitch, moan, and do everything possible to obstruct.  

It will always be on the beholders eyes. Sometimes that bitching saves the "nation". Sometimes it does great harm. It will always depend where you are looking from.

[El Barto]

I still think the biggest advantage of a democracy is that it forces the most people to shut up, since it's after all the majority who voted for this guy. Meaning, the resulting stability from that is the best feature of democracies.

rumborak

I see it as just the opposite.  The 49% who don't get what they want scream, bitch, moan, and do everything possible to obstruct.  

It will always be on the beholders eyes. Sometimes that bitching saves the "nation". Sometimes it does great harm. It will always depend where you are looking from.

No dice, amigo.  I didn't even get into the part of electability that relates to compromise.  Opposition and dissent don't save the nation.  They dilute every bill, good or bad, into something that's completely ineffective.  Nothing saves or destroys the nation, that would be preferable. 

[emindead]

That's also true, if you want Democracy to actually work (be either to build or destroy a nation) you have to get most of the people active on politics. Just like Aristotle said: Men is a 'zoon politikon', if they deny this... well just take a look outside.

[rumborak]

I think you need to disentangle failures of democracy per se from a specific country's woes. The US' opposing parties' blatant obstructionism is something I have not experienced in Germany. I'm not decided yet whether this is because it's not a two-party system, or whether it's a cultural effect.

rumborak

So help me out here.  I'm looking at the makeup of the Bundestag, and it appears that there are 6 major parties.  Ideologically, they're going to boil down to left/right to varying degrees.  Is there no tendency for people to vote for the biggest party on their side of the spectrum?  It seems like there should be the same tendency to consolidate votes there that results in the two party system we have here.  If I generally support the Greens, it seems like it'd still be in my best interest to vote for the Social Democrat candidate just to keep somebody completely radical (from my perspective) from leading the government.  

That's not happening because we allow coalitions. So, even though you're voting Green Party but they have no chance of getting the absolute majority needed for ruling, you know that they would form a coalition with their "neighbors" (i.e. the SPD, the equivalent of the Democrats in Germany). So, voting for a small party doesn't directly impede the chance of forming a gov't for that "neighborhood" of political ideology.

In my opinion, the ability to form coalitions in the US would be a major advance for the political landscape. It's the winner-takes-all clause in the US that forces the smaller parties out.

rumborak

[theliloutkast]

Didn't Socrates and Plato believe that Democracy was stupid? Something along the lines of the ignorant leading the blind?

[XJDenton]

"The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves." - Helios

[yorost]

Socrates is more debatable than Plato, since we glean so much of what we know about Socrates's opinions from what Plato wrote in his own works.  They were critical of forms of democracy, saying they led to tyrants, but they advocated the notion of republics, specifically philosopher led ones.  I don't believe the US is either the idea of democracy they criticized or the form of republic they supported, though, but something of a mix.

[William Wallace]

the masses are fucking stupid.

Fix this. Everything goes to hell without an informed electorate.

[El Barto]

the masses are fucking stupid.

Fix this. Everything goes to hell without an informed electorate.

While it certainly wouldn't hurt, I'm not sure it'd actually solve the inherent problems.  More important, though, it's not possible.  Resolving the problems with democracy would mean raising the intelligence of most people by a huge amount. 

This is one of the reasons I'm curious to know what non-Americans think of the matter.  I suspect there are plenty of nations with a much better educated electorate than ours.  I'd like to know if it's really an improvement.  I suspect that in the end, they are on average still naive enough to buy into the bullshit. 

[Quadrochosis]

Very great read El Barto. You're pretty much spot on with everything. One of the reasons your among my favorite DTFers.

As far as fixing the issue, I don't think we can.

The only problem is that there really aren't any other ways of running things that aren't as inherently fucked up as Democracy is.

[hefdaddy42]

the masses are fucking stupid.

Fix this. Everything goes to hell without an informed electorate.

That's just hypothetical.  We've never had an informed electorate.

[Seventh Son]

the masses are fucking stupid.

Fix this. Everything goes to hell without an informed electorate.

That's just hypothetical.  We've never had an informed electorate.

Couldn't hurt to have one.

[hefdaddy42]

the masses are fucking stupid.

Fix this. Everything goes to hell without an informed electorate.

That's just hypothetical.  We've never had an informed electorate.

Couldn't hurt to have one.

It might.  We don't know.

[GuineaPig]

The thing about informed electorate is that everyone takes it to mean that their political beliefs would then finally be the majority.

[William Wallace]

The thing about informed electorate is that everyone takes it to mean that their political beliefs would then finally be the majority.

Not necessarily. For example, here in California the legislature agreed to ridiculous benefits for state employees. Many of them retire with their full salary and benefits until they die, and they typically retire in their early 50s. After they die, their next of kin receive the same benefits. As a result, the state is nearly bankrupt and looking to make drastic cuts everywhere, and everybody is pissed off. An informed populace would have called bullshit during the contract negotiations many years ago and prevented the mess.

[fsh3702]

i think democracy is a tradition enbedded into one nation's unique cutural background. for example the Rome and Greece had an idea of democracy thousands of years ago and successfully implemented, and these spirits are revitalized through renaissance. but in china there is no room for democracy, we don't have such a tradition called "democracy(民主)", this world is impoted just in the recent past. the chinese more prefer a solid social bound with each other and some silent agreement, for example it's completely unacceptible to call any relatives by the actual name, but in western cuture it's the common rule.

i think the conception "democracy" is closely accompanied by another conception "city". china is a feudal system, they never have a true understanding of "city". so china's modernization is slow and lagging behind the other nations. i never know how the democratic climate looks like except through the media, and occasionally i complain on the internet, but that's all, i never participate in any protest, never join in any labor-strike, never write letters to any government officials. nevertheless i live a happy life, i don't bother to mention those corruption and embezzlement and abuses of rights or bribery. that's part of life and we have to face it. there is a life pattern for every country.

[rumborak]

I thought about thsi topic quite a bit yesterday, and what strikes me as one of the key failures of democracy is the fact that voters are not accountable. That is, the anonymous vote that is the key cornerstone of democratic elections also causes that people who've been bottling up their kooky ideas all alone in their home are "let loose" on the public will. So, often voters will no longer be constrained by what is resaonable, but will simply vote as harsh as they want since they can get away with it. You can let your racism, your misogyny etc. free realm with an anonymous election.

Interestingly, while elections are "singular" in this aspect, i.e. each person for their own, the judicial system doesn't trust it either. Instead of having each jury member cast an anonymous vote and thus go by majority, the jury has to come to a unanimous vote. Through that process you are much more ensured that you arrive at a reaonsable decision, because people actually need to defend their viewpoints.
So, what I'm wondering is whether something like the jury system could benefit the election process. I.e. as an example, you would get stuck together with 10 random people on election day and have to argue together which candidate is really the one to vote for. Lo and behold, unless you want to be cluelessly sitting in the corner and look like a tool, you would have to inform yourself about the issues and the candidates beforehand.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

As noble of an idea that is Rumby, America was formed on the rights of a singular vote.  One person shall be heard.  Pepole with no peer pressure say or do things differently in private but it's still the indiviuals right.  What is truly outdated is the Electoral College in this day and age of the media through internet and tv.

[El Barto]

i think democracy is a tradition enbedded into one nation's unique cutural background. for example the Rome and Greece had an idea of democracy thousands of years ago and successfully implemented, and these spirits are revitalized

I don't think I'd call Rome a successful implementation of democracy.  It might have been a more successful attempt than ours, but the result was the same for them as [I think] it'll be for us. 

Rumbo--While I like the notion of accountability, the problem is that the more simplistic the individual, the more obtuse he's likely to be in matters that he thinks he understands.  Most of the people on the fringes, and that's a huge chunk of the electorate, BTW, will never recognize conflicting points of view.  Can you imagine trying to rationally explain your ideology to a Sarah Palin?

[rumborak]

I understand the difficulty, but somehow juries get it done, despite conflicting views on the matter. And maybe one wouldn't need 100% unanimous vote, but rather a 80% majority or something in a group of 10 people. That way, if there's one character with extreme world views, he can be bracketed out.
I know I know, this all scratches on the God-given right of one's vote. But reality is, people are terrible at arguing things on their own. As a former boss used to say "Alone we're smart, together we're genius". Everybody benefits from running their views against a sounding board. I mean, I can definitely say that this forum has shown me a lot of different views, and I certainly have adjusted mine over time because of it. Also, if Democrats were forced to actually talk to Republicans and argue their views one-on-one, there wouldn't be this demonization of the other party.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

I think as this country we are devided because the government is so divided. It isn't about truly doing the right thing but what can we do to keep our party in power. It's a dirty, dirty politcal world we live in.

I personaly don't care if a Dem or a Rep is in power.  I want someone who has handled a profitable business.  Someone who can right our financial woes.

[rumborak]

I don't know. I find that the overall population doesn't seem to understand that politics is about compromise, not about wrestling down the other side. Politics is always dirty, no matter where. But it seems everybody just aims to force their opinion down the other side's throat, instead of striving to find a compromise that most people can live with.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Something else that occurs to me is that our election system is incongruous with freedom of speech.  A major problem with campaigns nowadays is that some jackass billionaire can pump $10k into an election 27 states over.  Corporations can now do the same.  I don't think we can ever have a decent representative government when the campaign of some nobody in a small district in North Dakota runs 38 million dollars.  Yet I have no idea how it can be changed without stomping on the rights of actual, honest to God citizens who want to stump for their local rep.  I think that we live in an age where campaigns should cost 0 dollars, and I don't think it'd be hard to do.  I also think that it couldn't happen under the constitution.  

[King Postwhore]

I agree with you wholeheartedly El Barto.

[GuineaPig]

The U.S. electoral system is so retarded.  It's a shame that reform is almost guaranteed to never happen to the core process.

[yorost]

The U.S. electoral system is so retarded.  It's a shame that reform is almost guaranteed to never happen to the core process.

The electoral system is fine, it is just a sham that states can mandate popular winner takes all electors.  That is essentially theft of votes, since each district is supposed to be picking its own elector while the popular vote for a state picks two electors.

Switching the system to popular vote is a terrible idea, since the emphasis will be rallying the areas to support you for higher voter turnout.  Popular vote would give power of the executive office to a handful of populated states.  Even more emphasis goes to getting areas excited that you have 90% support instead of fighting for anywhere you have split votes.  It is already a problem at the state level, it would be even worse on a national level.