How can this be Democracy?

peritonlogon · #1 10-20-2006, 03:08 PM

We've seen polls with Presidential approval as low as the high twenties this year. The latest Congressional approval poll has Congress polling at 16% with 75% disapproving.

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

This is really the worst we've seen it, but it's been in that neighborhod for a while.

My question, "How can this be Democracy?" asks, is there some fundamental part of the system that subverts our Democracy? what can we do about it?

And, who else would be in favor of these 5 changes to the Constitution.

1) The House of Representatives becomes a Parliament. By this I mean, instead of districts voting for candidates. People vote for parties (the Senate would remain unchanged (maybe keeping the House the same and change the Senate would be a better idea, I don't know)) those parties get to appoint a number of representatives in proportion to how many votes they get nationally, those appointees would come from the States in proportion to the states' population.

2) No confidence Vote for the President. Whenever a major scientific poll shows, for example, less than 1/3 approval, a public (ie, constituent) vote of confidence is called and the incumbent has to win a majority (or some ammount of) confidence. If that President does not have the confidence of the people, that President no longer has any authority of the President, he remains an Administrator for 1-2 months while elections and campaigns are held.

3)Run Off voting. Run off voting for primaries, and run off votes for general elections. Every party is on the ballot in the general election regardless, if no candidate has a majority than everyone revotes minus the losing candidate or 2, the process repeats until there is a majority. This would actually be quite easy to do with unhacked digital vote machines.

4) No confidence vote for Supreme Court Memebers.

5) No confidence vote for Congress

Troy Smith · #2 10-20-2006, 03:21 PM

You realize most people hate congress but support their congressman? That's democracy.

peritonlogon · #3 10-20-2006, 03:26 PM

The point is, though, that it's not really democracy even if most people support their congressman when only 16% of the people support congress. That is something that purports to be democracy, but is something far far different.

Troy Smith · #4 10-20-2006, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, though, that it's not really democracy even if most people support their congressman when only 16% of the people support congress. That is something that purports to be democracy, but is something far far different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. We don't vote for Congress, we vote for representitives. Give me the approval ratings of their own representitives, it is likely in the 60-80% range.

#3 is a good idea. The rest suck big time.

Borodog · #5 10-20-2006, 04:37 PM

A lynch mob is a democracy.

The problem is not that we don't have democracy (I agree, we don't), or don't have the right form of democracy. All of the "reforms" you suggest are in place in various other countries, and they all have the same sorts of problems we do, possibly with the exception of military adventurism. But that's simply because they don't have the kind of wealth to parasitize and divert to the military-industrial complex that we do, not because their form of government somehow stops it.

I am NOT trying to take this into AC-land (really, I promise), but the problem is inherent to monopolization of power. Changing the way that power is distributed or structured within the government does not change that.

adios · #6 10-20-2006, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We've seen polls with Presidential approval as low as the high twenties this year. The latest Congressional approval poll has Congress polling at 16% with 75% disapproving.

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

This is really the worst we've seen it, but it's been in that neighborhod for a while.

My question, "How can this be Democracy?" asks, is there some fundamental part of the system that subverts our Democracy? what can we do about it?

And, who else would be in favor of these 5 changes to the Constitution.

1) The House of Representatives becomes a Parliament. By this I mean, instead of districts voting for candidates. People vote for parties (the Senate would remain unchanged (maybe keeping the House the same and change the Senate would be a better idea, I don't know)) those parties get to appoint a number of representatives in proportion to how many votes they get nationally, those appointees would come from the States in proportion to the states' population.

2) No confidence Vote for the President. Whenever a major scientific poll shows, for example, less than 1/3 approval, a public (ie, constituent) vote of confidence is called and the incumbent has to win a majority (or some ammount of) confidence. If that President does not have the confidence of the people, that President no longer has any authority of the President, he remains an Administrator for 1-2 months while elections and campaigns are held.

3)Run Off voting. Run off voting for primaries, and run off votes for general elections. Every party is on the ballot in the general election regardless, if no candidate has a majority than everyone revotes minus the losing candidate or 2, the process repeats until there is a majority. This would actually be quite easy to do with unhacked digital vote machines.

4) No confidence vote for Supreme Court Memebers.

5) No confidence vote for Congress

[/ QUOTE ]

Not I. Polls are basically worthless IMO anyway. So many are so biased. That's an idea though, let's take polls every week and determine what the government should do based on the poll results.

peritonlogon · #7 10-20-2006, 05:14 PM

I'm certainly not suggesting that a poll ought to determine all of our policies. What I am suggesting is that there is a huge huge problem with an unresponsive Democracy. When a Government does not have the support of its governed then I fail to see how its governed are anything other than governed, as in, it is not government of, by and for the people, it is simply a light handed, non-perminent authoritarian regime.

peritonlogon · #8 10-20-2006, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A lynch mob is a democracy.

The problem is not that we don't have democracy (I agree, we don't), or don't have the right form of democracy. All of the "reforms" you suggest are in place in various other countries, and they all have the same sorts of problems we do, possibly with the exception of military adventurism. But that's simply because they don't have the kind of wealth to parasitize and divert to the military-industrial complex that we do, not because their form of government somehow stops it.

I am NOT trying to take this into AC-land (really, I promise), but the problem is inherent to monopolization of power. Changing the way that power is distributed or structured within the government does not change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say I agree with you in a qualified sense. I think changing the way power is distribued will change things, and will stop a lot of this countries problems or at least reduce them, but not all, because our coffers are just too big to keep away parasites.

However, changing the distribution of power does lessen the monopolization. I think that if we had a transparent government and a media that actively watched over our government, that, in and of it self would change things because those in power would have to answer questions and would be held responsible. This would mean they no longer have a monopoly on power. Having more safeguards in the constitution to force government to be responsive wouldn't stop all parasitic action, but it would prevent the most egregious examples from happening.

A no confidence vote would not stop all bad decisions from being made, but it would ensure that those decisions are thought out, that the people would be a concern and that, bad decisions, once made and shown to be bad, would be remedied.

Troy Smith · #9 10-20-2006, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certainly not suggesting that a poll ought to determine all of our policies. What I am suggesting is that there is a huge huge problem with an unresponsive Democracy. When a Government does not have the support of its governed then I fail to see how its governed are anything other than governed, as in, it is not government of, by and for the people, it is simply a light handed, non-perminent authoritarian regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be news to you, but there is an election in one month! Who would have thought?

lehighguy · #10 10-20-2006, 06:39 PM

No. You premise your decision on the idea the voters, if a majority agrees on something, makes it a good decision. In reality, people in a democracy (mobs) make decisions as bad, or often even worse, then single politicians.

The constant threat of no-competence votes would do little more then turn our policy making decisions over to pollsters. What politician will vote for something unpopular under such a system. However, voting for something that is unpopular is often what is needed (like, say, voting again the war in 2003, or reforming the bankrupt ponzi scheme we call a retirement program).

I know what your thinking, what if voters were "educated". Then certainly, they would make the best choices. This ignores rational voter theory. I can explain more if you've never heard it, but the jist is that voters are acting rationally in both being uninformed and supporting policies that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.