IAP Political Forum

Most of us Americans are anti-democratic. Take this test and see if you believe in democracy:

What is your first impulse when, politically, you don't get your way? You know, let's say you are a Republican and the election of 2006 puts the anti-Christ (Nancy Pelosi) in charge ... or you are a Democrat and GWBush "stole" Florida and the presidency. Is your first impulse this: I want my party to block everything the other guys try to do, embarrass them at every turn and lie, steal and cheat back into a numerical majority after the next election? Is that democracy?

Political parties tell us we can have our way even though our viewpoint may be in the minority. Fact is, the Democrats are about 25% of the populace, the Republicans about 20%. Both are minorities. Don't give me the blue state/red state argument. Read Morris Fiorina's book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. The overwhelming majority of Americans stand in the middle. Problem for them is our elections have been commandeered by the two-party system, which has brainwashed the populace into thinking 1) it only has two real choices and 2) they ought to like it.

The Founders warned against the creation and use of parties to advance undemocratic movements (http://nonpartisangov.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=26 (http://nonpartisangov.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=26)). Their prophesies have been validated.

True democracy is an issue-based system and works like this: Let's say I'm Pro-Life and the "law of the land" (as it does currently stand) is Roe v. Wade. I truly believe that abortions are bad and people should not have them. In the marketplace of ideas, apparently I'm losing. My job (what should be my goal) is to change enough minds to my way of thinking. True democracy is a bottom-up system where the people's opinion is represented upwards. A party-based system is top-down where minorities incapable of winning minds choose to rig the electoral system to gain control of government and then attempt to control the electorate accordingly.

Political parties wear the mantle of majoritarianism because of the coagulated effect of gathering multiple issue positions, which are always counter to the other party's positions, and then gaining control of the election system. These are the choices, we are told. Pick one!

Being from Louisiana, I know there is not much there politically-speaking that one would want to emulate. If we Americans truly want to promote democracy worldwide, we should get out own house in order and emulate the Louisiana open primary electoral system. In the opening ballot, all candidates of all stripes run against each other. If one candidate gains 50+%, the election is over and that primary essentially became the general election. If no one gets 50%, the top two candidates (regardless of political affiliation) move into a runoff.

We should also move to a redistricting process like Iowa's. Nonpartisan ... the trend of the future. The future ... democracy ... can be now.

Do I really believe in democracy? No. It is a cruel hoax perpetuated by the establishment upon the stupid and the ignorant.

OswaldTheOsprey

Oswald, you are reacting to the "is" not the "could be." I'm talking about actual democracy. You don't think it is possible?

I certainly hope it isn't possible. The perfect example of pure, direct democracy in action is a lynch mob. Think about that.

OswaldTheOsprey

It is trendy to believe that political parties rig the electoral system, though this is often an over-exaggerated and cynical view. The fact is that without any support on certain issues, parties cannot gain power.

Democracy functions relatively well, and it is far superior to the dictatorial alternative.

The major parties do rig the system to tamper down third party insurgencies. As to their support, this comes from their media lackies.

OswaldTheOsprey

Oswald, I initiated this thread talking about the U.S. political system. I thought it was obvious I was not talking about "direct democracy," so I'll make that clear now: I'm talking about the type of "representative democracy" or "republic" that exists in the U.S. Our government is a representative democracy with a structure of law (the constitution) that includes a guarantee of certain rights (the bill of rights). I don't have to "think about" a "lynch mob" because it isn't what I'm talking about. So back to my question: Do you think a true "representative democracy" as I describe here is possible?

gommi, So you don't think that the political parties have rigged the electoral system? Voters don't choose candidates, but rather the parties choose voters through a totally rigged districting system (except in Iowa, where it is done in a nonpartisan fashion). The election system in every state makes it easy for Dems and Repubs to get on the ballot, and makes it difficult for anybody with an "I" behind his name. Two centuries of solid brainwashing, including abjectly false history textbooks that insist the Founders belong to parties, has crept into the media's mindset; this makes it impossible for any candidate considered "nonviable" (read: not a Dem or Repub and who has chosen not to take brides ... err ... contributions) to be heard. The media ignores anyone but mainstream party candidates.

It is more than "trendy to believe that political parties rig the electoral system." In fact, the biggest trend in politics today is the move to nonpartisan registration. Independents now outnumber Dems and Repubs in many states. There is a reason for that. For most, I think it is intuitive, but for many of us, it is because we recognize the straightjacket the parties have put around the marketplace of ideas.

gommi, you wrote: "The fact is that without any support on certain issues, parties cannot gain power." If each separate issue that is accumulated under the mantle of a party were "voted" on by the citizenry, they would only agree on a severe subset. As I mentioned in my opening salvo, Morris Fiorina's book exposes the fallacy that half of Americans agree with the Dems and half with the Repubs. Parties grab power by accumulating a bag of issue positions and then, through electoral statutes, force us to choose between sets of issue positions we mostly disagree with. That's not representative democracy. The Founders created a system in which all candidates, not parties, with all manner of issue positions would run against each other and the voters could pick the one closest to their values. If the Nazi and Stalinist Parties were the two major parties, and their brethren (minorities) chose the final two major candidates for you, would you be happy?

You finished with: "Democracy functions relatively well, and it is far superior to the dictatorial alternative." Straw man ! Nobody here is suggesting a dictatorship; I'm here advocating for real representative democracy, not the kind of fake democracy the party system presents.

Representative democracy is an illusion. Our internationalist elite pulls the strings behind the scenes. Look bat what happened to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich-one in each party.

OswaldTheOsprey

If this were an actual democracy we wouldn't be dealing with so-called superdelegates and we wouldn't be letting the media do all our thinking for us.

Oswald, IF as you say, "representative democracy is an illusion" because "internationalist elite pulls the strings behind the scenes," that's because the electorate lets them get away with it. If the voters resisted the brainwashing of the two-party end-all-be-all system, if they informed themselves before elections and kept abreast of what their public servants were doing, if they voted only for candidates who closely matched their views rather than accepting extreme lesser of evils, and most important, if they ran for office as Independents, no elitist cabal could control their government. That's my view. I don't know what you mean by "what happened to Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich." Can you explain?

micfranklin, I agree. Superdelegates are extensions of the party system that refuses to give power to the electorate. And the media's arrogance ... well that's a long-winded subject for another day.

If this and if that. As they used to say in New York, with if and a nickel you can ride the subway. As to Paul and Kucinich, the msm either ignored (Paul) or ridiculed (Kucinich) them.

OswaldTheOsprey

Oswald, so you attribute the msm's treatment of Paul and Kucinich to an "international elite" that controls everything? The msm is a pathetic brainwashed tribe of lemmings (I'm a journalism grad) who believe their charge is to cover "viable" candidates. If they think you cannot win, they will not cover you. They believe that democracy is a horse race in which only the frontrunners deserve coverage because only they can win the election. Why cover candidates who can't win? Because of the ideas they may have. And because the supposed frontrunners should be made to respond to those ideas. Andbecause of those ideas, those nonviables might become viable. Duh! I have personally experienced this silliness. It has nothing to do with the hidden hand of some international elite.

Oswald, so you attribute the msm's treatment of Paul and Kucinich to an "international elite" that controls everything? The msm is a pathetic brainwashed tribe of lemmings (I'm a journalism grad) who believe their charge is to cover "viable" candidates. If they think you cannot win, they will not cover you. They believe that democracy is a horse race in which only the frontrunners deserve coverage because only they can win the election. Why cover candidates who can't win?

• Because of the ideas they may have.
  
• And because the supposed frontrunners should be made to respond to those ideas.
• And because of those ideas, those nonviables might become viable.

Duh! I have personally experienced this silliness. It has nothing to do with the hidden hand of some international elite.

What you describe is true. However let's not forget GE, Murdoch, Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner and the rest. Remember those who pay the piper call the tune.

OswaldTheOsprey

This country has gone so far from being a democracy of any sort that it's making it taboo to say the word:

-A democratic society doesn't use superdelegates to choose who wins a nomination, regardless of what other states have said.
-A democratic society doesn't let the media completely dictate who they want to win an election and shun or ridicule all other candidates.
-A democratic society doesn't spy on its own people regularly.
-A democratic society doesn't arrest and imprison its own people and not tell them why they're being arrested or give them a trial.
-A democratic society doesn't torture people and lie about it.
-A democratic society doesn't lie to its own people about going to war with a country it shouldn't be fighting in the first place.
-A democratic society doesn't ignore the people when they say they want out.
-A democratic society doesn't establish so-called "free speech zones."

oswald, you give "GE, Murdoch, Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner and the rest" too much credit. I've worked in newsrooms. The publisher is never seen, many (most?) stories come from the bottom up (the reporters), and the edits on their stories going up are minimal. I can't vouch for broadcast newsrooms (I was always in print media), but the whole "those who pay the piper call the tune" thing is bunk. It's always easy to lean toward conspiracy theories, but I'll tell you, the main reason the media is bad in so many ways is because of the quality (lack thereof) of the journalists. And print journalism isn't as good as it used to be because so many of those journalists fashion themselves as the next Tim Russert or Internet flower. Sad ...

micfranklin:

- Superdelegates are creations of party, which is an anti-democratic institution the Framers warned us about.
- The rest have nothing to do with democracy:
   - The 1st Amendment protects us from the lemming-like media.
   - The spying, arrests/imprisonment, torture, justification for going into Iraq, ignoring the people who want out,
     and "free speech zones" are the results of public policy. These are the results of the "form" of democracy
     we currently live under (party politics).

Yes, "This country has gone so far from being a democracy" but its because of the first bullet. Democracy can happen ...

Where did you work in journalism? Just curious.

OswaldTheOsprey

Baton Rouge, right down the street from the National Champs of college football :)

Newspaper in Baton Rouge, right down the street from the National champs in college football :)

War Eagle anyway! ;)

OswaldTheOsprey (Proud dad of an Auburn grad)

Fixed.  ;)

The words fixed and BCS sort of go together. ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

Oswald, you are the height of profundity and brevity !!! My wife tells me that most-times I'm a bit long-winded; she is right, of course. But I certainly can recognize fine efficient text.

Thank you!

OswaldTheOsprey

It's not perfect ... but i still think its a better system than anything else. Perhaps we don't need to change "democracy" but just perfect it.

Good luck with perfecting it-there will be plenty of opposition from the establishment.

OswaldTheOsprey

What do you propose we put in democracy's place ?

JFree, about halfway through his farewell address, George Washington said: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention (sic), which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

Now I'm not as pessimistic as ole Oswald here, but I'll tell you that ole George was one hellava prophet: can you deny the precise "disorders and miseries" that the two-party system has brought us? All of the Founders warned us about allowing parties to control our government, and it can be easily argued, for one thing, that the elevation of a way-too-strong executive is exactly what Washington said would happen.

It's not whether there is something better than democracy out there, it's a matter of whether the two-party system actually is democratic. The representative democracy the Founders had in mind involved constituencies in districts electing THEIR representative, not some lesser of evil candidate who was part of a cabal that conspired to control the government strictly due to a numerical majority. Representative democracy is an issue-by-issue matter. MY representative is the candidate who best matches the values and beliefs of my district's voters. That rep then goes to legislature and works together with like-minded reps on each individual issue. If a majority arises, then the issue passes; if not, it fails. On the next issue, a different set of reps might agree.

The artificial coagulation of bags of issue positions the parties represent is distinctly un-democratic because, on the district level, it forces voters to settle ...

For a fairly complete rundown on the subject, see my blog (http://nonpartisangov.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=26). Scroll down to the bottom and read each entry going up.

And ... tell a friend about it ... :D

Social Fascism-Patriotism and social justice.

OswaldTheOsprey

Fuck Democracy.  Long live the Republic.  :angel:

Oswald, "Social Fascism-Patriotism and social justice." ???

What is that?

How would that be better than representative democracy, if we could achieve it?

Or do you think rep demo is not achievable?

Gojira, I'm trying to figure your remarks out. I thought to myself, is this some sort of Star Wars reference to Palpatine's Republic, or are you really referring to the U.S. republic? If it's the latter, you've completely misread this thread. I don't advocate a pure democracy. That's mob rule and worthy of your blue comments. But there are democratic features of republics like ours -- for instance, elections and majority-rule legislative votes. That's why republics are considered a form of democracy. See Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy.

It was a joke.  A bad one at that. 

Just what are you trying to figure out with your question about democracy?  That it truly can work? Who says its doesn't work right now? 

Thanks for asking. My point relates to what it was the Founders thought they were creating. Relatively light reading of their words makes it crystal clear that nowhere in their creation did they envision a place for political parties. Representative democracy, in their eyes, was very different from the corrupting influences that control our elections and government today. This is the way it was supposed to work:

1) Voters in each district elected a representative in an open election where all candidates of all stripes and viewpoints ran against each other. No "filtering down" of candidates for a general election ballot by minorities of the electorate (party primaries). No national referendums for party control of the legislature. Nobody from other districts and states (party leaders) applying pressure to incumbents through various methods of discipline. Just pure clean elections out of which a people's rep was chosen.

2) In the legislative body, that newly-chosen rep carries a "bag" of issue positions upon which he was elected. In deliberation with reps from other districts on specific issues, coalitions of reps would form and if they got a majority of votes, the measure would pass. On the very next issue up for debate, a completely different coalition of reps would form.

Parties artificially form coalitions of people with similar, restricted bags of issue positions and control the electoral process to limit the possible choices. So if you had 10 issues with two possible positions each (A and B), parties restrict your choices to:

Party A candidate: 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 4-A, 5-A, 6-A, 7-A, 8-A, 9-A, 10-A (A supposedly being some amorphous "conservative" ideology)
Party B candidate: 1-B, 2-B, 3-B, 4-B, 5-B, 6-B, 7-B, 8-B, 9-B, 10-B (B supposedly being some amorphous "liberal" ideology)

The Founders foresaw elections with the following kinds of candidates:

Candidate S: 1-A, 2-B, 3-B, 4-A, 5-A, 6-B, 7-A, 8-A, 9-A, 10-B
Candidate T: 1-B, 2-A, 3-B, 4-B, 5-B, 6-B, 7-B, 8-B, 9-B, 10-B
Candidate U: 1-B, 2-A, 3-A, 4-A, 5-A, 6-A, 7-A, 8-A, 9-A, 10-B
Candidate V: 1-A, 2-B, 3-B, 4-B, 5-A, 6-B, 7-B, 8-B, 9-B, 10-B
Candidate W: 1-B, 2-B, 3-B, 4-B, 5-B, 6-B, 7-B, 8-B, 9-B, 10-B
Candidate X: 1-B, 2-A, 3-A, 4-B, 5-B, 6-B, 7-B, 8-B, 9-A, 10-B
Candidate Y: 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 4-A, 5-A, 6-A, 7-A, 8-A, 9-A, 10-A
Candidate Z: 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 4-A, 5-A, 6-A 7-A, 8-A, 9-A, 10-A

A real election with choices. The haggling and true representation would occur in the legislative body ON AN ISSUE-BY-ISSUE BASIS.

Parties are the most un-democratic institution in our government. Most citizens have been brainwashed to think that parties are part of government, where they actually could be excised pretty cleanly ... and magically, representative democracy would appear.

Gojira, the second part of my point has to do with what representative democracy means as it relates to the apparent popularity of parties. If one's view is closer to the Founders' original intent, then one must be satisfied with losing today on a given issue and resolving to change that result by working from the bottom up, changing people's minds (sort of like what I'm trying to do here ...). Parties are un-democratic in that, when they lose an election and therefore the other party gets to largely control policymaking, the goal is to work from the top down -- lying, cheating and stealing in every manner to impune the integrity and motives of members of the other party for one purpose and only one: winning enough seats for their party in the next election to TAKE CONTROL again and get their way with policy.

THAT's not democracy. If your viewpoint on an issue is currently a minority position, you deserve to not have your way with policy. Within the guidelines of certain safeguarded rights, the majority position on an issue should control. Parties promise minorities (Democrats, 25% of the electorate, and Republicans, 20%) that at least occasionally, they can have their way on their entire bag of issue positions !!! That's a compelling enticement for people to look away from. Think about it: My views are in the minority, but at least some of the time, I can control government policy.

Know what that is? Despotism ...

What is Social Fascism? Nationalization of the economy, massive public works, isolationism in foreign affairs and love of our nation above all. It is not Nazism or genocide.

Probably not achievable (at least in our lifetime).

OswaldTheOsprey

So you have "Tyranny by Majority" or "Electoral College."

Take your pick.  Can't have it both ways. 

I don't think the founders had any clue that I would be able to post on a forum half way across the world to you, who is on the other side (I am assuming) as well as the server for this site being hosted half way.   How could they ever been able to construct a democracy that could fix said paradox above?

Your question about democracy seems more like a philosophical question rather than a practical one.

Oswald, thanks for the clarification. I think you are swimming upstream with those thoughts. The world is moving historically to more personal freedom, and that concept has evolved from "directed" thought to more individual views. Don't think that "genie" will ever go back into the bottle ...

Gojira, I believe in the marketplace of ideas if it allows all opinions to be heard. In that context, and like I said assuming certain safeguarded rights, the majority has the right to rule today !  Most debaters on the subject of "tyranny by majority" forget that last part. Representative democracy is the worst form of government, except that it is better than all the rest. What should we have? Emperor Gojira - The Benevolent Prince?

As for the electoral college, that is a silly subject that many people attach to as though it was some awful deterrence to democracy. In almost every presidential election, it has made no difference from a popular vote. Originally, there were very good arguments in support of the electoral college. I'm not a huge supporter of it, though. It could go away, I don't care and most people probably don't care either.

But there is no paradox, juxtaposing some "tyranny by majority" vs. "the electoral college" ... ??? This is a false problem, a red herring ...

Perhaps not. However, I will stay with what I believe-popular or unpopular.

OswaldTheOsprey

I like the sound of that.  After all, I trample those who stand in my way and extinguish them with my nuclear breath...  ;)


I don't think it is.  The electoral college is actually very important.  Don't get me wrong, I am not taking sides here.  I think the American system works best regardless of what Oswald or what many others may think.  But there is a reason that the electoral college was implemented and that was to give state's equal opportunity to excerise their power as a minority. 

Havn't you heard the Al Gore joke... "Even though I won the popular vote..."  yet he lost due to the electoral college. 


The framers dealt with that very paradox and I believe the electoral college was a very sound conclusion.  The country I am in now is ruled by a tyrannous majority, the LDP.  Hate bipartisanship? How about a party that has been in power since post-war reconstruction.  Yet, people believe they are doing something right.   

BTW, that country I am in is Japan.

Voting for representatives to vote on your behalf is not exactly democracy to begin with.

It is just one democratic-like process applied to a system of elite rule for the purpose of implying 'symbolic' permission of the governed.

If you seek more democracy, then refining the process of appointing elite representatives is the last thing you should be concerned with.

Strange that you should say that Dormouse, because I think that is exactly what needs to be addressed.
More (better) democracy can only be achieved if we remove all the obstacles to true representation.
True representation being, not what we think is good for us, but what is actually good for us.
Our representatives are "Elite" and we are not, so how can they possibly represent our interests?
Further, wisdom and keen insight is not a property of the majority and I think its a basic fallacy of composition to say that more votes for a particular issue makes that issue right.
If the electorate are only ever given the choice between two parties, both of which are self-serving and corrupt then the choices of the electorate does not matter, even if they were a nation of sages and wise men.
The fact is that there are two problems with our current democracies:

1. We have only inappropriate leaders from which to make our selection
2. We have insufficient collective intelligence to make the right selection

If we solve the first problem, the second becomes irrelevant. That is, if we only have good leaders to choose from the problem of which one to choose disappears.

The obvious questions, become:

1. what is a good leader?
2. how do we ensure that only good leaders stand for election?

The inherent flaw in all systems of government, including democracy in its various forms, is not the nature or the powers of government, but the nature and the powers of the men in it.

Dio

  A Constitutional Republic.  By Constitutional law, thats what we still are. And that is exactly the rule of Law we should be following.  For if we had, our currency would not be on the brink of collapse.  Our Federal government would be small and efficient.   And, we wouldn't have more people in prison (per capita) then any other country, ever, in the history of man. What we need to do is start prosecuting each and every elected official, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of these United States, and start putting them in Jail for not fulfilling their oath.  The way it stands now, those in power roam the halls of Justice with impunity.  Which, by default, makes them "Halls of Corruption", and the corruption has deep roots.  We need to get back to our "original" roots.....The Constitution.  The system is all there.  All we have to do is abide by it.

It was tried numerous times with numerous variations in the 20th century.  Please point to a success or near success.A regrettable necessity due to logistics.  Direct democracy hasn't governed much more than a city-state and our histories of said states doesn't lead me to think they were fairer or more just places to live than the United States is.  Our system tries to balance the benefits of pure democracy with safeguards on its most damaging features and all in all, we could do much worse.