Ursus Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Gee, I hate to resurrect this thread ... but as I sit here bored to tears by the 2006 Senatorial and House elections, I have to say I've become disenchanted with the American political process, or at least the two-party system which the logic of the American political process has infomally erected. I think I'd rather have what is known in some European countries as proportional party representation - which is that everyone votes for a party, and the party receives a percentage of seats in parliament equal to its votes. It seems to me like the most democratic means of balancing competing interest groups. It also allows more than two major parties (with the caveat that, to prevent extremist groups, usually there is some qualification that a party has to receive 3-5% of the vote to get any seats...). More interesting than running one slightly-left-of-center candidate against one slighty-right-of-center candidate and listening to the same tired slogans incessantly. So in conclusion, here is one American who doesn't believe we have the best system. Although certainly it's most preferable to dictatorships, theocracies, and banana republics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Do you really want to miss out on the New Golden Era to be promised for the umpteenth time? Alas, your suggestion may be democratic, but it could very easily lead to the Italian and French political morasses of post WWII days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 A proportional system has some serious drawbacks, including the ones mentioned by GO, as well as all the problems of the current system. For one, proportional representation isn't necessarily democratic. Imagine the following situation: 75% of voters oppose Issue X, 75% oppose Issue Y, and 75% oppose Issue Z. Now, if there are one issue voters who support Issue X, Issue Y and Issue Z, they could easily form three different parties: the X Party, the Y Party, and the Z party, each gaining 25% of seats in the legislature. Since these parties are devoted only to passage of their one issue, they can now form a coalition to get X, Y, and Z passed--even though the majority of voters are opposed to each them. It's easy to see how this might play out. For example, social conservatives who really don't care about economic liberty could join forces with economic libertarians who really don't care about personal liberties to form a bloc that is socially conservative and economically libertarian. Or: social libertarians who really don't care about government intervention in the economy could join forces with socialists who really don't mind if gays marry to form a bloc that is socially liberal and economically statist. (Obviously, I chose these two combinations deliberately: they're a pretty good description of the two parties that are currently vying for power, with each party being combinations of subgroups that have different priorities.) As far as I can tell, those with unpopular agendas will always have a chance in either a two-party or a multi-party system, much to the disgust of the majority. The only alternative would be direct democracy, which would be even worse--to give all the matters of state the attention that it deserves, everyone would have to quit their jobs and follow contemporary policy debate full time. For my part, I'd rather delegate my vote to an agent of my choice, so I can concentrate on things that really matter (like setting the record straight on ancient bald men who run around claiming to be descended from Venus). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 (edited) so I can concentrate on things that really matter (like setting the record straight on ancient bald men who run around claiming to be descended from Venus). You just had to insert that sentence in there. Tell me, what would you do without the darling of Venus, if he didn't exist, half of your posts here wouldn't exist either. I think you have a love/hate relationship with him, you can't hate a guy so much unless he hurt you or betrayed you in the past, maybe in a different life, maybe you really are the reincarnation of Cato the Younger or just one of his ex-boyfriends It just seems to me that you always have that bald man on your mind. Edited September 17, 2006 by tflex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Crisis of Democracy, eh? Yes, democracy is terribly inefficient and even backwards in our present circumstances. Then again... democracy didn't create the present cirumstances. Let's just be apathetic to the system and let the specialists determine the important things, right? Go turn on the TV, pick your side and delegate your efficacy to a politician. The animals have to be kept in the zoo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Let's just be apathetic to the system and let the specialists determine the important things, right? Go turn on the TV, pick your side and delegate your efficacy to a politician. Apathy and direct democracy are false alternatives. Clearly there are matters that legal experts should work on, including the language of bills. For example, whether the recently introduced HR 267, 270, and 271 provide policy improvements over HR 376, 303, and 808 is a matter that is too complicated and arcane to have to deal with on a daily basis. And, truthfully Moonlapse, did you know that there was a difference between 267 and 376 before looking it up? And if you spent all your time on this sort of thing, could you lead a normal life and career? I view the government as being like plumbing. It should work without much intervention or modification on my part. When it needs attention, I certainly give it, and I pay a lot of attention to the plumbers I hire and how to choose them, but otherwise I leave them to their jobs and hold them responsible for their work. It's called a division of labor society. It works for government just as well as for plumbing--not perfect, but better than all the alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted September 18, 2006 Report Share Posted September 18, 2006 Apathy and direct democracy are false alternatives. Clearly there are matters that legal experts should work on, including the language of bills. For example, whether the recently introduced HR 267, 270, and 271 provide policy improvements over HR 376, 303, and 808 is a matter that is too complicated and arcane to have to deal with on a daily basis. And, truthfully Moonlapse, did you know that there was a difference between 267 and 376 before looking it up? And if you spent all your time on this sort of thing, could you lead a normal life and career? Allow me to repeat myself. Democracy is terribly inefficient and even backwards in our present circumstances. Then again... democracy didn't create the present cirumstances. Language of bills, normal life, career, etc... do you think that Americans 150 years ago had the same perception of these concepts that you have now? I view the government as being like plumbing. It should work without much intervention or modification on my part. When it needs attention, I certainly give it, and I pay a lot of attention to the plumbers I hire and how to choose them, but otherwise I leave them to their jobs and hold them responsible for their work. It's called a division of labor society. It works for government just as well as for plumbing--not perfect, but better than all the alternatives. I agree. What I disagree with is the obsolescence of independency and the centralization of power. You speak of alternatives in the context of staying on the path our government/society has taken. Alternatives that maintain the present system. I'm saying that the path has been wrong and therefore these types of practical alternatives are wrong. I really have no idea how to revert to a more democratic system without collateral damage, since most of the progress that has been made is dependent upon 'authority'. However, that problem might be taken care of if people make the effort to educate and involve themselves even just a little bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 18, 2006 Report Share Posted September 18, 2006 Democracy is terribly inefficient and even backwards in our present circumstances. Then again... democracy didn't create the present cirumstances. Language of bills, normal life, career, etc... do you think that Americans 150 years ago had the same perception of these concepts that you have now? For the sake of argument, I'll say Yes--in 1856, people had the same ideas regarding how complicated the language of a bill needed to be, what a normal life and career consisted of, and so on. What evidence leads you to think otherwise? Laws have always been complex. Look at Roman laws! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 18, 2006 Report Share Posted September 18, 2006 (edited) Perhaps I am not following these last few posts. Nonetheless, I feel that there has never been a democracy by the best of men for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Anywhere. To paraphrase Mark Twain (once again), the national government is the longest standing criminal enterprise in the nation. From the outset, the party system was, and is, a 'do and vote as you are told and you and yours will be taken care of'. Ever hear of a poor politician? The Supreme Court is 'packed' with party hacks who are paid off to 'toe the party line'. "Separate but equal!" Slavery! The president presides over a vast waste land of patronage. The incompetents in Iraq and those at the heads of departments and commissions (the realm of out of work politicos). Congressional legislation is 'crafted' by crafty schiesters doing their master's bidding to ensure that laws are properly obfuscated to benefit the 'better people' and business. Does any thinking person really believe that legislators (federal, state or local) or the president really write 'their' bills? I recall one legislator who 'read' the 29,000 page NAFTA bill in one month but could not read a 1,400 page national health care bill in a week. Sound familiar in re another thread? Women once could hold office but not vote. Where in the Constitution is there a sexual test - of any kind - provided for.,!? The government may turn machine guns on strikers but not on management. Certainly, neither democracy nor capitalism; rather, fascism. Leave freedom and democracy to the localities and the result is voting tests, slavery, etc. Leave it to the Federal government and it selects a president. The ignoranuses lead the ignoratti. It was thus in Rome; it is so in the U.S. and will ever be so - anywhere. Edited September 18, 2006 by Gaius Octavius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted September 18, 2006 Report Share Posted September 18, 2006 Democracy is terribly inefficient and even backwards in our present circumstances. Then again... democracy didn't create the present cirumstances. Language of bills, normal life, career, etc... do you think that Americans 150 years ago had the same perception of these concepts that you have now? For the sake of argument, I'll say Yes--in 1856, people had the same ideas regarding how complicated the language of a bill needed to be, what a normal life and career consisted of, and so on. What evidence leads you to think otherwise? Laws have always been complex. Look at Roman laws! Indeed the language needed to be complicated. Most people were literate without compulsory schooling and they learned written language by reading classical literature and the contemporary eighteenth and nineteenth century literature. William Blake, Emily Bronte, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorne, John Keats, Herman Melville, etc, etc. They didn't have 'Dick and Jane' or 'The Cat in the Hat'. The average person had a mastery of written English that many people do not have today. At least half the population was agrarian, though declining, and normal life for them was much different than what you and I consider normal life. Family was central to these people. Children worked with their parents, prepared and consumed meals with them. Today, children spend most of the day either sitting in a compulsory state institution, breaking their desire to learn on tedious homework, or blankly and unproductively absorbed in TV or games. Do you also think that these people spent their career climbing the corporate ladder? Does the term 'Yankee ingenuity' describe scenarios involving adaptation, invention, improvization, perseverance... all independently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted September 18, 2006 Report Share Posted September 18, 2006 It was thus in Rome; it is so in the U.S. and will ever be so - anywhere. I refuse to believe that its hopeless to try to find improved means of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted September 18, 2006 Report Share Posted September 18, 2006 Today, children spend most of the day either sitting in a compulsory state institution, breaking their desire to learn on tedious homework Can it be plausible to say that a grade point average is a number based on how well you follow orders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 Today, children spend most of the day either sitting in a compulsory state institution, breaking their desire to learn on tedious homework Can it be plausible to say that a grade point average is a number based on how well you follow orders? I think it's plausible to say that if you excel in school, you can excel in a corporate environment. If you believe that your question is derivative of this, then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 BTW, I'm going to split this topic. Would you please explain what that means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Taking out the non-relating stuff and make a thread for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts