Is true democracy in the US is dead?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

The people as a whole still have freedom and the right to exercise their will but a true democracy can not be had without the absence of money bearing external forces, presence of a leveled playing field and low barrier to entry for candidate and informed citizenry.

This country and its people lack sufficient altruism required for a true democracy.

True democracy is just as dangerous, and stupid of a style of govt as any other out there. Because 50.1% of a given population support an idea, doesn't mean that idea is a good one, only that 50.1% of the population agree to do something.

The US's strength, for whatever it's worth, wasn't ever in the democratic aspect, but in the multilayered check's and balances that were put in place to prevent harm and provide a government that was: stable enough to withstand foreign influences on domestic affairs, limited in scope and power enough to allow individual freedoms, secure enough to take on debt and repay debt to enable foreign trade. As the US marches toward truer and truer democracy (defined as one person one vote on every issue) we lose many of the less obvious checks and balances the founders put there.

My personal belief is that the moving of Senate seats from state decision to democratic forces is one of the most undermining of all the constitutional amendments. I actually understand at the time it was necessary but it seems like States need to reclaim that privilege and bring back a form of State assignment of Senate seats. My rationale in a simplistic statement is this: the big money contributors that currently fund national campaigns would be forced to bring campaigns back to individual state situations. It really would be best if there could be a 2 step process of State appointment followed by voter approval, that would work to reduce backroom politics and encourage Senators who are working for their State and not for the vested national lobbiests.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Forefathers rolling in their graves....way too much special interest and corporate money in politics....our political system is a damn embarrassment imo...

To whom is our political system an embarrassment?

We have a stable government that has seen power taken from the richest and over the course of 200+ years incorporated more and more people into the system. At the same time the system has allowed for an economy that thru ups and downs does not bring great instability into the political system, i.e. governments are overthrown or recalled every time the economy tanks, and no single ruler is given vast over-reaching authority when the economy booms.

Again, no government or political system is going to be ideal, and all are run by people which brings fluctuations and abuse, BUT, it is neglectful in my opinion, to be embarrassed by a system that has produced a stability of life while not creating a chaotic or dictatorial regime for 222 years.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

True democracy is just as dangerous, and stupid of a style of govt as any other out there. Because 50.1% of a given population support an idea, doesn't mean that idea is a good one, only that 50.1% of the population agree to do something.

The US's strength, for whatever it's worth, wasn't ever in the democratic aspect, but in the multilayered check's and balances that were put in place to prevent harm and provide a government that was: stable enough to withstand foreign influences on domestic affairs, limited in scope and power enough to allow individual freedoms, secure enough to take on debt and repay debt to enable foreign trade. As the US marches toward truer and truer democracy (defined as one person one vote on every issue) we lose many of the less obvious checks and balances the founders put there.

My personal belief is that the moving of Senate seats from state decision to democratic forces is one of the most undermining of all the constitutional amendments. I actually understand at the time it was necessary but it seems like States need to reclaim that privilege and bring back a form of State assignment of Senate seats. My rationale in a simplistic statement is this: the big money contributors that currently fund national campaigns would be forced to bring campaigns back to individual state situations. It really would be best if there could be a 2 step process of State appointment followed by voter approval, that would work to reduce backroom politics and encourage Senators who are working for their State and not for the vested national lobbiests.

50% + 1 is not a true democracy, it is tyranny of the majority the founders wished to avoid. A true democracy IMO is a deliberative democracy in which given multiple options the people will always choose the best option because it is the most logical and natural option. Obviously for this to work a lot of responsibility falls on the citizenry.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hooskins

You sure Obama didn't just make a mistake? Also, you really think Bush is intellectually superior vs. Obama, haha?

Bush had his strengths, but intelligence wasn't one of them. That's why there are tons of websites, posters, etc. that have "Bush-isms". This is actually one of the few klutzy mistakes Obama has made, in terms of speeches.

If you want to criticize Obama, focus on your issues with his policies.

I have.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

50% + 1 is not a true democracy, it is tyranny of the majority the founders wished to avoid. A true democracy IMO is a deliberative democracy in which given multiple options the people will always choose the best option because it is the most logical and natural option. Obviously for this to work a lot of responsibility falls on the citizenry.

So in your situation where a population deliberates the multiple options and come to the point of choosing an option, how would the vote be conducted and what would be the requirement an option being selected?

[firstdown]

It makes sense. Remember when Obama posted on that tracking site the jobs he created in districts that don't exist. I'm guessing they probably are located in those other states. Its probably populated with all the dead people that voted for him. Its his fairy land run by Barney Frank.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So in your situation where a population deliberates the multiple options and come to the point of choosing an option, how would the vote be conducted and what would be the requirement an option being selected?

You don't need to necessarily vote. The process is similar to a group meeting at work where you're making a decision by consensus.

Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its his fairy land run by Barney Frank.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You don't need to necessarily vote. The process is similar to a group meeting at work where you're making a decision by consensus.



Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, let me just add a note from your quote in the link:

Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

So, when rational people debate, and cannot achieve a consensus or "something near enough" (i like that term) then it reverts to 50%+1. Since many important topics are likely not resolvable even between rationally motivated entities, your deliberative democracy falls back to 50%+1.

But beyond that, I believe we were discussing practical definitions of democracy, not a theoretical - and imo unattainable - democracy. Unlike your local vulcan council, humans have frailties, foibles, and emotional irrationalities that can bring down the best deliberative body, regardless of what country it is located in.

It would however be interesting to see how often 300million people could come to a consensus, or something "near enough".

[hooskins]

That sounds similar to the theories of one my favorite political theorists. Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well, let me just add a note from your quote in the link:


So, when rational people debate, and cannot achieve a consensus or "something near enough" (i like that term) then it reverts to 50%+1. Since many important topics are likely not resolvable even between rationally motivated entities, your deliberative democracy falls back to 50%+1.

But beyond that, I believe we were discussing practical definitions of democracy, not a theoretical - and imo unattainable - democracy. Unlike your local vulcan council, humans have frailties, foibles, and emotional irrationalities that can bring down the best deliberative body, regardless of what country it is located in.

It would however be interesting to see how often 300million people could come to a consensus, or something "near enough".

When I was president of a local Jaycees club my board was 100% women. They could not agree on anything. Hell they would debate for an hour on what color cups to use for beer at our annual oyster roast. I'd just crack open a beer and watch them go at it for a sometime then call for a vote. Then start with a new topic and open another beer. I decide just to use that 50% +1 rule or we would have never agreed on anything.

The club I'm in now we loose interest after 10min so we can agree on stuff pretty quick.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

When I was president of a local Jaycees club my board was 100% women. They could not agree on anything. Hell they would debate for an hour on what color cups to use for beer at our annual oyster roast. I'd just crack open a beer and watch them go at it for a sometime then call for a vote. Then start with a new topic and open another beer. I decide just to use that 50% +1 rule or we would have never agreed on anything.

The club I'm in now we loose interest after 10min so we can agree on stuff pretty quick.

Well to be fair, Saden's deliberative democracy does need rational actors. LOL

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well, let me just add a note from your quote in the link:


So, when rational people debate, and cannot achieve a consensus or "something near enough" (i like that term) then it reverts to 50%+1. Since many important topics are likely not resolvable even between rationally motivated entities, your deliberative democracy falls back to 50%+1.

But beyond that, I believe we were discussing practical definitions of democracy, not a theoretical - and imo unattainable - democracy. Unlike your local vulcan council, humans have frailties, foibles, and emotional irrationalities that can bring down the best deliberative body, regardless of what country it is located in.

It would however be interesting to see how often 300million people could come to a consensus, or something "near enough".

This country and its people lack sufficient altruism required for a true democracy

Majority rule is a last resort fail-safe. I don't believe deliberative democracy is unattainable, it simply requires the willingness of individuals to give in order to get. If the U.S. representative democracy is possible anything is possible as long as there are willing individuals.

In my office we use

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

In my office we use

Sadly it appears from the sudden end to that post that Saden has fallen victim to the Roman political model.

Et Tu Brutus.......

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Sadly it appears from the sudden end to that post that Saden has fallen victim to the Roman political model.

Et Tu Brutus.......

I got distracted...so many battle fronts going on at the same time.

In my office we use it and even though we have diverse opinions we are unified in our objective...find the best solution that's satisfactory to a problem.


Side note...it just so happens we currently have two bugs opened by two different clients...the solution to one bug introduces the other bug and vise versa. The question is how do you address both bugs and still satisfy all clients?