Reforming Democracy

It was certainly never a democracy and it is not a republic now, in any case. It’s an oligarchy that is somewhat cautious of the mob, but less so as time goes by.

Taken broadly, every Government is bound to be an oligarchy no matter what.

Everyone,

If you’re voting for presidents, you’re a democracy. From what I can tell, you’ve been voting since Washington.

Them’s the breaks in a democracy. You vote among a minority, you’re not going to win. Unless you’re talking about two big dog parties stomping out any new party that aspires to compete. Is it really a fair democracy when the parties that the people really want to vote for don’t get a fair hearing? But then again, I don’t know why that isn’t simply up to the people. You do your research, figure out which alternative parties are actually out there, what their selling, and you vote for which ever one you like.

Hell, I don’t remember. That’s like asking me where I learned about evolution theory. I don’t remember. It’s sort of become common knowledge in my mind.

I suppose I should ask what specifically you’re asking about.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if it was generally seen as the case. It is not generally seen this way, at least in the US - where most people would say it is a democracy and they you have to correct them about that.

You have the following categories (often by varied names);

1) Total dictatorship - dictator makes all laws.
2) Dictatorial Republic - dictator appoints representatives for regions who then vote on all laws.
3) Democratic Republic - the populous votes on local laws and elects representatives who then vote for national laws.
4) Total Democracy - the populous votes on all local and national laws.

The US Constitutional was originally designed as a mix category (3) and (4) as Governors, Congress, and the Executive were (3) but the Supreme Court was (4). As time went on, the executive branch got subverted into an electoral college situation which took the populous almost entirely out of the picture and finally the nation became run strictly through controlling Money, Media, and Medicine, at which time it became an absolute oligarchy (2010 - Obamacare, “PPACA”, completed the god status). At that point voting became merely a measure used to decide how to adjust the controls, not a means to directly make any decisions. And that is why people began hearing the phrase, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” so much just prior.

The fact that exactly all people weren’t allowed to vote merely meant that it wasn’t a perfect example. Children still can’t vote.

Hi, Gib, et alle,

The United States was never intended as a ‘pure’ democracy–government ruled by the majority. Read the Constitution to decide whether or not I’m correct. The Electoral College is meant to equalize the power of large states with small states. A republic takes power from the people rather than from a monarch or ruling family. So the US Constitution was/is meant to be the document that defines, and establishes the structure of, a democratic republic–i.e., a country ruled by people. To get the individual states to agree to the Constitution and ratify it was a struggle. Read the Federalist Papers. Not all states would ratify it as it stood, although it had already been signed by the Founding Fathers, who represented each state of the time. The signed Constitution was sent to the Governors of each of the 13 states for their ratification in the name of their state–after discussion with their own Congresses. There were ten objections to ratification. Those ten ‘objections’ were re-written as amendments incorporated into the Constitution. They’re called the Bill of Rights.

The two houses of Congress are separate. Originally, the Senate was meant to be the ‘elder statesmen’ of the individual states. At the time, they were men able to ‘see’ more than what benefited just their state. They were supposed to be able to see the whole republic of states and introduce legislation that, if approved, would benefit all states. The House of Representatives were meant to balance the power of the Senate by speaking for the individual states. The SCOTUS was meant to decide whether or not the Legislation introduced by the Senate was constitutional. This was meant, I believe, to be done before the fact, rather than after.

Can the people of the US go back to the “original” Constitution, as Libertarians want? I really don’t understand how that could be possible, since, through the SCOTUS, laws have changed; states can and do change their laws (which is fine as long as they follow the US Constitution;) and since so many people think the Bill of Rights is the entire Constitution.

In the meantime, in order to ‘preserve the rights of the people,’ moneyed people and power groups have taken over Congress. Remember what the structure of Congress is supposed to be–the Senate proposes law, the House approves or disapproves that law, and the Executive signs the law to make it the ‘law of the land.’

That’s where the moneyed individuals or groups have been wreaking havoc and are changing the US from a democratic Republic into an oligarchy. At least, that’s my view of the situation.

To further fill this essay with more cliches, the US is caught on the horns of a Dilemma (a big bull not unlike Babe, Paul Bunyan’s big blue ox in looks) in that it can’t restrict the freedom of speech without going against the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS and exemplified in its Citizens United decision. As far as I know, a sitting SCOTUS, has only reversed it’s decision once.

Now, please, ‘reform’ the United States. :slight_smile:

In ancient times it was called (especially by Aristoteles):

1) “Monarchy” and its variation “tyrannise” (= “abnormal monarchy”).
2) “Aristocracy” and its variation “oligarchy” (= “abnormal aristocracy”).
3) “Democracy” and its variation “ochlocracy” (= “abnormal democracy”).

The “abnormal democracy” is approximately that what James mentioned under point 4):

This is approximately that what Aristoteles called the “ochlocracy” as the “abnormal democracy”.

“Social eqaulity”, “respect”, “individual”, “community” are merely rhetoric words, if they are used in a political text and context. They only have to do with forms of government, if it comes to enforce ideologies, and ideologies are used in order to control the people.

So the words “social eqaulity”, “respect”, “individual”, “community” can indirectly, but not directly be used for the describing of any form of government, but they can directly be used for the describimg of the totaltarian rhetoric.

The “principles of social equality” and the “respect for the individual within a community” mean a contradiction!

“The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” are also a contrast to the other points James mentioned:

Especially the majority rule (=> 4.) excludes the “principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” because a “majority” can merely really be a mojority, if there is also a minority, and a “minority” is no longer a minority, if there is “social equality”, and the “individual within a community” can not exist, if there is “social equality” (cp. above: The “principles of social equality” and the “respect for the individual within a community” mean a contradiction!).

So “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” contradict democracy and any of the other forms of government, but especially democracy and its variation named “ochlocracy” (= abnormal democracy).

In this context, “social equality” merely means that everyone gets one vote on all relevant issues.

That’s right, but nevertheless: it does not change anything of that what I said. The “social equality” can not really be reached, it’s an ideal, and ideologists are always the first ones who misuse this ideal as well as other ideals in order to control people.

So there is no “social equality”.

Many people who are very much ill, or other people who are caused by other circumstances that they are not able to vote - all those people indicate that there is even then no “social equality”, if it comes to vote.

None of those were considered perfect. They just chose the one that seemed the best that they could arrange. Knowing no more than they did at the time, I think they did a surprisingly good job. What people are trying to do today is far worse.

There is only one right way and it is “None of the above”.

If presuming to reform Democracy (or actually reestablish it), the only thing that the US Constitution was missing was for all laws to be obligated to their openly documented reasoning. If they had that one added stipulation, the entire world would be different today and be much more democratic and far more advanced. The world wars would never have occurred yet Israel would still have obtained land and without having to sacrifice millions of people to get it.

By requiring such open documented reasoning and binding laws to it (meaning to remove the law that isn’t doing what it was reasoned to do in favor of any law that does bring what it is reasoned to bring), other governing structures would begin to change. In the long run, far more decisions would be made locally with a far greater diversity from location to location. Reasoning would take the upper hand and gradually discover the most ideal arrangement available.

Are we discussing democracy in general or democracy in US only?

As far as i know, fortunately or unfortunately, there are lot of people, who also use to live at this very planet outside US, perhaps, manytimes more than US.
The same is applicable to the democracies too.

What i fail to understand sometimes why the objectivity of most intellectuals would not able to cross the boundries of US!

with love,
sanjay

And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Me neither. Which is why I think a new democracy needs to be designed.

Right. How did this happen? Isn’t it because congress is made up of people and people are subject to greed and personal gain. Wave enough money under their noses and they’ll do anything you want. (However, I should point out that I doubt it’s always money for its own sake that has this effect, but money put towards a cause that the member of congress is fighter for or believes in that has that effect). In any case, this is one of the problems. What can be done about it?

So you mean, as opposed to simply recognizing that X is the law, and even it is making life difficult (however much it worked at the time of its codification), too bad, it’s the law. But if we had the means and the rights to the reasoning that stood behind the law at the time of its codification, we could make a much more effective and binding decision on whether or not to keep it, change it, or remove it?

At this point, I think we’re only trying to define “democracy,” but with a slant towards the American system (but this is only because I brought up the subject of corruption in the US system in my OP as an explanation for what prompted this thread). I personally think the US is in trouble (and remember, I’m Canadian), which is why I’m focused on the US (and add to this that the majority of ILP members are American). Nevertheless, carrying this discussion into the nature and state of democracy in other countries, or in general, is surely important and would help the overall goal of this thread.

By all means.
I do not forget important things that easily, if those are not names and numbers.

This problem is not restricted to US leaders but the whole of the society is infected by it. And, i am not talking about only American society here but all democracies.

Gib, education is a slightly different subject.

Mere education does not increase wisdom by default. Wisdom is not mere education but how one uses his education. And, that cannot be taught in schools. Either family has to teach this to its youngs or they will get clues on their own from their surroundings/interactions. And, unfortunately, there are more bad things than good present in the surroundings.

Furthermore, sometimes even overeducation becomes a problem itself. That is happening because of immature children having access to internet. Internet is too complex for them to handle. It is harming them more than helping.

At the end of the day, the only solution to find wise leaders is to increase the general wisdom of participants. I do not think that there can be any other alternative. Unwise choosers cannot ever choose wise representative. That is the only reason of the downfall of the democracy.

If any democracy wants to succeed in the long run, it has to maintain the wisdom of its participants at a certain level, either by improving their overall standerd or filtering out the unwise ones from the system.

Gib, how can a 18 year child can ever understand what can be good or bad for him in the long run?
This is nothing but abusing democracy, killing its spirit.

If you bring the voting age to 12, the majority of the votes would go that leader who promises to children for free video gaming, junk food, cold drinks and no schooling. And, a leader would have to do all that in order to get their votes. It is as simple as that.

In the same way, if you increase voting age to 30, the priorities of the voter would change. They will be certainly more sensible and wise than 18 years olds. And, the leaders would have to be more sensible also to attract them.

I do not know about the details of voting patterns in US, but my guess is that Obama got more votes from young, non-white and female voters. And, if Republican party wants to win the next election, it would have to nominate any female or a non-white candidate. That is their the only chance.

I am telling you this from my experience of Indian politics. Being a multiparty system and still based on cast and religions, Indian politics has evolved faster and far more complex than US. US has just enterered in that phase, which is near to its end in India.
Some menbers may have a serious objection to it but it is true.

wih love,
sanjay

with love,
sanjay

I would also add genetics to that. Some people have more of a potential for attaining wisdome than others due to their genes.

The first one conquered a lot of diverse smaller Groups. IOW he killed a lot of people to extend the area over which he had Control. That seems bad to me. Likewise number two. Now it sounds like Akbar for an empire builder who kills a lot of people, did run the empire fairly nicely for an autocrat. Both passed on their empires to their sons. This is a bad idea and likely the son was not the best candidate. Let’s say the sons, in the specific cases were good. The problem is it sets a precedent for family Control, and sooner or later a maniac will come to Power. He also seems to have reacted with extreme violence to people who offended him, throwing some members of his family out the window, for example. Interestingly he did move society towards secularism. Some would see this as good, others as not.

Caesar killed lot of people for the empire. One can assume that his armies engaged in systematic rape also, for example. He had conquered leaders dragged around in chains. He had huge gladiotorial battles - for Entertainment - where captives were forced to fight to the Death. His reforms and rules as dictator seem OK. He was planning, at his Death, more empire building, which means he would send out armies to attack, kill, rape and destroy other nations and people. These were not defensive wars.

Catherine also extended her empire, though yes, as emporers go she seems to have had good intentions and done good things. HOwever these are part of the process of eliminating the class/Power distinctions based on birth family and moving towards other forms of society than autocracy.

I will leave specifics here. All these people acted to increase, not simply stabilize their realms. IOW they sought more Power and at the expense of their own lower classes - iow the Soldiers - and the peoples of any are they attacked and annexed. This is not a small thing. A leader today doing those things is generally though of as evil, unless they can manage to make their attacks on others look like defense, and people do fall for that.

This may seem unfair. These rulers did what rulers did if they could - as far as war and empire building. But there were likely many people, even then, who would not have viewed war as a given, who would not have assumed that ‘my’ Culture should be other people’s Culture because we know the best way to live - thinking more of the pre-Catherine the great rulers. So even though we are evaluating the past or I am through modern Eyes there were people even then who would not have assumed these things - though perhaps would have ended up abusing Power in these ways. And each autocrat, unless they undermine autocracy, set the stage for the next tyrant. Also I do not Think there has ever been an autocrat who did not rule over and support a caste system which includes a great deal of abuse. I can’t blame these autocrats for not changing that - though Catherine seems to have taken steps (affected by the *Enlightenment) - but I can’t really see how an autocrat can function without at least a few classes, the higher ones having Always - with individual exceptions - been systematically abusive of the lower classes.

Is there an autocrat who did not use systematic violence on either his or her own people or the people of other nations?

A recent Princeton study that concludes that US is an oligarchy.

princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen … 3-7-14.pdf

double

        Only because John Adams isn't taught in school because he's not progressive enough.  If we had a 'direct democracy' in this country, all that would do is empower an oligarchy of pundits and entertainers (moreso).  That kind of oligarchy isn't a problem to be overcome so much as it is an inherent feature of governance. It sucks that it takes a Princeton study to re-reveal what we all should have learned in high school.

So what’s everybody’s consensus then? Apart from the confusion over whether or not America is a democracy, I sense that people don’t really care and actually like it as an oligarchy.