# America is not well served by our democracy. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 8, 2006, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847 "2006-06-08T05:58:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/21 "2006-06-08T13:29:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And **UncleBeer** , when was this mythical time at which our electoral system produced “pretty decent results” on a consistent basis? I eagerly await to learn of the era of American history in which politics was not tainted by money, fraud, machines, or scheming party leaders. By consensus of history, a dozen or so of the first twenty U.S. Presidents, were fairly decent overall. You can pick isolated failings of any particular individual, but the general results were good. And there are many, many legislators from that era who’re widely respected. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/22 "2006-06-08T13:33:32Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > But I agree with **matt\_mcl**. The US really needs to separate its executive (who fights in the political trenches, wins the position, and wields the resulting power), from its head of state, who symbolically represents the nation. That way opposing the President would not be equated to Opposing America. That sounds reasonable to me. I’ll suggest it when I win our election reform commission lottery. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/23 "2006-06-08T14:25:51Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > That sounds reasonable to me. I’ll suggest it when I win our election reform commission lottery. Not if I shoot you first! Tell me, have you ever seen Dallas’s wonderful book depository? Well worth a visit. In a open-topped limousine. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/24 "2006-06-08T14:32:32Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > There are two issues here, inconsistent with each other. > > First, Americans want a Monarchy. We look wistfully at the UK, we buy Princess Di bric-a-brac, we tell our children fairytales about kings & princesses. We are programmed to follow a King. In the popular affection, Congress doesn’t stand a chance in Hell against the President of the United States. OK, fine, I say, get it over with. > > Second, the system we have ensures that those who want to govern go into one of the non-legislative branches, while the theoretically sovereign branch, the legislature, is the most personally frustrating career path in the government. It’s all compromise & dilution of power. Graft is nigh inevitable for psychological reasons, & looking at Rep. Sensenbrenner, I imagine insanity is a common result as well. > > Me, I think a parliamentary democracy is better in general. But not all countries are ready for democracy. The USA, in its childish heart of hearts, clearly _really_ wants a Monarchy. Fine, have one, & go to Hell. I don’t think that Americans really want a monarchy. We like the British royal family precisely because they are over there and not really our headache costwise. I prefer our system to the parliamentary system because under a parliamentary system things, laws can be passed quickly. Under our system, things take time to get done. Considering how ill-advised a lot of laws are, something that holds things up is a good thing. The one change that I embrace is the abolishing of the electoral college. That would force presidential campaigns to be truly national instead of letting them pander to swing states. I think that we have a tendency to over romanticize the earlier Presidents. While it is not a period of history in which I am particularly interested, nothing I’ve ever read indicates that they were any more honorable and trustworthy than our current leaders. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/25 "2006-06-08T14:46:57Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > By consensus of history, a dozen or so of the first twenty U.S. Presidents, were fairly decent overall. You can pick isolated failings of any particular individual, but the general results were good. And there are many, many legislators from that era who’re widely respected. I’d say that probably 60% or so of the most recent twenty U.S. Presidents were fairly decent overall as well, no? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/26 "2006-06-08T15:25:11Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > By consensus of history, a dozen or so of the first twenty U.S. Presidents, were fairly decent overall. You can pick isolated failings of any particular individual, but the general results were good. I think by any measure, the quality of presidents in the post-World War II era compares quite well, if not favorably, to a string of middling to lousy Presidents elected in the decades before and after Lincoln. In fact, for a while there, our electoral system was consistently producing pretty poor results, from Taylor to Buchanan, our system produced a downright lousy string of presidents. And that’s not even to say a peep about the electoral system and the routine ethical lapses before the populist reforms of the early 20th century. Members of Congress routinely sold themselves out – not for campaign contributions – but for outright cash. Even the great Daniel Webster – an outstanding legislator – would have been thrown in jail today for what he did back then. Webster even wrote to the President of the Bank of the United States during a debate on the bank’s charter to remind his benefactor that “my retainer has not been received or refreshed as usual.” Is this the great era to which you wish to return? This is an idea case in which the view improves as one becomes more distant from it. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/27 "2006-06-08T15:49:06Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > This all sounds pretty rash to me. The failing isn’t so much with our representative democracy, per se, but rather its current implementation is the source of the disaster. Since we’re all quoting aphorisms here, lemme toss one out. It ain’t from O’Rourke, but one that is often attributed to the great architect, Le Corbusier: The devil is in the details. There _was_ a time when our election system did actually produce pretty decent results and did so pretty consistently. We need only return to those days. That would take only a solid program of campaign finance and election reform to restore the former glory; scrapping the whole shebang ain’t necesary. > > Perhaps combining a mandatory and wide-reaching reform of these processes with Dick’s (and Oy!'s) lottery system to select the members of the reform commission would work. Plato pointed out the problem with democracy 2500 years ago: a leader can (falsely) generate fear, and be welcomed in as a hero who will keep folks safe, except that he is in reality a tyrant. I know **Uncle Beer** disagrees, but to a lot of us, this scenario sounds awfully familiar in recent years, and I have trouble understanding the self-described libertarians who can’t seem to see the danger in the intrusions on civil liberties that have taken place since 2000. Further, Rome showed us the danger inherent in a Bread and Circuses situation, which also sounds awfully familiar - only substitute low taxes on the wealthy and a pointless, useless war and further subsidies for the very rich. It only takes one completely irresponsible president with a majority in Congress and staunch partisan politics for it to happen. The party loyalties and lobbying are what are killing democracy, and I don’t see any escape from either within a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/28 "2006-06-08T16:02:41Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yep. I said it. Our pandering, lurching-toward-bankruptcy, idiotic Congress leads me to wonder if representative republicanism works at all. And I think, “Yeah, maybe, if we fold the executive & legislative together, like a normal country; but not this one, apparently.” Because really, people who want to wield power effectively aren’t going to become legislators in our system. The only personal gratification lawmakers get is graft. > > Then again, our system seemed to be working for some things back in Nixon-days. But after 20 years of people attempting seriously to advocate that the Environmental Protection Agency is a bad thing, except when it’s corrupt enough for them to buy it off, I no longer think that America is competent to be governed (quasi-)democratically. You want a Caesar, welcome to it. Keep that incense fire burning, or you’ll burn in his courtyard when the petroleum runs out. You know, when I read stuff like this, it becomes crystal clear why Cecil says, right up at the top of the page: It’s taking longer than we thought ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/29 "2006-06-08T16:06:41Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I’d say that probably 60% or so of the most recent twenty U.S. Presidents were fairly decent overall as well, no? Fifty percent of our last two presidents were excellent. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/30 "2006-06-08T16:14:25Z")
> [@Oy!](#): > > Plato pointed out the problem with democracy 2500 years ago: a leader can (falsely) generate fear, and be welcomed in as a hero who will keep folks safe, except that he is in reality a tyrant. I know **Uncle Beer** disagrees, but to a lot of us, this scenario sounds awfully familiar in recent years . . . Why do you think I’d disagree with that? It’s entirely plausible. Madison covered factionalism and the tyranny of the majority pretty well in Federalist #51. The guys who debated and wrote the documents with the operating instructions were well aware of Platos’ writings. > [@](#): > > It only takes one completely irresponsible president with a majority in Congress and staunch partisan politics for it to happen. Now you’re leaving me confused? Haven’t you already argues that that can’t really happen in a representative democracy with a proper set of checks and balances between the branches? That’s what I got out of your [post #16](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7467999&postcount=16) of this thread. > [@](#): > > The party loyalties and lobbying are what are killing democracy, and I don’t see any escape from either within a democracy. I agree entirely with the first clause of this sentence. With the second clause, again, you seem to be making agruments contradictory of each other. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/31 "2006-06-08T16:17:53Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I’d say that probably 60% or so of the most recent twenty U.S. Presidents were fairly decent overall as well, no? Heh. Yeah, I’d guess so. That ain’t really a very impressive percentage, is it? By way of an attempt to get by with that claim, lemme offer this dodge. I think reform of the politicking of the legislative branch, and the form and operations of the executive branch, is probably more important than reforming the politicking of the office of the presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Malienation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Malienation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malienation)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/32 "2006-06-08T16:37:50Z")
One problem with all of this political posturing is that virtually everyone is letting the voters off the hook. Everyone knew what they were getting with Dubya (not interested in hijacking the thread to discuss election fraud, that’s another issue) just like they knew what they were getting with Clinton. Bush was elected not once but twice, long after he showed the American people what a fuckup he is. Sure, he isn’t popular now, not by a long shot; the Red Staters should be shitting themselves right about now at the thought of the '06 elections. But why did so many people think that the platform he ran on would work? Faith based everything? Tax cuts would increase tax revenue? Massive deficits don’t count? Starve the beast? Patriot Act? What moron believes this? What idiot votes for a guy because he seems like a good guy to have a beer with? Bush didn’t sell a line of shit to unwilling buyers. He sold what he knew people would eagerly buy. Morons. ---
**Author:** ![Will\_Repair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a698b9/32.png) [@Will\_Repair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Will_Repair)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/33 "2006-06-08T17:21:51Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > …we fold the executive & legislative together… Already have. Congress is too busy passing laws to, well, pass laws. Laws now only say, “Congress authorizes the President to do what he thinks best.” ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/34 "2006-06-08T19:37:56Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Why do you think I’d disagree with that? It’s entirely plausible. Madison covered factionalism and the tyranny of the majority pretty well in Federalist #51. The guys who debated and wrote the documents with the operating instructions were well aware of Platos’ writings. I think you’d disagree that the \*current \* US administration threatens to become a tyranny and has taken a number of steps in that direction already. That’s the aspect to which I was referring. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > Now you’re leaving me confused? Haven’t you already argues that that can’t really happen in a representative democracy with a proper set of checks and balances between the branches? That’s what I got out of your [post #16](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7467999&postcount=16) of this thread. No, because partisan politics make it such that we don’t really have checks and balances when a single party dominates both Executive and Legislative branches, and when the agenda of pushing the party far exceeds the agenda of actually serving the country well. In a lottery system, there would be no single agenda that would unify Congress beyond the individual beliefs of the CongressCritters. Certainly there would be no party politics to influence decisions against one’s better judgment. Right now that happens all the time. Between pushing the party agenda and pandering to their local constituents, I suspect most members of Congress vote for what they think would serve the country best about a quarter to a half of the time. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > I agree entirely with the first clause of this sentence. With the second clause, again, you seem to be making agruments contradictory of each other. I hope this has clarified my points. Sorry I didn’t do a better job at first. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/35 "2006-06-08T20:02:03Z")
> [@Oy!](#): > > I think you’d disagree that the \*current \* US administration threatens to become a tyranny and has taken a number of steps in that direction already. That’s the aspect to which I was referring. Gotcha. But I’m still not sure I’d disagree. I’m no fan of Bush and have been quite disappointed with him. I’m probably more of a Libertarian than you realize. > [@](#): > > No, because partisan politics make it such that we don’t really have checks and balances when a single party dominates both Executive and Legislative branches, and when the agenda of pushing the party far exceeds the agenda of actually serving the country well. I don’t believe you’re using the correct terminology and that’s what I found confusing. Checks and balances I interpret to mean the devices built into the Constitution. Such as the veto power of Congress, a bi-cameral legislative body, legislative overrides of presidential vetos. I can see where you’re coming from, and in fact agree with you - in part. Particularly where Congress is charged with “advise and consent” duties over executive appointments and most notably in budget and revenue issues. Those two particular areas are particularly susceptible to circumventions when a single powerful political party holds majority in Congress and the presidency. > [@](#): > > In a lottery system, there would be no single agenda that would unify Congress beyond the individual beliefs of the CongressCritters. Certainly there would be no party politics to influence decisions against one’s better judgment. Right now that happens all the time. Again, I recommend Madison’s Federalist #51. Specifically: > [@Federalist #51:](#): > > Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. > [@](#): > > Between pushing the party agenda and pandering to their local constituents, I suspect most members of Congress vote for what they think would serve the country best about a quarter to a half of the time. That often? You _are_ a starry-eyed optimist, aren’t you? > [@](#): > > I hope this has clarified my points. Sorry I didn’t do a better job at first. Yep, vastly so. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/36 "2006-06-08T21:38:46Z")
> [@Malienation](#): > > One problem with all of this political posturing is that virtually everyone is letting the voters off the hook. Everyone knew what they were getting with Dubya (not interested in hijacking the thread to discuss election fraud, that’s another issue) just like they knew what they were getting with Clinton. Bush was elected not once but twice, long after he showed the American people what a fuckup he is. Sure, he isn’t popular now, not by a long shot; the Red Staters should be shitting themselves right about now at the thought of the '06 elections. But why did so many people think that the platform he ran on would work? Faith based everything? Tax cuts would increase tax revenue? Massive deficits don’t count? Starve the beast? Patriot Act? What moron believes this? What idiot votes for a guy because he seems like a good guy to have a beer with? > > Bush didn’t sell a line of shit to unwilling buyers. He sold what he knew people would eagerly buy. Morons. You are assuming that the will of the voters was what produced the President. This was almost certainly not true in 2000, and there are many indications that it didn’t happen in 2004. And I DO let the voters off the hook, when the election’s rigged. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/37 "2006-06-08T21:46:46Z")
Jay-zuss. What part of “not interested in hijacking the thread to discuss election fraud” is puzzling to you, EC? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/38 "2006-06-08T22:09:52Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Jay-zuss. What part of “not interested in hijacking the thread to discuss election fraud” is puzzling to you, EC? You guys are not at liberty not to discuss election fraud, but when I see people remonstrating us for voting Bush in when I honestly feel that we DIDN’T vote him in, I think it’s a fair point to make. Consider it “point made” whether you disagree or not and move on if you like – I’m cool with that. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/39 "2006-06-08T22:57:44Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > And I DO let the voters off the hook, when the election’s rigged. I don’t - not when the election is so close. There’s still no doubt that at least 60 million Americans voted for Bush. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847/40 "2006-06-09T00:31:20Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Y’all realize Spain is a monarchy, right? And that the legislative and executive power are supposed to be separate and about half the time manage to do so, right? > > Just checking - and anyway you’d be welcome. Please don’t swim, the Red Cross’ budget is already a bit stretched. Some people have no appreciation of alliteration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/america-is-not-well-served-by-our-democracy/359847.md?page=3)