Talk:WG/Strategies/SOP/1
is representative democracy dead?
- user:mcktimo Oct 15, 2011 10:17 am
Interesting idea. Now that representative democracy is bought and paid for maybe its no longer relavent. Government by referendum hey! I'll have to think about that
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:yanikn Oct 15, 2011 10:27 am
Representative democracy is a system. It is only "dead" if the majority of citizens don't fight to ensure that it represents their interests.
Is it possible that this system inherently grants a slight advantage to monied interests? Yes. However, so do many other political systems. This inherent bias may be a worthwhile sacrifice considering the time-saving benefits it confers upon the average citizenry. Does it mean the average citizen shouldn't participate at all? No.
But it does allow people to live their lives. Imagine a 300 million person GA on some of the issues that the US has had to deal with in the past decade. We would still be on points of information.
I think a major reason the system is distorted is because average people haven't been participating as much as they need to in order to ensure a healthy democracy.
Money helps politicians in an election, but in the end it all comes down to the votes. It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at the election if you have an informed and participating electorate.
Money gives you a concrete advantage only when you have minimal interest and people who aren't critically thinking about the issues and candidates.
As for gov't by referendum: have you seen the results of that in California? Direct democracy is empowering, but it is more susceptible to making bad policy.
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:pcovery Oct 16, 2011 5:17 am
Thank you, yanikn. History teaches caution when tampering with large institutions. Tyrants are like opportunistic weeds when the substrate is disturbed carelessly.
I say we should keep the large visions in the philosophical discussion room until they've been hashed through a LONG time. As Mao (I think) said about the results of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell."
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:mymarkx Oct 16, 2011 11:49 am
We are the 99%. We do not wish to become a fourth and least powerful branch of a corrupt corporate-owned government.
We do not wish to work within a corrupt corporate-owned system.
We wish to establish a democratic form of government, a government of, by, and for the people--a direct democracy.
It is better to spend whatever time it takes to allow everyone to have a voice and be heard, than to allow corporate puppets to make quick decisions that kill innocent people, destroy our economy and pollute the planet.
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:mymarkx Oct 16, 2011 11:56 am
Yanikn, do you remember the election of 2000? It doesn't matter how well informed people are or how many vote if the votes don't have to be counted and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
Money is what corrupted the referendums in California. Direct democracy is not more susceptible to making bad policy than representative democracy that represents whoever has the most money.
As long as we have a Constitution that doesn't guarantee our right to have our votes counted, and that allows the popular vote to be overridden by a winning candidate conceding, elections officials or the media falsifying results, the Electoral College not following the popular vote, Congress accepting or rejecting the Electoral College vote, Supreme Court intervention, and other means of ensuring that those who own the country will always rule it, which was the framers' intent, merely having an informed and participating electorate won't help.
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:pcovery Oct 16, 2011 1:41 pm
Of course it matters how many vote. The Supreme Court only got involved because there was a dispute about whether some counties' recounts were admissible, and that only swayed the election because it was very close. Math still applies.
Money would not corrupt referenda if people participated in the existing system enough to look past their TV and whatever crap is advertised there.
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:AriaLItthous Oct 17, 2011 2:48 am
"fourth branch" while a great idea, is too specific. The specifics of a more democratic system would be worked out during a constitutional convention; the first step is calling for a cc or becoming one.
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:mymarkx Oct 17, 2011 3:47 pm
pcovery, you cannot prove that the race was close. More than 92% of all votes cast in US elections are completely unverifiable. You are free to believe what the media tells you, as that is your Constitutional right to freedom to believe what you want. But you have no right to obtain the evidence to verify the results, as the central tabulators that count the votes are easily hacked by insiders and their software is proprietary. Even if you could check the audit logs, by the time you did, the candidates would be sworn into office and couldn't be removed except by Congress.
If the central tabulators are programmed to allocate 54% of the vote to Candidate X, 44% of the vote to Candidate Y, and distribute the rest among third party candidates, no matter how many people vote, the votes will always be allocated in the same percentages.
re: is representative democracy dead?
- user:pcovery Oct 17, 2011 7:21 pm
You're free to make up scenarios to speculate about, like anyone else in this great country. My general assumption about conspiracy theories is that people are not that clever and devious to be able to pull off coverups on a large scale. Sure, some sociopaths get away with plenty, but in the long haul, my money's on screwups outing most nefarious plans. But you go ahead and believe what you want. Just don't expect me to go along with you. I'll side with exit polls and millions of very interested people involved in watching results.