Democracy is an Illusion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There’s that, and there’s the fact that taking a vote on things is expensive and inefficient. Imagine if we had to have nation-wide elections on each bill that came before Congress…[/quote]

What if everyone had internet access and it was possible to verify everyone’s identity? Neither are insurmountable technical problems.

You could then have the whole population vote on as many issues as you’d wish at very low cost.

You could even give a test to make sure they properly understand the issues involved before being allowed to vote. :slight_smile:

42

[quote]pookie wrote:
You could then have the whole population vote on as many issues as you’d wish at very low cost.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. After all, most issues are rather complex, and most bills are quite long. I suppose if we’re founding a new polis, here, we’d have to have a limit on that. And while we’re doing the whole direct democracy thing, how direct is it to have a legislature? Each citizen should be able to write up a bill and submit it, with proper endorsement. Of course, you’d have to vote down every bag-lady consortium’s latest “give money to hobos” legislation, but that’s the price of freedom.

[quote]
You could even give a test to make sure they properly understand the issues involved before being allowed to vote. :)[/quote]

No, you really couldn’t, because we’ve already decided that such a test would be unfairly discriminatory. But again, if we’re founding a new government, fine. And who would design the test? Would it be the citizens… no, we’ve already established that they might not understand the issues. Would it be the legislators? Well, but then, they could take advantage of the situation. So we’d need to vote on the test… oh wait.

43

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Why wouldn’t you want a direct democracy? To keep the grubby masses away from politics? That reasoning is pretty old hat. [/quote]

Well, you might not have wanted a direct democracy if you were black in the 1950s in the United States. Of course, you probably don’t mean “direct democracy.” You probably mean a constitutional democracy, which isn’t quite so direct, and places limits on what powers the people are allowed to exercise.

But let’s play your game for a moment. Let’s say you live in North Dakota, with a fairly low population density. Everyone in your state pays federal taxes, of course, which entitles you to certain things, including some highway funds. Your highways are falling into disrepair, and you need some of it. But we’re in a direct democracy, and all of the other states vote against you. They say “hey, screw North Dakota, we want to buy something else.” Or, putting the whole federalism issue aside, maybe you live in a small town that needs some state moneys to get your local postal service or whatever going. Do you trust a direct democracy to supply that for you?

Direct democracy does NOT scale well. It didn’t even work that well for the Athenians, and everyone knew everyone else in Athens. Direct democracy has a history of being unfavorable to minority interests… but I guess if you’re always in the majority, well, who cares, right?

44

Uhh guys…think you want a democracy???

Remember the bit about he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it?

"Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

John Adams

One of the ways it commit suicide is by having the public vote themselves money from the public treasury (see also …well you can guess) but that is another story.

45

[quote]nephorm wrote:
pookie wrote:
You could then have the whole population vote on as many issues as you’d wish at very low cost.

Not necessarily. After all, most issues are rather complex, and most bills are quite long. I suppose if we’re founding a new polis, here, we’d have to have a limit on that. And while we’re doing the whole direct democracy thing, how direct is it to have a legislature? Each citizen should be able to write up a bill and submit it, with proper endorsement. Of course, you’d have to vote down every bag-lady consortium’s latest “give money to hobos” legislation, but that’s the price of freedom.

You could even give a test to make sure they properly understand the issues involved before being allowed to vote. :slight_smile:

No, you really couldn’t, because we’ve already decided that such a test would be unfairly discriminatory. But again, if we’re founding a new government, fine. And who would design the test? Would it be the citizens… no, we’ve already established that they might not understand the issues. Would it be the legislators? Well, but then, they could take advantage of the situation. So we’d need to vote on the test… oh wait.[/quote]

Good points. It could be interesting to use the system as a polling method though.

Another problem might be that many people would change their minds everytime some good/bad news would get reported.

It might be a tool in making a system where people get to vote on issues, rather than for parties or candidates.

I was mostly kidding about the test part, but one possible way to make it work would be to have each side prepare half of the test, or prepare the other side’s half. When both sides agreed that the test was fair, it could be used.

You could also allow “flunkies” to still vote on issues, but give their votes less weight.

The main problem with democracy is that a large portion of the population is completely uninterested in politics and the various issues surrounding important questions. But they still get a vote.

46

[quote]doogie wrote:
Psycho Therapist wrote:
…but since democracy is the new religion and freedom for all our new mantra, shouldn’t the figures be less skewed and more fair?

… instead of working towards a future where everyone has, more or less, the same standard of living?

What does democracy have to do with everyone having the same standard of living? Democracy is about being free to work towards the standard of living you wish to attain.[/quote]

Yet democracy depends on those who are not free to supply us with the means to acquire a standard of living. This inequality defies the idea of democracy, doesn’t it?

47

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

As Mage pointed out, it has become that way, because the vast majority of the populace is ignorant of the facts. The media has done a terrible job of getting the facts to the people, and it takes too much work for most people to sort through the BS. So, yes, most politicians are primarily worried about staying in power, the wishes of the people come second.

Democracy & freedom means the freedom to rise to level of your choosing & abilities, it has nothing to do with “fairness”.
[/quote]

At least that’s honest. Ultimately, we are standing on the shoulders of those who make our affluence possible. If this is the general mindset, why wouldn’t it apply to the filthy rich aswell? And can we blame those who rise up to this injustice [from their point of view].

48

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

What does democracy have to do with everyone having the same standard of living? Democracy is about being free to work towards the standard of living you wish to attain.

Yet democracies generally have the highest standards of living in the world.

Quit worrying about what your neighbors have. Worry more about what you have.

Life is not fair. Everyone is not equal. Democracy is not to blame.[/quote]

True, democracy is just a different name for the same old crap that’s going on for a very long time. Anyone would use that word to convey a better style of living is lying, because it’s simply selfishness, isn’t it?

49

[quote]ScottL wrote:
Uhh guys…think you want a democracy???

Remember the bit about he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it?

"Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

John Adams

One of the ways it commit suicide is by having the public vote themselves money from the public treasury (see also …well you can guess) but that is another story.

[/quote]

This is why we don’t have a true democracy here. The founding fathers didn’t really want that. While we keep using the term democracy, we often are referring to freedom and something more along the lines of a republic.

And in my previous post, I meant Great Britain. I hit an extra letter on my keyboard, and instead of correcting it myself, I let the spell checker do it for me, and I didn’t catch it until I posted. (I know excuses excuses.)

50

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Why wouldn’t you want a direct democracy? To keep the grubby masses away from politics? That reasoning is pretty old hat. [/quote]

Be careful what you wish for. After the 2004 election, the Democrats and left in general despised the concept of ignorant rednecks across “Red-State America” actually registering to vote and showing up at the polls.

Face it, the Left actually hates the “grubby masses”, so calls for direct democracy from the Left seem dishonest to me.

Leftists are Dostoyevskian in that they think they love humanity abstractly but don?t really actually like people.

51

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Just for the record, America is not a democracy, it’s a representative republic.[/quote]

I believe the correct term is “constitutional republic”. Correct me if I’m wrong. But it’s definitely a republic. We have representation because the constitution says so.

Pure democracies are actually very bad things. I think even the Greeks figured that out.

52

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Leftists are Dostoyevskian in that they think they love humanity abstractly but don?t really actually like people.
[/quote]

The “left” are the drug dealers of socio-economics and politics. They sell promises and bad laws as drugs to the masses so the left can support their powerful lifestyles with no regard for the implications.

53

Hey psycho therapist - Is it a big deal when your gf wants to bring another girl in? you know what i mean

54

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Hey psycho therapist - Is it a big deal when your gf wants to bring another girl in? you know what i mean[/quote]

??