What do you feel is more important? Democracy? Or your preferred policy outcomes?

[BzaDem]

Poll question: What do you feel is more important? Democracy? Or your preferred policy outcomes?

Let's pretend there is a hypothetical nation with free and fair elections. (For the sake of argument, let's say the elections are entirely publicly-financed.)

Let's further say that the political make-up of the nation is such that for whatever reason (even if it's ignorance, strong views against one's own interest, etc), your preferred policies will never be enacted for the duration of your natural life. Ever.

Do you support the idea of a democracy, even if you will always lose on various policy views? Or do you think a government that does not subscribe to certain economic policy views is per se illegitimate, regardless of the popularity of the current policies/leaders with the people? Would you favor a peaceful, extra-constitutional transition of power to a system where your policies are enacted (regardless of their popularity with a majority of the citizenry)?

[RandomThoughts]

1. It is not possible for better results without democracy.

Explained that already, a totalitarian system devolves to favoritism without merit, and then corruption to hide that.

Any system has to have a way to remove the top from rule, since the top in luxury are the worst at ruling since they have so little real world experience, and any totalitarian system goes to that stagnation.


And worse, to correct it things get violent many times.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

6. +1

[BzaDem]

8. If the question makes you uncomfortable, how is that a problem with the question? n/t

[leftstreet]

11. It's a creepy question

You make the presupposition that "my" policy preferences are counter to "democracy"

Makes no sense

[BzaDem]

14. Not at all.

I only made the presupposition that one's policy preferences (or at least some of them) are counter to the wishes of the majority of the population in a hypothetical nation. (Or, at least, that your policy preferences are counter to the policy preferences of leaders that the nation ever elects.) Not that they are counter to democracy.

[leftstreet]

17. What do you think democracy is?

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

19. Obviously, that question is complicated and has caveats

but the short short version, is that democracy is defined by the ability of the people to elect leaders to govern themselves, with a free-speech environment for ensuring voters have access to information about the options if they so choose to avail themselves of it.

It is mostly left-right agnostic.

[SDuderstadt]

16. No...

it doesn't.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

92. The only person who seems to be "attacking" anyone is...

you, dude.

[defendandprotect]

98. Think we need a counter OP to this making the "problem" clear -- !!

Though I trust that most DU'ers figured it out --

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

3. Are you saying the Wisconsin Senate Democrats should surrender on collective bargaining?

It's not as if they could ever restore it later, you know.

[BzaDem]

7. Not at all.

The Wisconsin constitution requires a 3/5 quorum, and the Democrats are playing completely within the rules of the state constitution. This is especially important to draw huge attention to a bill they were planning on passing in the dead of night, even if they have to come back in the end.

Furthermore, assuming Walker gets his way (as looks likely), I hope they would immediately collect petitions to recall as many state senators as possible, as a prelude to recalling Walker as soon as he can be constitutionally recalled (next Jan).

This isn't a post about Wisconsin at all.

[SDuderstadt]

18. NO, dude!

How do you get that out of what he said??

[defendandprotect]

5. Confusing questions --

Do you support the idea of a democracy, even if you will always lose on various policy views? Or do you think a government that does not subscribe to certain economic policy views is per se illegitimate, regardless of the popularity of the current policies/leaders with the people? Would you favor a peaceful, extra-constitutional transition of power to a system where your policies are enacted (regardless of their popularity with a majority of the citizenry)?


What "economic" system are you equating with democracy?

You don't really have democracy without economic democracy --

and capitalism is the opposite of economic democracy --

[BzaDem]

9. Any economic policy that the voters elect people to enact (from tea party land to socialism).

Let's say with similar constitutional protections that we have in this country (such as an equal protection clause, etc.).

In other words, do you think that the people should never be able to enact economic policies that you are opposed to, even if a majority wants to?

[defendandprotect]

35. You don't have a democracy unless you have economic democracy ....

just as you don't have a democracy without freedom of speech, right to

free assembly, free press -- etal.

In this case, I'll PRESUME a democracy based on democratic socialism with all

of the necessary inclusions/freedoms --


Then, your question is ...

In other words, do you think that the people should never be able to enact economic policies that you are opposed to, even if a majority wants to?


and, again, these newly "enacted economic policies" would have to be in agreement with

democracy and economic democracy.

We've allegedly been a "democracy" while Clinton and Obama have been putting in place trade

agreements which deprive us of democracy/economic democracy.

Therefore -- I still don't get what you're questioning.

Take things around another way, perhaps?

[BzaDem]

45. So let me get this straight. If a majority wants to enact a free trade agreement, you think they

should be prohibited from doing so?

You seem to be saying that a democracy is not a democracy unless it passes policies you agree with ("economic democracy").

But that is precisely the wrong way to look at the question. Whether or not a democracy is a democracy depends primarily on the INPUTS of a political system. That's why we have free speech -- to allow everyone to get all the information they need to make an informed decision at the voting booth. Same with our other first amendment rights.

You are defining the degree of democracy based on the OUTPUTS (such as free trade agreements), as if there is some sort of constitutional right to get your way. But how is that at all compatible with democracy? Isn't the entire point of democracy that NO ONE has a constitutional right (on their own, without a majority) to get their way? Isn't that the hallmark of totalitarianism?

I don't want to say that outputs don't matter at all. We obviously do not allow a majority to pass a law that taxes 100% of income of African Americans, but not whites. But this is because smaller minorities do not have the political power to defend themselves against laws that discriminate on that basis. On the other hand, a free trade agreement is not some law that only affects a small minority -- it affects everyone, and any majority that wants to rid itself of the agreement can vote it away.

The foundation of US Constitutional law prior to the new deal was essentially the exact opposite of what you are saying. The court basically took the view that there is no democracy without pure economic "liberty" (i.e. the right to keep essentially 100% of the fruits of one's own labor, regardless of how such fruits are acquired). They struck down laws all over the place (minimum wage laws, regulations on corporations, etc), all because they viewed democracy based on whether it resulted in the policy outcomes they preferred.

Fortunately, the post-new-deal court eradicated that judicial philosophy. In probably the most famous footnote in constitutional law, the court stated that laws are presumed constitutional unless they

a) violated an express prohibition of the constitution, such as free speech
b) were directed at the INPUTS of the political process, such as voting and elections
c) results in an OUTPUT that was directed solely at a "discrete and insular" minority (such as a racial minority, religious minority, etc), that do not have the political power to use the INPUTS to the political system to politically defend themselves.

You appear to want to add a d) to this list, that says

d) results in an OUTPUT (such as a free trade agreement) that I don't like, even if a majority does.

How is that at all consistent with democracy?

[defendandprotect]

94. The American public was completely against the trade agreements -- NAFTA, etal ...

and -- I'm sure Americans want no further trade agreements -- though Obama is

working on two more!

So let me get this straight. If a majority wants to enact a free trade agreement, you think they
should be prohibited from doing so?

"Free trade" -- is a misnomer -- especially when capital can jump borders now -- and labor can't.

When capitalists are organized up, down and sideways -- and labor is prevented from unionizing.

We need to return to tariffs and protecting our labor and jobs in America --

and quite subsidizing corporations who are looking to "harvest slave labor all over the globe."


What you seem to be saying is, you want to call something a "democracy" -- even if it isn't --

in order to pass policies YOU agree with!

There is NO democracy without economic democracy -- and suggesting otherwise is simply an effort

to try to confuse the public.


But that is precisely the wrong way to look at the question. Whether or not a democracy is a democracy depends primarily on the INPUTS of a political system. That's why we have free speech -- to allow everyone to get all the information they need to make an informed decision at the voting booth. Same with our other first amendment rights.

No -- there's no "wrong" way to look at a question. There's YOUR way and there's MY way.

While you acknowledge there is no demoracy without "free speech" for one --

You continue to deny that economic democracy is also necessary to have a democracy.

Capitalism doesn't provide economic democracy -- nor "free enterprise."

It provides a King-of-the-Hill system intended to move the wealth and natural resources of

the nation from the many to the few -- and it does that very efficiently.


Additionally, most Americans understand the great harm that the trade agreements have already

done to America -- and the fact that they need to be overturned.

You are defining the degree of democracy based on the OUTPUTS (such as free trade agreements), as if there is some sort of constitutional right to get your way. But how is that at all compatible with democracy? Isn't the entire point of democracy that NO ONE has a constitutional right (on their own, without a majority) to get their way? Isn't that the hallmark of totalitarianism?

If that all sounds familiar, it might simply be because it turns what the right wing/elites

often called "mobocracy" upside down. Let's see now -- if we didn't let the South vote on

keeping or ending Segregation then presumably we weren't practicing democracy? Would you have

been surprised to have seen a racist MAJORITY vote from the South on Segregation? Would we?

The majority isn't always right -- that's why we have minority rights under our Constitution.

And, speaking of familiar . . . wasn't "you want it all your way" the anti-Wisconsin mantra?

Let me link you to the T-Party article where they discuss how to infiltrate the Wisconsin uprising.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/1/480448/tea_party_leader_hatches_plan_to_infiltrate_and_sabotage_union_protesters_in_wi_and_other_states?akid=6554.276960.iDfSBH&rd=1&t=18

Here's part of it --

(5) we will approach the cameras to make good pictures… signs under our shirts that say things like “screw the taxpayer!” and “you OWE me!” to be pulled out for the camera (timing is important because the signs will be taken away from us) (6) we will echo those slogans in angry sounding tones to the cameras and the reporters.

Additionally, CONGRESS has to pass trade agreements -- it's not based on a vote by the public -

rather it's based on CONGRESS not doing something to harm our nation -- but these days, we know

we have little protection against CONGRESS working against the general welfare and pushing a

pro-corporate agenda.


The foundation of US Constitutional law prior to the new deal was essentially the exact opposite of what you are saying. The court basically took the view that there is no democracy without pure economic "liberty" (i.e. the right to keep essentially 100% of the fruits of one's own labor, regardless of how such fruits are acquired). They struck down laws all over the place (minimum wage laws, regulations on corporations, etc), all because they viewed democracy based on whether it resulted in the policy outcomes they preferred.

You're confusing economic democracy with notions of capitalism being about "free enterprise."

Capitalism is the exact opposite of free enterprise -- rather it's "Welfare for the rich, and

Free Enterprise for the Poor."

Capitalism also isn't about competition -- it's about killing the competition.


Perhaps some here think that you were trying to clarify an issue -- ?

Looks more like you were trying to muddy the waters -- and think most of the posters who gave

you a positive response should take another look at what you are saying.


:rofl:

[BzaDem]

100. How is that not the very definition of a dictatorship?

You're saying that in a hypothetical country, if the public wanted to enact NAFTA, they shouldn't be permitted to, because you don't like it. How is that not the very definition of a dictatorship?

"You continue to deny that economic democracy is also necessary to have a democracy."

If you define "economic democracy" as "economic policies you like," the not only do I deny that it is necessary to have a democracy -- I would define any nation that prohibited economic policies you don't like (and I don't like) as the exact OPPOSITE of a democracy.

I am capable of opposing a policy on policy grounds and simultaneously realizing that it is perfectly acceptable for a democratic nation to enact it. You apparently are not. What you are proposing is a literal definition of a non-democracy. I guess I am just glad for the sake of DU that you are the only one in this thread proposing such a ridiculous position.

[defendandprotect]

104. The public was against the trade agreements ... but you're having to distort

that reality and pretend otherwise in order to continue your inane OP --

Again, the CONGRESS agrees to or denies trade agreements -- not the public.

If the public had control over trade agreements, NAFTA, CAFTA, etal wouldn't exist!!

Otoh, you seem to want to define "democracy" as including "policies YOU like" -- !!

Every nation has the right to set their own economic policies -- i.e., it's up to

the public to decide on an economic system --

and I think you're probably becoming acutely aware that the public is ready to put

capitalism on the garbage heap!

Presumably, that to you would be a dictatorship!


:rofl:



PS -- The Federal Reserve -- a private bank -- is deciding our economic policy and job

policy for the nation -- not our Congress. That's something the public has to wake up

to especially since Fed policy for so long has been "employee instability" --

[BzaDem]

105. WHERE DID I SAY OTHERWISE?

My question was whether a ANY nation that (for the sake of argument) WANTED to pass NAFTA, should be permitted to in a democracy. You keep bringing up OUR passing of NAFTA -- not me.

"Presumably, that to you would be a dictatorship!"

Bullshit. If the public elected a government full of Bernie Sanders', that would not be a dictatorship at all. You are claiming I said things that I never said. My entire POINT is that every nation should have the right to set their own economic policies, whether the outcome is policies I don't like, or policies that I like.

"Democracy" is not defined as resulting in policies that I like, or you like.

[defendandprotect]

107. What's this, then? If you acknowledge that the public stood against the trade agreements ...

then why would you try to confuse the issue with a hypothetical Q like this?

You're saying that in a hypothetical country, if the public wanted to enact NAFTA, they shouldn't be permitted to, because you don't like it. How is that not the very definition of a dictatorship?

I'd suggest you leave the "hypotheticals" behind and deal with known reality.

And, again, it is the CONGRESS which agrees to trade agreements -- not the public.

Though the democratic supposition is that the Congress votes the "will of the people," we see that

wasn't true in regard to the trade agreements. And, that it also wasn't true in regard to the

Congress acting for the "general welfare" as the trade agreements have "sucked" jobs by the

hundreds of thousands over and again out of America.


Bullshit. If the public elected a government full of Bernie Sanders', that would not be a dictatorship at all. You are claiming I said things that I never said. My entire POINT is that every nation should have the right to set their own economic policies, whether the outcome is policies I don't like, or policies that I like.

"Democracy" is not defined as resulting in policies that I like, or you like.

Either you are totally swayed by Milton Friedman type economic BS, or you're purposefully being

obtuse. Which is it?

Every nation -- and its people -- have the right to set economic policy -- i.e., and to change

its economic policy.

The specific polices also to be decided upon after that -- according to debate and discussion

of the issues -- and dependent upon a well informed public -- i.e., a properly functioning

free press.

We have a number of recent examples which show that the public can easily be misinformed by a

corporate press -- Prop 8 in CA being one of them where there was heavy pressure from "Church"

influences to pollute the vote -- and a lot of wealth used to do so.

The public today obviously understands that we are no longer a practicing democracy trying to

move ahead to a full democracy -- but rather that unregulated capitalism has led us down the

path of corporate/fascism. Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

[BzaDem]

109. So which is it?

Do you agree with

"Every nation -- and its people -- have the right to set economic policy -- i.e., and to change its economic policy."

or

"There is NO democracy without economic democracy -- and suggesting otherwise is simply an effort to try to confuse the public."

It's one or the other -- not both. Either a nation has the right to enact policies you don't like, or they don't. Does "every nation -- and its people -- have the right to set economic policy?" Or do they not have the right to set economic policy when the economic policy they are setting is a policy you don't like?

[defendandprotect]

117. If people want democracy, they don't chose economic systems which are anti-democracy ...

An answer you either want to continue to avoid or "don't get" -- which is it?

Just remove the "or" and here is the answer --


"Every nation -- and its people -- have the right to set economic policy -- i.e., and to change its economic policy."

"There is NO democracy without economic democracy -- and suggesting otherwise is simply an effort to try to confuse the public."

Meanwhile, think you're sufficiently on the record now --

and it's boring --

bye --

[defendandprotect]

95. And just a PS on my reply ... of course this has to do with WISCONSIN ...

and it does because the trade agreements have sucked so many jobs out of America

that it has destablized our states, counties, local governments -- aside from the

outrageous budgetary things that Walker has done given already economically dark

days! Not to mention the impact that these Bush/Obama wars are having on our

Treasury!

[SDuderstadt]

10. Fucking unbelievable...

The OP is clear that the political make-up of the nation is such that you will always be outvoted, yet some here are advocating that we overturn results we don't like.

Isn't that our complaint against the Tea Party? Would we abide THEM doing it?

I am often stunned at the anti-democratic undercurrent here.

[BzaDem]

13. Just to be clear, I agree with you.

Though I am interested in how they can defend their position.

[SDuderstadt]

21. I'm directing my questions to them...

and I also agree "snot's" concerns should be addressed in the system.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snot]

15. My problem with this question is, I totally prefer the democracy, fuck the policy, but

with one exception, and that is that I do think that the fundamental civil rights of minorities must be protected from the majority, and I fear that might not happen if we didn't have a Constitution limiting majority rule.

Also, in addition to truly fair elections, one would need to assure truly independent media, since the vote means nothing if people don't have the info needed to make informed decisions.

[BzaDem]

23. Oh yeah -- there definitely needs to be something like an equal protection clause

to prevent abuse by a majority directed only at a particular minority. Similarly, there need to be strong free-speech protections.

I didn't include those in the OP because I didn't want to overcomplicate this, but I agree with you that there can and should be certain non-ideological constraints on the power of a majority (specifically relating to process, or laws that could not be remedied through the normal political process, like laws targeted against less powerful minorities).

[coti]

20. Only if it was Obama who was making all the decisions. He can do no wrong! nt

[LooseWilly]

22. If I'm enacting policies that will never be popular, why would I want it to be non-violent?

Given the hypothetical fiction of your OP... I wouldn't favor a peaceful transition... I would favor a very violent transition in which all the people that disagree with me are murdered and buried in a mass grave.

Teach those fuckers to always defeat my side on policy issues...

Good Times! :)

(I love polls that're obviously intentionally constructed in order to be used for some sort of back-handed, ham-fisted allegorical purposes.)

[BzaDem]

24. I'm not sure why you think I had some evil purpose in mind when posting this poll.

From what I have seen over the past several months, there is a view among some here that seems to place favored political outcomes over a free democratic process. I am simply interested in their arguments.

[coti]

28. And where's our 70%-supported public option, by the way? DEMOCRACY, DAMMIT!! nt

[BzaDem]

29. Why haven't 70% of the country elected legislators who support such an option?

You actually bring up a key point. I believe many, many people (some superficially, some strongly, and some in between) support liberal policies. But they frequently vote against their own interests. Many of these people who support liberal parties will always elect a Republican each and every time.

Does that mean there is a problem with Democracy? If people choose not to research and avail themselves of information (or avail themselves of information but vote against their own interests anyway), how is that a problem with Democracy? It is certainly a problem, but I don't think it is a problem that signals an undemocratic country.

[coti]

30. Prima facie, there's SOME kind of problem when such a large portion of our sensible, well-informed

citizenry in this here democracy supports such a sensible program, yet it never happens.

What do you think it is?

[BzaDem]

31. It is that a decisive subset of the country simply doesn't care enough to do 30 min of research

before voting.

They care about politics as much as they care about taxes. They'll vote, just like they'll do the minimum possible to pay their taxes, but they don't really care that much one way or the other about politics. They have much more important things in their lives (to them).

But I would say that this is a problem with their attitude, rather than a problem with democracy. No system can force people to care. They have the right not to care, but that also means they will see the results of their not caring. If those results are sufficient to get them to care, they will start to care. That's how democracy works.

[LooseWilly]

34. Or we can just kill those who don't do their research...

or provide quotes to back up their arguments because they're just offering spin.

Kill 'em all! It'll solve the over-population problem, and cause rents to drop because landlords will have an over-abundance of housing units— it's win-win.

Now that's some public policy that could win an election... ;)

[coti]

40. Agreed. I'm extremely disappointed in our DUers that only 50% support an "extra-constitutional,

non-elected transition."

Tsk, tsk.

[leftstreet]

43. It's because the option was "non-violent"

I would Pinochet the asses of ALL my opponents

:rofl:

[coti]

44. See, I KNEW this poll was rigged somehow. nt

[coti]

36. A citizenry problem, not a democracy problem? Aren't all citizenry problems

democracy problems?

[BzaDem]

46. I always thought whether a country is a democracy is based on the rights of the people --

not to what degree they choose to avail themselves of them.

A non-caring attitude is an opinion just as democratically valid as my opinion or your opinion. Everyone has the right not to care, and live through the consequences of that decision, no?

[coti]

51. It all depends on if you value "democracy" or *functioning* democracies.

Sure, in theory you could have a democracy based on chimps pulling levers, if you wanted, or even flipping coins.

But what's the value in just that? Doesn't there need to be a meaningful result coming out the other end?

[BzaDem]

52. But what do you mean by "functioning" or "meaningful?"

My guess is that you mean that the policies that get enacted are policies you like.

But I think such a definition of democracy is dangerous. However one defines democracy, it should not depend on whether one's favored OUTPUTs get enacted.

Obviously, a non-educated or non-caring population is not a good thing. But what is your alternative? A "benevolent" leader who ignores the will of the non-educated/non-caring population? As they say, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.

[coti]

58. No. "Functioning" meaning the opposite of what you already described-

your "democracy" where people don't care and may as well flip a coin before entering the voting booth. A *functioning* democracy doesn't work like that. Your democracy is a DINO- "democracy in name only."

And, "meaningful" as opposed to "arbitrary" or "random."

Functioning democracies are those in which votes are based on carefully considered, valuable facts and concepts and are not unduly persuaded by misinformation or manipulation by appeals to base emotions such as fear and envy, thus resulting in meaningful elections and referenda.

[BzaDem]

60. Oh, I would love a "functioning democracy" under that definition.

But you can't force people to care. You can encourage it, but you can't force it.

Given that no matter how much encouragement there is, there will still be a segment of the population that feels it is rational not to care, what is the alternative to taking their opinion (no matter how shallow) at face value in a voting booth?

[coti]

68. I dunno. Did you take your poll? nt

[leftstreet]

42. If candidates really CARED about us, they'd campaign on Medicare For All

If they really CARED and COULD BE BOTHERED they could do 30 MINUTES WORTH OF RESEARCH and find out that Americans want Single Payer Healthcare, Higher Wages, Affordable Housing, etc.

But apparently their ATTITUDE is that they just don't CARE

:cry:

[BzaDem]

47. Some honestly think that all of your proposed policies would somehow hurt the country.

The purpose of a democracy is to give a majority the power to throw them out.

[defendandprotect]

106. Only based on right wing propaganda -- however, reality shows us that universal health care thrives

in ALL other nations -- and that the US falls -- we're 37th in health care

in the world -- that's below Cuba!!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

96. hmmm....

Who would think anything like that -- :rofl:

[leftstreet]

25. For the Win!

Best response ever

:-)

[LooseWilly]

26. Cheers!!

:toast:

[coti]

27. Hey, you're not allowed an opinion. This is a democracy, dammit! nt

[hfojvt]

32. let's pretend even more - pretend that water isn't wet

Seems to me that once you have made some unrealistic assumptions that the question becomes moot.

You could also imagine a couple of other scenarios.
1. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
2. Two kids and an adult voting on what to have for dinner.

Meaning that what is popular with a majority is not necessarily a) justice or b) beneficial

[BzaDem]

33. I don't think my assumptions are that unrealistic (except for the public financing assumption).

If the people wanted to fundamentally transform our economy to become more fair -- if they really cared about it and were utterly determined -- they could pull the lever in the voting booth for a candidate that supports such a premise. This is true even without public financing. The fact that many people do not care (and make the conscious decision to choose to allow money to sway their votes, rather than 30 min of independent research) seems to be a problem with how much they care about politics, rather than a signal that we don't live in a democracy.

[AlabamaLibrul]

37. I think, actually, it is a signal that democracy as the country knows it does not work n/t

[BzaDem]

48. How does it "not work?"

Does it "not work" because it doesn't produce your favored policy outcomes? Or for some other reason?

[Bonobo]

53. It is much more likely that, rather than the hypothetical "one person"

that is on the losing end of the straw-covered stick you are hypothesizing, there would be a group. A voting group.

Said hypothetical voting group, unable to find any representative voice in the "functioning Democracy" would be disenfranchized.

If the group were large enough, they would be a large disenfranchized group, unrepresented.

This would be an example of how your hypothetical and highly leading country's democracy would be "not working".

[BzaDem]

55. When you say "unrepresented," do you mean they don't get your hypothetical group's policies enacted?

Or do you just mean they don't have any legislators at all representing them?

After all, in a majority democracy, a minority is always going to lose -- even if it is large.

The distribution of the loss might vary -- a minority might get 40% of the vote in every legislator election (resulting in 0 seats), or 100% of the vote in 40% of the seats, or somewhere in between, but regardless, they don't have the power to enact their will over the majority.

How is that necessarily a problem with democracy?

[Bonobo]

61. Let me ask you this:

When the Founding Fathers talked about "taxation without representation", do you think they mean that they didn't have legislators representing them?

What do you think they meant by that?

[BzaDem]

63. The founding fathers didn't have the ABILITY to elect legislators to represent them.

They couldn't vote in British parliamentary elections, for one thing.

[Bonobo]

66. And yet the powers that be felt that they were represented.

They had the concept of "virtual representation".

The idea being that the people that were doing the governing had the best interests of the people in charge. That was a well-accepted idea up to the point of the Revolution.

Here is another question:

How come the number of seats in Congress has not kept pace with the tremendous increase in population? Does this affect the degree to which each individual can be said to be represented?

[BzaDem]

69. But they objectively weren't.

Even if the people doing the governing DID have the best interests of the people in charge (which they didn't), that doesn't mean the people they are governing had any say as to who the governors/legislators were. That is a completely different question than who had who's interests in mind.

"How come the number of seats in Congress has not kept pace with the tremendous increase in population?"

That is an interesting question. There are arguments to both sides.

One argument is the argument you bring up -- that it is better to have smaller districts, so Congressmen will have to wage real campaigns and better align their interests with that of the voters (rather than running a media campaign).

On the other hand, in my view, a huge amount of voting is done solely by party. Even independents often pick the party and then vote accordingly. In such a party-dominated system, having many more seats dilutes the influence of the party. For example, if a party had a big piece of controversial legislation it was trying to pass, having 800 or 1000 seats would greatly limit the ability to pass it, since the legislature would be a free-for-all and hundreds of party member could optimize their re-election changes by opposing it.

While there are downsides to a strong party system, I don't think there is any real way of ever enacting real change without a strong party system. Furthermore, because of our party system, I don't really think even the benefits of smaller districts would have the affect desired (better aligning the interests of the voters with the Congressperson).

I definitely would say that the Senate is completely undemocratic, since it weights voters in some states tens of times higher than voters in others. Even if it made sense initially (given that small states didn't want to give up power to govern themselves by joining the union), it certainly does not make sense today. I think ultimately, the difference between the House and the Senate is that a determined majority can generally elect a House to their liking, whereas that is often not true for the Senate (even without a filibuster).

[Bonobo]

71. It sounds as if there is room for you to at least explore the notion

that the American people are, as compared with the days when there were more congressional representatives per capita, under-represented.

Am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

[BzaDem]

74. That is either self-evidently true or not true depending on what you mean by under-represented.

If you simply mean there are fewer representatives per capita, that is self evidently true.

If you mean that a determined majority couldn't get its way due to the lower number of representatives, then I don't think it is true. Plenty of democracies around the world don't even allocate many seats by land at all. You vote for a party, and the percentage of votes the party gets correspond to the number of seats in parliament. So you don't even have "your own" representative. Yet people don't generally call those systems undemocratic. In fact, I think one could make an argument that those systems better reflect the majority, since you know exactly what policies you are voting for and a party wont' get screwed by faux-members that oppose most of its agenda.

In general, my test is whether a determined majority can get its way (subject to Constitutional protections, etc). A historically small-per-capita House doesn't fail that test, though the Senate most certainly does.

[Bonobo]

79. Well we agree that a parliamentary system is, in many ways, more "democratic"

We have a 'winners take all system" in the USA basically.

I think that it is possible to have a (very) large minority group that remains essentially unrepresented in the US.

This is due to the 'winners take all" approach as well as the fact that corporations can spend so much money on politics (buying lobbyists, etc.)

Ultimately, what I am suggesting is that there are sufficient obstacles to pure democracy that it is possible that a point can be reached (as you admit we have seen in the Senate) when a large number of citizens are essentially unrepresented (in the spirit of the term).

So I found your poll to be too simplistic and, as a result, reeked a bit of a "push poll".

[hfojvt]

64. not really.

Look at an actual example.

Should tax policies benefit the top 1% or should they benefit the bottom 75%?

Does it not seem logical that in a REAL democracy that tax policies would benefit the bottom 75%, especially over the top 1%?

I mean, that is a huge, huge majority. 75% vs 1%. That should be no contest.

Then how is it in the actual US economy that the share going to the bottom 75% has fallen from 41% down to 31.8% while the share going to the top 1% has grown from 11.3% to 22.1%? And that in just twenty years. http://www.koch2congress.com/5.html

How could that possibly happen in a functioning democracy?

Yet it happens in our dysfunctional one because the top 1% has enough money to bamboozle a majority of voters, and to buy both political parties to a large degree.

[BzaDem]

67. "How could that possibly happen in a functioning democracy?"

There are many reasons.

Some will always vote Republican because that is how they were brought up, and that is how their parents raised them.

Some will always vote Republican for other, non-tax-related reasons (such as social issues).

Some think (often irrationally) that they will be in the top 1% one day, and they want to have something to strive for.

Some believe in voodoo trickle-down economics (i.e. that even a 5% increase on the rich will somehow hurt everyone's standard of living).

While none of these are good, none of them signal to me that our country isn't a democracy.

[hfojvt]

76. What does Republican have to do with anything?

In a functioning democracy, Republicans would have to represent the bottom 75% as well. Choosing the top 1% over the masses should lead to electoral death in a real democracy.

Yet in the real world, last December, neither party represented the bottom 75%. Only Senator Bernie Sanders fought for us, and that was only symbolic. He also gave up after about one day. Heck, Bunning held unemployment up longer than Sanders delayed the tax cut for the rich.

[BzaDem]

82. "Yet in the real world, last December, neither party represented the bottom 75%."

If you asked a family at the poverty line whether they would give up thousands of dollars of tax credits just so that the rich could be taxed slightly more, the vast majority would have told you to take a hike. Because that was the choice last December. Nothing more, and nothing less. The "keep the tax credits but tax the rich as well" will not be an option until at least after the next election.

"Choosing the top 1% over the masses should lead to electoral death in a real democracy."

Again, it all comes down to what you mean by "real," and it seems to me that by "real" you mean "agreeing with you." As I pointed out, there are a variety of reasons why people will irrationally vote against their own interests. Irrationality on behalf of the voters does not mean the system is undemocratic.

[hfojvt]

88. those were not the only choices

and you are supplying more misinformation, for some reason.

What happened in December is that Senate Republicans voted against a tax cut for the bottom 95%. Then they voted against a tax cut for the bottom 99%. House Republicans also voted against a tax cut for the bottom 95%.

They fought for the top 1%. In a real democracy, the bottom 75% would not have stood for that.

It is not really about "agreeing with me". There is not that much controversy. It is very simple. If a Congressperson walks up to a voter, reaches into their pocket and grabs the wallet and helps themselves to a couple hundred dollars, then 90% of the people whose pockets are picked would "agree with me". Agree that they do not want their pocket picked.

Yet a smooth criminal can slide right up and pick a pocket without the victim even being aware of it. Sure they will find out later, but they will not know who picked their pocket. They could find out, in an ideal world, if the media was there to report it.

But here in the real world, both Republicans and Democrats can get away with picking the pockets of the working class and handing that money over to wealthier people, because the victims are not aware that they are being robbed. When the criminals can kick up enough dust to obscure their crimes, then that is what makes our current system unreal. Not because I want my way, but because I want the truth to be told and the truth to be heard.

[BzaDem]

99. Yes, those were the only choices.

And your cited votes by the Republicans against tax cuts for the bottom 95%/bottom 99% prove it.

We might have different choices if Republicans are ejected from office in 2012, but right now those were the only choices.

[coti]

77. Very well-argued. You basically argued by definition, which should lead to a deductive

or nearso conclusion.

[BzaDem]

83. It is well argued under the assumption that voter irrationality (as you define it) is inconsistent

with democracy.

But since I think that assumption is bogus, I obviously do not agree with your assessment. It really all comes down to what one thinks of that assumption.

[coti]

84. The level of irrationality the above poster demonstrated, and you're admitting to, is inconsistent

with a functioning democracy as we defined it in post #60. Millions of our citizens' votes are being unduly influenced by misinformation or manipulation.

We also noted that it is functioning democracies that have value.

Here's a question: what is the value of a "democracy" that is so cemented in irrationality and propaganda that it protects and strengthens the interests of 1% of the people to the detriment of the interests of 75%?

Might not even flipping coins lead us to better results than that? Possibly, and, if so, this democracy is worse than arbitrary.

On edit: Keeping in mind that we are still limiting this discussion to economic policy.

[BzaDem]

85. The measurement of value only makes sense when you compare it to the value of other systems.

At a bare minimum, one component of the value of democracy is the ability of the voters to punish bad outcomes. Bush failed miserably, and the voters ejected his party from office. And it wasn't for the lack of trying of the top 1%.

This is little comfort for people who think Obama is either indistinguishable from Bush, or for those that think the distinctions that exist aren't very significant. But for the vast majority of the US in both parties who see a huge difference, the people succeeded in replacing their government.

Regardless of whether one feels that this is sufficient, they should compare this value to the value of some other proposed system. Not just talk about "low value" in a vacuum.

[coti]

86. In a vacuum? Re-read hjo's post. He showed it to you with numbers. 75% vs. 1%.

You admitted to the irrationality.

We also made the distinction between democracy and functioning democracies, and discussed why one has value and the other doesn't.

We've already defined all of our terms. Nothing in your above post seemed relevant in arguing them.

The conclusion is thusly drawn- with regard to economic policy- and there's nothing more to say.

[BzaDem]

101. I agree that a mythical "functioning democracy" has more value

I just don't see how you can enforce the "functioning" part. You can encourage it, but not force it.

[LooseWilly]

38. If no candidate can make it to the booth truly supporting change, how can the lever be pulled?

If a candidate is laughed out of the studio where the debates are taking place and the news media editors won't devote resources to covering them... does he/she make a sound when defeated?

"... they could pull the lever in the voting booth for a candidate that supports such a premise. This is true even without public financing." I would be interested to hear you elaborate upon, and provide three examples of, this theory's validity. From what I've seen... it's untrue—with only a few anecdotal exceptions... which I instinctively doubt add up to three.

[BzaDem]

49. Kucinich was in many debates, before they were limited to those who got non-negligable support.

I mean, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley Braun, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich all ran in 2004. I watched them all debate at least once (probably more times, hard to remember). Kucinich re-ran in 2008, and I specifically remember him in many debates. For that matter, Jesse Jackson ran in 1988, Ted Kennedy ran in 1980, Mondale ran in 1984, and McGovern ran in 1972.

They were all on the ballot (at least unless they voluntarily asked for their name to be removed). Anyone could have spent 30 minutes to look at their positions online or offline, distinguish them from that of Obama/Kerry/others, and vote for them. Yet they didn't.

[LooseWilly]

75. Yes Kucinich was included in a debate or two, until he wasn't...

I remember Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Dean, Jackson, and even a few others whose names weren't considered derideable enough to be remembered unto today...

I also remember Kucinich being increasingly frozen out of the process the last time around.

Dennis Kucinich is again forced to work harder and smarter than the others in the Democratic lineup in order to get his word out. ABC has chosen to snub Rep. Kucinich and leave him out of the Saturday debate. Friday evening, Kucinich made an end run around this stiff arm by appearing in a 15 minute interview on PBS's Bill Moyers' Journal.

Moyers focused many of his questions on the issue of the media's lack of attention to the Kucinich campaign. Kucinich met the challenge by highlighting his contrasts to the positions of many of the other Democratic candidates on the war in Iraq, NAFTA, relations with China and other areas. He went as far as to say that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are basically the same on all major issues; that the only differences were stylistic.

...

The campaign has filed an emergency complaint with the FCC to be included in the Saturday debate. As noted on his website, Kucinich "is the only Democratic presidential candidate who has qualified for Federal matching funds who is being excluded by ABC."

This is not the first debate that the candidate has had to miss. The Des Moines Register sponsored a debate to which Kucinich was not invited, as well. This contributed to his strategy to pass by the Iowa caucuses and focus more heavily on the upcoming New Hampshire primary. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/521003/dennis_kucinich_end_runs_abc_snub_at.html)

It took me all of 10 seconds with a google search to dig up this spot of evidence. I'm guessing that if I substitute any of the above mentioned names I'm liable to come up with similar articles.

And yet the system not only remains as it is, but actually becomes worse each cycle, with Obama having raised record donations from small and huge corporate donors alike.

If "Democracy" were the point... things would change.

If things continue to not change, then obviously, "Democracy" really isn't the point in our government. A fasçade of democracy to alienate the majority of possible voters (by putting up usually indistinguishable Coke v. Pepsi choices—which are the only ones who can raise the Coke or Pepsi money for commercials & "branding") so that only those who are part of the establishment will feel an interest in participating (with an unavoidable margin of over-active assholes like me who participate despite not being part of the "respectable" establishment... a margin which Acorn threatened—so it had to be eliminated... calculated into the math). The point is to protect the interest of the "haves". If nothing else has shown this point, Obama's rescue of bankers while homeowners sink in red ink and underwater mortgages, as the robo-signings continue unabated... does. This is the main point of the government today.

"Democracy" is a label left over after WWII. It's "branding". And the continuing and exponentially growing requirement of fund raising as a foundation for any political career will ensure that "Democracy" is never more than a label ever again in this country.

But we can pretend that the underlying system is healthy and "democratic" if it makes you feel better. I'm sure it makes many people feel better...

[BzaDem]

81. " It took me all of 10 seconds with a google search to dig up this spot of evidence."

First of all, that is a perfect example of evidence supporting my point. Anyone could take 10 seconds (or 30 minutes) to see this, look online, research candidates, and make a decision. Nothing stopped you.

Second of all, I have no problem with the latter debates of a primary season (there were something like 22 after all) only including candidates that get some non-negligible amount of support. Kucinich was in the initial debates, and anyone could have looked up his positions online and saw how they differed from Obama's or Clinton's. The fact that he did not get non-negligable support at any point is not a problem with democracy. Debates become meaningless if in the 20th debate the two candidates that are getting 99% of the support in primaries and caucuses and polls only get 10% of the time to debate.

"by putting up usually indistinguishable Coke v. Pepsi choices"

The people of a party nominate candidates. In fact, the caucus system skews the nomination process significantly towards the base. If you can't convince the rest of your party to support someone that you agree with, how could that be a problem with democracy?

[LooseWilly]

87. You're overlooking the fact that Kucinich had qualified for matching federal funds...

As noted on his website, Kucinich "is the only Democratic presidential candidate who has qualified for Federal matching funds who is being excluded by ABC."

Qualifying for Federal matching funds is no mean feat... the fact that it was decided that it wasn't sufficient to qualify him for participation in the debate is not as inconsequential, systemically speaking, as you are implying with your breezy dismissal "that he did not get non-negligable support at any point".

I also dispute your assertion that "The people of a party nominate candidates." The people of a party vote on the people who decide to run... as I understand it. I've never been consulted about any voting to actually "nominate" a candidate... I vote to "approve" a candidate from amongst the field that have chosen to run, and who have raised enough money to keep their name out there and hopefully gather votes.

Numbers of candidates drop out of primary campaigns before they have the chance to lose, simply because they are having no success raising money.

For example— Gavin Newsom in the 2010 governor race in CA: "San Francisco MayorGavin Newsom (D) ended his campaign for governor today amid faltering fundraising and an inability to make up ground on frontrunning state Attorney General Jerry Brown." (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/governors/ca-gov-newsom-is-out.html)

The fundraising is cited even before the poll numbers in that article lede.

If the fundraising is at least as important to the process as the votes... then it's not a "democracy"... it's a hybrid "democratic-oligarchy"...where the representative who has sufficient backing of the monied "oligarchic"/"plutocratic" Powers-That-Be/Establishment... and who can win a PR campaign amongst the voters that are willing to take the time to pick-an-oligarch from the pile presented to them by the monied PTB (Kucinich obviously failed that test... hence the cutting out of the debates, despite the popular support required to qualify for Federal matching funds)— bammo, that person is "democratically" elected to office.

I don't think that system matches, even loosely, the definition of democracy I could look up via google if it seemed worth the bother of the handful of seconds of waiting on my ISP connection.

[BzaDem]

102. "The people of a party vote on the people who decide to run"

Exactly. How is this a problem? If none of the candidates on the ballot satisfy you, then you can decide to run, or try to recruit someone else. Isn't that the point of democracy?

The need for fundraising is only there because a subset of the electorate (often a large subset) allows their votes to be swayed by money, rather than a minimal amount of independent research. While I wish for policies that reduce the need for fundraising (campaign finance reform), I do not see how a refusal of people to do their own research (and instead allow their votes to be swayed by money) somehow indicates we don't live in a democracy. I always thought how democratic a nation is depended on what rights people had -- not how many of them availed themselves of these rights to some minimum degree.

[hfojvt]

56. and if they prayed hard enough then they could make water run uphill

If people were utterly determined.

You really think that 30 minutes of independent research can wash away 30 years of propaganda?

They certainly do not make a conscious decision to let money sway their votes.

[BzaDem]

59. "They certainly do not make a conscious decision to let money sway their votes."

I guess what I mean is that they make a decision not to let easily accessible objective information sway their votes.

"You really think that 30 minutes of independent research can wash away 30 years of propaganda?"

But isn't that just begging the question? Assuming one has access to information from a variety of viewpoints (as most do, if they choose to), isn't it one's choice to let them become propagandized? If people vote for Republicans (for example), why is the REASON they vote for Republicans relevant at all to whether we live in a democracy (provided that they could go to a library or a website to access information if they choose)?

What would your solution be? Take those who you consider to be propagandized, and weight their votes less? Or weight their votes to 0, and just elect a "benevolent" leader that can't be propagandized? No one's saying democracy is perfect. But is there really an alternative that you feel is any better?

[hfojvt]

72. except they do not have access from a variety of viewpoints

During 13 years of school people hear information only from a few textbooks and a few teachers and a few administrators.

There is also not an even market in the marketplace of ideas. There is a widely disseminated voice from the M$M and then there are some alternative voices. The lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

My solution, like the one suggested for 100 years or more by the left, would be better education and more reporting of facts. The media could print the truth, instead of propaganda. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/100
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/81 http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/77

My middle post again provides an example. The lie printed by the Wall Street Journal was read by millions. Millions who were reading the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to stay informed. My fisking of the article was read by about twenty people, and twenty people who probably already agreed with my view.

[BzaDem]

78. I would obviously agree that we need much better education.

As for the media though, as much as I hate the WSJ's propaganda (or for that matter, Fox), something doesn't sit well with the idea that the government can ban me or you from reading what the WSJ wants to write (or watching what Fox wants to speak) if we really want to do so.

In other words, I guess I am saying that if people want to watch propaganda, the government can't ban them from doing so. Allowing the government to discriminate based on content creates the possibility of tremendous abuse by those in power. I don't think you would like the results either.

When I say access, I mean that people can change the channel, or turn off the TV and go to the library, and most can go online. Many choose not to do this, but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability to.

If the government banned certain viewpoints (such as MSNBC), that would absolutely be undemocratic and anti-free speech (to say the least). But I don't think merely allowing certain viewpoints (no matter how much propaganda Fox or the WSJ spews) makes the nation not a democracy, and I don't think any government should have the right to ban viewpoints.

[Oak2004]

93. By and large no, they can't

Because candidates today are picked by parties, and those the party doesn't want are sabotaged and driven away. Then money determines which of the two remaining "viable" candidates has the best shot (noting of course that by this time people who represent the poor, working, and middle class have been filtered out). Then finally, should anyone representative of the people get elected anyway, they are bullied by the party should they deviate from a pro-corporate line, threatened with loss of committee assignments, etc. While of course those who deviate by being even more pro-corporate are allowed to slide.

This isn't a democracy. And just in case you haven't been out there talking to your defective public, by and large they know it isn't a democracy. too.

[defendandprotect]

97. Public Financing is your only "realistic" assumption - get corporate money out the Dem Party -- !!

[Bonobo]

41. If that were the case, I would leave the hypothetical nation. This was not one of your choices. nt

[demmiblue]

50. I think these people are coming from a different website. n/t

[fishwax]

54. I guess it would depend on the specific policy issues

[joshcryer]

57. The policy issues are what you think is best. Basically this poll is "would you be a dictator?"

Half of the respondents either overlooked what the poll was asking or admit to wanting to be a dictator.

[fishwax]

62. no, not really

The poll doesn't say anything about personal power, just that the policies that one prefers would be enacted, despite the fact that the majority wouldn't support those in free and fair elections. Voting yes certainly doesn't mean that one wants to be a dictator.

And the specific policy issues matter. Is it worth thwarting the will of these free and fair elections to garner a 70 mph speed limit in rural areas? Probably not. But the question can be quite different depending on the policy issue: is it worth thwarting the will of these free and fair elections to overturn the system of chattel slavery (for example) that has been imposed in this theoretical democracy?

[BzaDem]

65. I didn't want to overcomplicate the question

but my intent was to assume some sort of Constitutional limitations on the majority, particularly the inputs to the political process. (Can't suspend elections, can't violate free speech, etc). Additionally, there would be some limited limitations on the outputs (particularly against laws that only affect a minority, where there is no political fix).

My main intended point was about economic policy. I probably could have made it clearer.

[fishwax]

70. I think it's an inherently complicated question

It's not necessarily that I thought your original intent was not clear, and you did specifically mention--though not limit it to--economic issues--rather, I feel that it's already a complicated question, because of the possibility of vary different policy issues (even restricted to economic issues run the gamut from technicalities to questions of human rights) and because of the variety of ways that democracy may already be limited by constitutional measures.

Then, too, we could get into a huge range of what the "extra-constitutional transition of power" would entail--this could imply the system being replaced by an authoritarian regime, for example, but the new system could also be a democracy with free and fair elections but with different constitutional protections, safeguards, limitations, etc.

Sorry, I just don't see a simple way to answer yes or no.

[tekisui]

115. Well, only 8 choose the option you label as such. Not a lot to care about.

[Imagevision]

73. R U kidding?! - define Democracy these days...

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

90. Show me such a hypothetical nation and then I can answer.

None such exists, so the question is moot.

[BzaDem]

103. Since when is a hypothetical question moot because it is hypothetical? n/t

[defendandprotect]

108. When it's used to try to confuse the listener -- see "newspeak" --

[BzaDem]

110. If you are confused, that is your problem -- not a problem with the question. n/t

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

112. Maybe irrelevant is a more appropriate description.

[walldude]

118. It does have a certain relevance...

to someone.... fishing for something. What it is I'm not sure.

[RegieRocker]

113. Neither. Education is number one then democracy.

[white_wolf]

114. To be completley honest with you all.

I don't think this question is likely to come up on the Left because assuming we had no corporate influence in the government and media that was fair and did its job and informed the people, I really think our ideas would win out in the "free marketplace of ideas."

[treestar]

116. No, and it would not work anyway

At least, not over the long, long term. Authoritarian governments topple eventually.