Limits on a Democracy's size?

Great Debates
1

YAPT (Yet Another Politics Thread)

I was in the shower the other day (you know you’re getting older when the sensation of warm water running over your body inspires thoughts of politics), and wondered, in this election season:

Suppose I wanted to run a really basic campaign for national office as a non-partisan independent. I want to send a single, standard letter to the 120 million households in the US, containing simply a letter and other materials stating my opinions in full and making a request for votes. Then simply work to get into as many public debates on the issues as possible.

A standard, non-first class letter costs $0.27. To send it to each household costs
$32,400,000. This figure gave me pause. This is simply postage, not even the cost of producing the letter or other inserts. Extend this notion. Broadcast media are more effective means of getting a message out, and therefore, have every right to charge more, which they do.

There’s something wrong with a system that requires a lottery-sized outlay of cash just to barely get a message out. The country is simply too populous for anyone but a rich person (or someone deeply in debted to rich persons) to even get their name out there.

Never mind whether or not a candidate is honest, they are crippled financially from the get-go.

My feeling, as a result of these thoughts is that the country is simply too big to support our version of democratic election. We could call for a Constitutional Convention to discuss alternatives, but I don’t think, in the bottom of my heart, that it would help. Postage is not astronomical. There are simply too many people to get the word out to.

There have been any number of other threads debating sectional differences, and I think the best option for the country is to carry the American idea forward, into a set of smaller nations built on the American model.

Fire away.

PS: this is my anniversary post. While I did sign up on this site a number of years ago, a quick search will show that before this date last year, my post count was 3. I wished to comment on Cecil’s article on the Columbia disaster and manned spaceflight, and got hooked. Thanks for a year of great conversation!

2

And just how this thread ended up in General Questions when I started typing in Great Debates is beyond me.

Moderators, please move.

3

Keeping in mind that this will be moved to GD, I’ll reply here anyway.

I think you are right, in a way. The US, or any other nation is too big for a true democracy, so we use a representational democracy, but the US is really too big for even that. There is no way to even have a chance at national office without the support of a party. Parties are a group of people with an agenda, and are easily corruptable, and often do not really speak for the people.

Of course, there is the internet, and email, but many people do not have access to those still, which brings up issues of fairness. And even bandwidth costs. I don’t know the figures, but a few million hits a month on a website can’t be cheap. ( even if it’s alot cheaper than mail). And there is the issue of getting people to want to navigate to your website, unlike with TV or mail ads, the voter must seek out the information. Voter apathy stands in the way of making the internet very effective.

Humans simply didn’t evolve with big-government in their lives. We spent 99% of the lifetime of our species in small, close knit groups, where everyone knew everyone else. Our ideal form of government would recreate this. It would be small and intimit, and everyone would know the issues and have a meaningfull say.

Unfortunately, bigger societies are more efficient than smaller ones, and eventually muscle them out of existance, so once one forms, there is no going back. If the US broke into smaller city-states, other countries that didn’t change would quickly surpass us, and would be relegated to a backwater. Perhaps some confederation of regional states similar to Europe could be formed, but that is highly unlikely, even if it would be more democratic.

I think that from the new understandings into human nature that neuroscience is affording us, a new form of government will start to take theoretical shape, one that takes into account the advantages of large government, but once again unites us in small communities according to our nature, without dividing us into petty warring states. I think the internet will be a big part of that, but it won’t happen for a long time yet, if at all.

4

I’m glad is here before being moved, 'cos I generally don’t leave G.Q.

The United States was originally constituted with this size thing in mind. We’re supposedly a federation for a reason. As Thaumaturge we all live in small groups. I guess politically the smallest is your town or city (even those have bouroughs [sp?] or something sometimes), followed by counties, and then you state. That which happens on the lowest level – what your town or county does – probably has the highest impact on your daily life. At least it should. The state brings all this together. Then we’re a federation of individual states.

Federal power and modern liberalism has screwed this up more than our size, though. This idea that the federal government is responsible for everything that everyone does is (1) a power grab that’s destroying our nation and (2) much more burden than it can handle, and (3) just not right. There’s not a single person in Washington D.C. that should be representing “me” there. That’s my locality’s and state’s problem.

So, to become President under a federal system rather than our liberal system you didn’t have to kiss all the peoples’ butts, because it’s not really their day to day concerns that you should even address. You’d only have to appeal to the people in power positions, who’d preach your gospel for you. Yeah, that’s counterintuitive, but that’s why we don’t have direct elections for presidents. People as a whole are somewhat short sighted, selfish, and politically stupid.

And gosh, I’m not using liberal=democrat!=republican, so don’t take it that way.

If you wanted to make a run for it, try running on the idea that you’ll scrap our entire system of liberal government and get back to basics. Let the state of Minnesota worry about its own problems, Michigan its, and Mississippi its. Talk about the war. Don’t spend federal funds on things that aren’t federal problems. Jobs aren’t your problem, but not interfering with business is (because you just shouldn’t).

5

hey, thats why someone thought up a solution to this… like 200 years ago!

the electoral college might seem like a dumb idea or outdated, or against the goal of a democracy. but its really not, just for reasons like yours.

6

Actually, there are no inherent limits on a democracy’s size, despite the fact that you’ve pointed up a genuine problem.

We do not currently have any kind of communications structure in which for a non-office-holding person to bring up an issue or present a considered opinion on an issue for others to seriously consider.

We hand off the whole works to a handful of idiots that, every 2-6 years, we pick from a slate of competing idiots, and the winners get to make pretty much any decisions they want, and you’re omitted from the decision-making process until next election season. Room for improvement? Yeah. Even if you do think that democracies have inherent limits on size and scope, you can probably come up with something better than that!

7

In the Australian parliament at least, there are only senators and members of the house of representatives. The party which has the majority in the house of representatives wins and their leader becomes Prime Minister. So politicians only need to advertise to their own state (if they’re a senator) or their local electorate (if they’re in the house of representatives). If you’re an independent in Australia, there are no nation-wide ads. The only nation-wide ads are for political parties and their party’s leader (potential Prime Minister) often makes an appearance.

8

What about India - the world’s largest democracy ?

Accepted they don’t spend quite as much on elections, but the population is now over 1 billion - even assuming 4 people per househould (WAG), that still leaves you with 250 million households.

Russell

9

(Moderators, I’ll repeat my request that this thread be moved to GD, which was its original intended destination. My apologies.)

The electoral college, while I agree with the original intent of its inception, has basically been gutted.

This is straight from The Electoral College Website. Not only does this system circumvent the electoral college’s purpose, it builds the party system right into the governmental process, which I always thought the Founding Fathers would have regarded as a mistake

10

I think you’re missing a couple of points. It’s highly unlikely that some Joe Sixpack will have a shot at national office. IOW, you don’t go from shoe-salesman to president. You have to work your way up. Run for your county board. Depending on the size of your county you can probably run a decent campaign for a few thousand dollars (unless you live in Cook County, Illinois or some such place). If you do well on the county board, people may suggest that you’d make a good state representative. By then people will have been donating to your campaign fund, so you won’t have to pay for the campaign out of your own pocket. If you do well as a state representative, people may suggest that you’d make a good U.S. Representative. Another campaign, paid for with other people’s money, and a more high-profile job. Once you’re a U.S. Representative, make a name for yourself. After a few terms as a U.S. Representative, you’ll have more money, and more national exposure, and a better shot at becoming president.

Obviously as a non-partisan independent you won’t be eligible for money donated to your party, so all of your fund-raising will have to be done almost door to door.

11

We may be omnipotent but we’re not omnipresent or omniscient. The best way to alert us to a problem is to use the report-bad-post function (the little exclamation point doohickey in the corner of every post). Ignore any boilerplate about using the function only for reporting Armageddon.

Off to GD.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

12

Thanks for the tip.

Sounded pretty good up to this point. “Make a name for yourself”. Is there even a 10% chance of doing it this way? Off the top of your head, can you name 44 US Representatives other than the one you elected (or failed to thwart, as the case may be)?

And how many actually go on to win the presidency? I seem to recall that at the time of Gephart’s resignation, the word was it had never been done.

So you really need to become a senator first, if you are going by your methodical approach. Depending on the state, this can be nearly as daunting as raising money for a presidential campaign.

It would be nice if we could keep the number of people you needed to please down to a minimum, and do as originally intended in the Constitution, by repealing the Amendment that allowed for direct election of senators, and strengthening the Electoral College, perhaps by having a state government make it a real office with a real term of service, but there were reasons these intents failed in the first place.

Country’s just too damn big to keep Big Money influence in its proper place.

13

But why isn’t the answer to limit the return that “big money” can expect from sponsering political candidates? Why not simply propose fewer economic interventions by the federal government?

Also, I’m not quite so sure that big money is as large of a problem as you sugest. Candidates for offices representing larger constituencies also have larger populations to “hit up” for political donations. Didn’t Dean’s campaign at least suggest that alternatives to small numbers of large donations are possible?

14

Not necessarily. Consider the last dozen presidents:

FDR: Former Governor
Truman: Former Senator, then Vice President
Eisenhower: Former Military
Kennedy: Former Senator
Johnson: Former Senator, then Vice President
Nixon: Former Senator, then Vice President
Ford: Former Senator, then Vice President
Carter: Former Governor
Reagan: Former Governor
Bush41: Former Senator, then Vice President
Clinton: Former Governor
Bush43: Former Governor

I make it 5 Governors, 6 Senators, and one military man, including 5 Vice Presidents (three of whom got the job when the Prez died or resigned). If you really want to be President, you don’t have to be a Senator first. Being a state governor (and it doesn’t even have to be a particularly large state, i.e.
Bill Clinton of Arkansas) who can make a good showing in the Primaries. Howard Dean of Vermont could have made it, but he rather spectacularly self-destructed.

So, concentrate on state politics, get elected Governor, and then you can make a reasonable bid for your party’s nomination. Or you can finagle for a place on the ticket as Vice-President, and make your own bid after your boss finishes his terms. Nixon tried this in 1960 (and narrowly lost to Kennedy), Bush41 succeeded in 1988, and Gore tried in 2000 (and narrowly lost to Bush43).

The Vice Presidency is likely the best possible stepping stone to the Oval Office (not even counting the possibility you’ll inherit the job). Most Veeps in recent years were former Senators, although Spiro Agnew wasn’t (former Governor of Maryland) and Dick Cheney isn’t (former House Minority Whip).

In short, being a Senator is helpful, but not necessary to make a credible bid for the U.S. Presidency.

15

There is presently a system of sending messages cheaper. That system is called email. There are people using this system to sell products and their messages are commonly referred to as SPAM. I personally do not want my mail box filled with more junk mail or more SPAM in my email. The next time the OP is taking a shower and thinks about sending me a statement of his political views, I would ask him to reach down and turn off the hot water. :stuck_out_tongue:

16

I actually wouldn’t mind spam if any appreciable percentage of it consisted of people desperately trying to let their political views be known to the world.

Unfortunately, the only people who seem to be using this beautiful medium to “get a message out” to a large number of people are peddling penis enlargment pills, obvious pyramid scams, and viruses.

17

There are many misconceptions of America’s odd system for selecting its president. The first of which is that we have an electoral college. We don’t. An electoral college is a deliberative body entrusted to select a leader. Our “college” isn’t a collegial body. It isn’t a body at all because it isn’t allowed to meet. Electors gather within the seperate states and just vote. They don’t even count the votes.

We are probably stuck with the term though and the image it conjures of a body of wise men determining the best candidate independent of public opinion serves to support another misconception: that this was the original intent behind our system of election of the president. While the independent elector ideal certainly existed I have found no reason to suppose that was the generally accepted role of an elector at the constitutional convention. On the contrary, if there had been a consensus such a role would have easily been written into the Constitution. Instead, compromise was finally reached by leaving the method of selection of Electors entirely to the states themselves and isolating those Electors from outside influences by keeping them in the state to vote.

I don’t doubt that some, even most, of the men who signed the Constitution believed in the ideal of the independent elector but they were practical men. They knew there was little idyllic about the rough and tumble state politics of the day and that plenty of pressure would be exerted in elections. And there is another ideal of representation, a more democratic one. In New England representatives could be bound by instructions to vote and act in certain ways. Room was left in the Constitution for this role for Electors as well and that idea of officials bound to follow the will of the people is how our presidential elections continue to operate.

The mistaken belief about the original intent for the role of the Electors is supported in turn by the misconception that there was a debate in the constitutional convention on the merits of electors over a popular vote. The popular vote was never seriously considered. It was brought up but solely as a stalking horse for electors. The real choice was between a president chosen by the Congress or one chosen independent of the national legislature. Seen in this context the intent behind the system they settled on is clear. It’s one of the main tenets of the Constitution: seperation of powers.

One last thing on presidential elections. While it is perfectly accurate to assert that the Founding Fathers in 1787 would find it a bad idea to build the party system right into the governmental process we should note that they then proceeded to do exactly that. The protoparties that the FF themselves formed in the new republic started trying to control the votes of Electors with the first contested elections after Washington declined to run again. Those elections showed how difficult the balloting procedure for Electors made it to coordinate a national campaign and the Constitution was amended to make the presidential elections more amenable to party control. The 12th Amendement was ratified even before Hamilton threw his life away.

As for the OP, there’s no reason it has to cost $32M just to reach all Americans. That price is just how we have decided to value sending mail to each home. If we decide it should cost less then we can bring the price down. We can subsidize political mail if we wish. TV is regulated. We could require networks to donate chunks of time for political messages. It is just a matter of allocating resources. Assuming we can’t crack the light barrier I suppose democracy wouldn’t work so great on the interstellar level but I see no reason a whole solar system can’t become a single political unit.

18

Isn’t this a reasonable case for States’ rights? For the limiting of federal government? And by extension, a limit on how much power you want to give a world governmental organization like the United Nations? Imagine if the U.N. were your government, and you wanted to affect change. But now you have to convince the voters of the entire world. Now we’re talking about serious cash.

19

The key to this whole discussion is just that . . . “STATE’S RIGHTS.”

We fought a war over this . . . remember?

Just remember that before you label someone flying a confederate flag as a white-trash racist, just maybe they know what they’re supporting.

Jess

20

Of course that has been my experience in far too many cases.

Maybe there is a fair argument that a new level of representation need to be inserted between the individual voter and the national legislature. Right now each member of congress represents some half million constituents. The chances of your Congressman paying any attention to your opinion or problem unless there are 250,000 other people in the district with the same problem or opinion, or unless you come to him with a brown envelope filled with untraceable cash is pretty much nil. That is why “special interest groups” have become so significant–only organizations have a loud enough voice or enough money to get the Representative’s attention. It’s even worse with Senators since there are only two of them for each state–strangely enough in a small state, for example North Dakota, a voter has a better chance of actual contact with his Senator than with his Congressman. In a big state, like Ohio, California, New York, only the Big Dawgs have access.

Maybe the answer is some sort of regional parliaments who’s consent to legislation is required and with the power to institute legislation and to investigate for that purpose, sort of a sub or intermediate congress.