The US is not a democracy.

Is it “Baseless Generalisation of 15,000 People Day” and no one told me?

Whaddya mean? Is the test polling numbers? If that is the case, then Bush has “misrepresented” the American people by pulling out of Kyoto and proposing the tax cut. Both policies were opposed by a majority of Americans (the tax cut in the amount, particularly), according to the polls.

But your comment about environmental legislation indicates that poll numbers are not what you are talking about, and of course sometimes leaders must make unpopular decisions. If you could clarify?

Sua

In response to SuaSponte’s assertion that “Money politics infects all of the liberal democracies,” I wrote:

“That may be broadly true, but the US is worse affected for a number of reasons. For one thing, fewer people (less than half of those eligible) actually bother to vote than in any other liberal democracy. … Unlike some European countries, the US has a “winner-takes-all” system. A more democratic alternative is a “proportional representation” system so that if, for example, if a third party earns a percentage of the vote, the also get a percentage of the representation.”

Sua replied: “1. What does the percentage of U.S. voters who bother to vote have to do with money politics? Are you asserting that the money donated by the corporations and wealthy individuals to the parties, which is what the OP was talking about, is used to discourage Americans from voting?”

Sort of. I am asserting that the effect of money in politics is to discourage voting. People are made to feel their vote doesn’t matter, or that there isn’t much difference between the two parties, etc. This is a prevalent assumption amongst those who have studied the matter. (See, for example, the website I posted a link to, or Greider’s Who Will the Tell the People Now?)

"2. As I wrote in my earlier post, PR has its own problems, the most significant of which is that individual members of parliaments have no bloc of voters to which they answer. Their continued careers depend on where on the candidate list for their party they are placed. As such, they are beholden to their party’s leadership, not the voters."

This does seem like a legitimate concern. On the other hand, as things stand now in the US, most Democratic and Republican members of congress are more beholden to their party’s leadership than to their constituencies. That is, as fewer people actually vote, and as money becomes increasingly necessary to getting elected, politicians rely upon their party’s machinery to help them get elected and to stay in office. That doesn’t mean that they can shut out their constituencies entirely; but it does mean that in practice they typically toe the party’s line–which is, increasingly, a big-money-driven rather than voter-driven line. So I think that in the American system, PR might actually make members of the two main parties more accountable to their constituencies. That is, they would face some real competion from third-party candidates who would promise to represent voters more authentically.

Sua"3. As I also pointed out in my last post, the English parliamentary system allows for such undemocratic results as a party receiving 41% of the vote having an unassailable majority in Parliament."

First, in what I’ve read on the subject of proportional representation, Britain definitely wasn’t the model being invoked. Second, I confess, I don’t quite understand how the Labor Party’s majority can be “unassailable” with only 41% of the vote unless they’ve formed some sort of coalition with minority parties. Is that what you’re describing? (Bear in mind, I know roughly how the British parliamentary system works but I haven’t been paying very close attention to their recent elections.)

On the subject of Japan I had written:
“…Japan has a very different corporate culture wherein corporate leaders feel directly responsible to their employees and the society at large. …[Hence,]we can’t simply compare ourselves to the Japanese and assume that we are better off in this respect.”

Sua “:Sigh: Once again, I was responding to the OP - the assertion that the U.S. system is the “least representative” due to the influence of donations by corporations and wealthy individuals.”

Sigh? I don’t understand your problem here. Yes, of course, you were responding to the OP. And I was responding to your response. I agreed with your point–my reply began “That is true”–but offered a different way of thinking about the context. You do expect a bit of debate in Great Debates, do you not? :wink:

Sua*"…The result is that the people of Japan continue to suffer from recession and deflation, not to mention the largest government debt in the world, caused by repeated “stimulus packages”, which simply hand over tax money to prevent the failure of these near-death corporations, particularly in the construction industry. Not exactly “the greatest good for the greatest number”*

Sua, I don’t claim to be an authority on Japan; but from what I’ve read on the subject, the resistance to change is to do with with a broad-based allegiance to a model of state-sponsored capitalism that has worked wonders for the Japanese until the fairly recent impact of globalization with its imperative to keep workforces flexible, to use cheap foreign labor, etc. etc. So while I don’t necessarily disagree with you, what I would say is that by some accounts the Japanese people are themselves broadly invested in what has been the status quo. In other words, by this account, the Japanese people may be the victims of an outmoded system, but they aren’t necessarily the victims of anti-democratic corporate domination. To be honest, I’m not sure whether what I’ve just described is more accurate than your way of seeing the situation in Japan. But I have read such things.

“BTW, the Japanese culture of lifetime employment has been dead for at least seven years.”

Well the book I was citing was written in 1996 and presented that culture as being under threat. So I’m willing to grant you this one :).

“Whether the Japanese corporate culture is “better” or “worse” than the U.S. one is an interesting topic, but it is not the one I was writing about.”

Perhaps not intentionally. But, to be strictly honest, you were contrasting Japanese democracy to American democracy based on your assessment of the influence of corporations. But it’s impossible to separate an evaluation of how democratic a nation is from an understanding of its culture since that culture is going to shape the will of the people that a functional democracy will represent. As I’ve already explained, if it’s true that the Japanese people like their system, then their problem isn’t one of dysfunctional democracy.

I wrote: “Another big US problem is that at the end of the nineteenth century, an era of growing corporate power, corporations were granted the status of “persons” in the eyes of the law, thus giving them the rights and privileges
of human individuals.”

Sua"As an attorney whose entire current practice consists of representing foreign corporations, I can tell you that every developed nations’ legal systems I have deat with consider corporations to be “persons”. Further, my recollection is that this concept developed in England, not the U.S., and well before the end of the 19th Century."

Well, in the US the Supreme Court ruled on this in the 1880s. I’m not sure whether they had an earlier British precedent in mind. I do know that the British didn’t introduce limited liability legislation until the 1850s–prior to which individuals were themselves responsible for business debts, etc. Most of what I know on the debate about corporate “personhood” I learned from hearing Ralph Nader speak on the subject a couple of years ago. He made a very compelling case. I don’t have time now, or I’d check out the Public Citizen website and see if his remarks are available there.

For the time being, I’d be genuinely delighted if you, Sua, (as well as anyone else of course) would respond to Kimstu’s comments about the potential for a developing plutocracy. Her assessment of the problem is much as I would drawn it, only, I should add, much more thorough!

If I have read you rightly, Sua, and you are comfortable with the functionality of US democracy–while I myself am quite concerned–I think it would be really interesting (hijack permitting) to hear your views on the subject.

Sua **
[/QUOTE]

Oh dear! Apologies for having appeared to impersonate Sua by having inadvertently left part of his sig at the bottom of my post.

mssmith, for what it’s worth, today’s Netscape poll has 53% of responding Netscapers giving Bush an “F” for his handling of foreign policy, and another 15% giving him “D” or “C.” As I recall, Netscapers were even harder on his environmental position.

Historical evidence would seem to deny this assertion. In the United States, corporate influence on politics was considerably greater than now during the Gilded Age, but voting rates were higher. And don’t forget that there were significant changes in campaign finance laws in the 1970’s. They didn’t weren’t all that well, hence the push for change now, but they did restrict in many regards the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to make contributions - yet voting rates have gone down since the 70’s.

"2. As I wrote in my earlier post, PR has its own problems, the most significant of which is that individual members of parliaments have no bloc of voters to which they answer. Their continued careers depend on where on the candidate list for their party they are placed. As such, they are beholden to their party’s leadership, not the voters."

This does seem like a legitimate concern. On the other hand, as things stand now in the US, most Democratic and Republican members of congress are more beholden to their party’s leadership than to their constituencies. That is, as fewer people actually vote, and as money becomes increasingly necessary to getting elected, politicians rely upon their party’s machinery to help them get elected and to stay in office.
[/QUOTE]

This is pretty much untrue. Were it the case, votes in the House and Senate would much more be along party lines, like they are in Parliamentary systems. Congressmen and Senators know they can buck their party leadership pretty much with impunity, because the people who determine whether they are going to be re-elected are in their home district or state.

I noted earlier that Britain does not have PR. And yes, in the June 7, 2001 election, the Labour party received 41% of the vote, but has, IIRC, a 179-seat majority (out of, again IIRC, a 650-seat House of Commons), without any coalition with minority parties.

As for Japan, read about the Recruit scandal. Pick up a magazine with good international coverage and every six months you’ll be reading about a major bribery scandal in Japan. It’s a political system wholly inflitrated by bribery and corporate control. Fer Chrissakes, except for one 18-month period, the LDP has governed since the end of WWII. The place is practically a one-party state.

No, I was not. NiceGuyJack presented a hypothesis that the U.S. was the least representative of the republics in the world, due to the influence of corporations and wealthy individuals. I responded by pointing out that, if that is the definition of “representativeness”, there were many places in the world that were less representative. I did not say that I agreed or disagreed with his hypothesis, just that his evidence was fatally flawed.

But it’s impossible to separate an evaluation of how democratic a nation is from an understanding of its culture since that culture is going to shape the will of the people that a functional democracy will represent. As I’ve already explained, if it’s true that the Japanese people like their system, then their problem isn’t one of dysfunctional democracy.

I wrote: “Another big US problem is that at the end of the nineteenth century, an era of growing corporate power, corporations were granted the status of “persons” in the eyes of the law, thus giving them the rights and privileges
of human individuals.”

As for your comments on corporate personhood, your original post stated that this was a U.S. problem, implied that it was unique to the U.S., and was invented in the U.S. While it may be a problem, it is certainly not unique to the U.S., and was not invented in the U.S.

You have read me utterly wrongly. I have serious concerns with the functioning of democracy in the U.S. However, I do not believe that any purpose is served by exaggerating them or claiming that they are unique or worse here than elsewhere.
Fer chrissakes, while we have huge problems caused by money in the U.S. system, at least we don’t have heads of government being put on trial on charges of involvement with the Mafia or ordering the deaths of political opponents, as in the case of Guilio Androetti (sp?) in Italy a few years back. We don’t have cases like Helmut Kohl taking about $1.6 million in secret and illegal donations, refusing to disclose where the money came from, and not being prosecuted and remaining in Parliament. We don’t have situations like Jacque Chirac spending $360,000 in government funds on personal trips in the early 90’s, and not only not be prosecuted, but not being allowed to be questioned about it.
Your position appears to be negative American exceptionalism. America is not unique - as I said, money politics and very often simple bribery is rampant in liberal democracies, and I would submit that, in many nations it is worse than it is here. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fix it, but ludicrous hyperbole such as that in the OP only serves to undermine the real and rational arguments of those pushing for change.
As I often say, lord, protect me from my allies.

Sua

I had written: “I am asserting that the effect of money in politics is to discourage voting…”

Sua:“Historical evidence would seem to deny this assertion. In the United States, corporate influence on politics was considerably greater than now during the Gilded Age, but voting rates were higher.”

But circumstances have changed considerably since the Gilded Age–for example, the introduction of mass media, the suburbanization of the middle-class, the increasing specialization and bureaucratization of policy-making. Granted, these changes have not only exacerbated the effects of big money, they have also affected voting behavior in and of themselves. That said, I never said that “big money” was the only reason behind reduced voter participation; only that it is widely believed by reformers to have that effect. I would add that this is just common sense and I’m surprised you’re even bothering to refute it. Naturally, as people feel that politicians only care about big-money donors, they are less inclined to take their vote seriously.

“And don’t forget that there were significant changes in campaign finance laws in the 1970’s. They didn’t weren’t all that well, hence the push for change now, but they did restrict in many regards the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to make contributions - yet voting rates have gone down since the 70’s.”

And so has the amount of money spent on elections–at rather alarming rates too!

I wrote: “That is, as fewer people actually vote, and as money becomes increasingly necessary to getting elected, politicians rely upon their party’s machinery to help them get elected and to stay in office.”

Sua replied:“This is pretty much untrue. Were it the case, votes in the House and Senate would much more be along party lines, like they are in Parliamentary systems.”

I don’t have exact figures handy, but US News and World Report recently published an article on compliance rates amongst senators. Most ranged between 80 and 100%. So, as I see it, votes in the House and Senate are pretty much on party lines, with a few known exceptions such as conservative Southern Democrats, or socially liberal Republicans from states like New Jersey.

“Congressmen and Senators know they can buck their party leadership pretty much with impunity, because the people who determine whether they are going to be re-elected are in their home district or state.”

Again, I think this is a matter of perspective. How many genuine mavericks can you name? Let’s also not forget that when members are beholden to party machinery, it’s often the state party machinery to which they’re most beholden. On top of which, the measure you have chosen–voting for or against particular legislation–already places us at a great remove from the will of the voters back home. That is, the legislation often has nothing to do with voters interests, or it appears to but has been warped out of shape or loaded up with sneaky riders. So I think we’re really talking about two different levels of the same problem. Taking a very broad view, like that emphasized by Ralph Nader, the two parties are both so beholden to a corporate agenda that whether one votes for or against one’s own party, one is still not representing the voter back home.

I’m going to let go of Japan because I’ve already explained the intent of my original post as best I can. Clearly, I was influenced by a different view of Japan that your view. I don’t necessarily disagree with your view, but I don’t know enough about it to do anything beyond repeat myself at this point.

“As for your comments on corporate personhood, your original post stated that this was a U.S. problem”…

Which it is.

[and]…implied that it was unique to the U.S., and was invented in the U.S.

Actually, that was not my intent. If I implied that, I did so unwittingly, since I don’t in fact know where the concept first appeared. Do you?

Please bear in mind that I was responding to you and to NiceGuy at the same time. It is my belief that US democracy is in worse shape than several European democracies, including Britain’s far from perfect democracy. In my original post I gave a number of reasons why I think US democracy is in poor shape and why corporate influence was a problem here. I didn’t mean to imply that each cause alleged applied exclusively to the US and had no bearing on Europe (or Japan). To be honest, I dislike making these kinds of comparisons anyway as I find that some posters get very caught up in defending the US against what are perceived as invidious comparisons to other countries; while very few posters (myself included) have the means to do a complete comparative analysis. However, I can see how you might have read in my post the implication of such an analysis. I will be very cautious in the future to specify exactly where my comments entail a comparison and where apply exclusively to the US.

Sua:"I have serious concerns with the functioning of democracy in the U.S. However, I do not believe that any purpose is served by exaggerating them or claiming that they are unique or worse here than elsewhere."

I agree that the purpose isn’t served by exaggeration: no purpose ever is. And I did not, and do not believe that problems with democracies are “unique” to the US; hence my “That is true, but” response to several of your original assertions. I do, however, believe that the problem is worse here in the US than in some European countries. And I would be happy to debate that point. Because, if it’s true that the problem is (by some demonstrable standard) “worse” (as voter turnout seems to suggest), then what would be the “purpose” in denying that fact?

Sua: “Your position appears to be negative American exceptionalism.”

Well, I hope I have made clear that my position is far less reductive than you have assumed. I think perhaps you were confusing my response to you with your response to the OP. If you are, as you’ve said, very concerned about American democracy, it may well be that the actual political differences between us are not very great. I have now learned that you are concerned rather than comfortable. And I hope you have now learned that I am not a reductive exceptionalist of any sort.

Sua: "As I often say, lord, protect me from my allies."

Do you really? Well that would perhaps account for your rather inexplicably pugnacious attitude. :wink:

May I suggest that for someone who doesn’t like exaggeration, you seem to do a very good job of exaggerating the unworthiness of those with whom you disagree. Are you familiar with any of Greider’s arguments? Have you read McChesney’s book or glanced at his website? (All of these books, btw, have won prestigious awards in journalism and academia.) Have you ever looked at the websites for Public Citizen or for the Center for Voting and Democracy? Or is all of this voluminous material as deserving of your contempt and dismissiveness as have been my efforts to recapitulate some of what I have learned there?

Perhaps, Sua, when you next come back to this thread you can do as I asked and take a look at Kimstu’s analysis of the makings of a plutocracy.

Given that the current US president was appointed, not elected, I’d say that American democracy is in danger. Ordinary people have no voice in our government. Our Representatives and Senators are sold to lobbyists and corporate CEOS.

I just read back my last point-counterpoint with Sua and I realized that I garbled one of my replies. When Sua
referred to the campaign finance legislation of the '70s, I meant to counter by noting that the amount of money spent on elections has gone up at alarming rates since that time. Apologies…

I was taught that a republic is any government that is not a monarchy. I’ve been hearing this “We’re a republic, not a democracy” idiocy most of my life and it’s getting really tiresome. The two concepts are not mutually axclusive. We’re both, folks, so quit repeating this chestnut of ignorance.

Wow, this thread has been active while I was gone. I see that some have been able to poke holes where my OP has been weakest, but no one seems to have disagreed outright.
I have particularly enjoyed reading the debate between SuaSponte and Mandelstam.
Let me see if I can address some of the issues that have been discussed so far.

Similar postings were made by MEBuckner, SuaSponte and Kimstu.

From the responses it appears as if no one disagrees with the original meaning, but that the definition of the word has changed to incorporate a much broader interpretation of a political system based on elected representation. According to the definitions provided by MEBuckner, I was describing a “direct democracy” Okay, I will have to accept this as fact as most American’s see it. However, the democratic system as an idea was first an idea to describe the procedure of majority rule by the people. All other definitions came after and as such indicate that they were developed based on the idea of direct democracy without being able to reach that particular objective. “Representative democracy” is a contradiction in my opinion. Why not use the word already existing for the type of government system the US is currently enjoying. A republic. It seems to me that the idea behind the true meaning of the word democracy, (that is; an individual has the right and ability to participate in deciding his/her own nations destiny through casting a vote), has become muddled in nationalistic pride. So instead of striving to achieve a true democratic nation, we have changed the definitions of democracy and quietly accepted this as correct. You may feel that you are free enough, you may have accepted that this is the way it is and learned to live with it, you may be content to vote for a dubious professional (you actually pay them to represent you) politician with money as his number one priority to represent you in government, you may have accepted this absurdity as democracy. I have not! I prefer to keep the definitions for democracy as originally intended or else I may become lulled into believing that I am living freely and well represented in a democratic state. And if I am living in an ideal (democratic) society there is obviously no higher political system to elevate to. The point is, calling the US a democracy, doesn’t make it so. Democracy is the next level towards which we want to strive in order to obtain absolute liberty.

I admit my error in the original post where I opined that the “US republic seems to me to be the least representative of the people” My mistake. There are nations claiming to be democratic which clearly have politicians even less interested in the people who elect them and Japan was quite correctly mentioned as an example. Japan is a prime example of a false democracy. The newly elected Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi won popular approval by promising hard economic reforms. Disappointingly, like so many Prime Ministers before him, it turned out to be all talk no action. The Japanese government remains corrupt and rotten to the core. The strange thing is, most Japanese know this, every Japanese I know is fed up with the system, so when Koizumi talked the tough talk, the Japanese people showed some hope, only to have it fizzle once again. Japan is going to remain chronically ill until someone finally has the courage to pick up that scalpel and start cutting for real.

Jack

When a citizen of a democratic republic participates in the election of the legislators or the executive officers of the state, why isn’t that “participating in deciding his/her own nation’s destiny through casting a vote”? I also don’t see what this has to do with “nationalistic pride” It’s not as if the U.S.A. stands alone in having representative democracy, in contrast to some large unfriendly or competing bloc of nations with direct democracy. No modern nation that I am aware of practices direct democracy.

:shrug: In ancient Athens, the epitome of direct democracy, the demos–the people–did not include women or the numerous slaves. We have redefined democracy to be incompatible with the existence of slavery, and to include women as citizens equally with men.

Please explain why this is so. What do you mean by liberty? Individual liberty or individual rights? The rights of minorities–and of the ultimate minority, the minority of one–are very often preserved by the most undemocratic institutions of modern liberal democracies, like the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights is “undemocratic”, in the narrow sense you are using the term. Instead of guaranteeing freedom of speech, the purest form of direct democracy would have everyone take a vote on whether or not your posts or my posts or somebody else’s book or website or magazine should be censored. We would also all vote on whether or not the members of this or that church or sect or “cult” should be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. We would vote on which newspapers should be allowed to continue publishing.

If you don’t mean individual liberty there, then what sort of “liberty” do you mean?

NiceGuy:"…However, the democratic system as an idea was first an idea to describe the procedure of majority rule by the people. … “Representative democracy” is a contradiction in my opinion. Why not use the word already existing for the type of government system the US is currently enjoying. A republic."

Because, as has already been said, not all representative democracies are republics (e.g., Britain). Wording aside (and I really wish, Jack, that you would put it aside once and for all!), there is an honorable tradition of lamenting the necessity of representative vs. direct democracy. If you’re really interested in the subject, you should read John Stuart Mill’s 1862 book entitled (surprise) Representative Government. It’s a careful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of that system written by someone who valued liberty very highly.

“You may feel that you are free enough, you may have accepted that this is the way it is and learned to live with it, you may be content to vote for a dubious professional (you actually pay them to represent you) politician with money as his number one priority to represent you in government, you may have accepted this absurdity as democracy. I have not! I prefer to keep the definitions for democracy as originally intended or else I may become lulled into believing that I am living freely and well represented in a democratic state.”

Jack, I wonder if it’s possible that some of your frustrations aren’t to do with the plutocratic trends that kimstu laid out in her superb post. I mean, let’s face facts. It’s unlikely that all of us Americans are ever going to don our togas and throng to the agora for a lengthy debate and votefest every year. (Kind of like an all-ager Lollapalooza tour…) But that doesn’t mean that the governing system that you’re so disillusioned with couldn’t be a lot better than it is.

“Democracy is the next level towards which we want to strive in order to obtain absolute liberty.”

I have to agree with MEBuckner here that this is heavy on rhetoric without much substance. Let’s put it this way: nothing is stopping me from rushing down to my state capital or to Washington DC to visit my local and national representatives. I’m free to write them letters, phone their offices, send them e-mails, and watch them while they represent me. I can criticize them freely on this message board, and, if I try hard enough, maybe even get some local paper to print a letter in which I rake them over the coals. So, as I see it, the problem isn’t my lack of liberty. I’ve got plenty of liberty. Rather, as Kimstu’s post makes clear, the problem is rather more complex than that.

Kimstu, I fear the hijack attempt may fizzle. It may be time for one of us to fly the plane to Cuba ourselves ;). If none here are interested in debating plutocracy, would you like me to repost your comments in a separate thread?

Or perhaps it’s not too late. Kimstu posed some mighty fine questions: how plutocratic have we become? Where might we cross the line? Or, to be somewhat more accommodating to the OP, if we could reverse some of these plutocratic trends could we establish a representative democracy that was more genuinely participatory?

200+ Years ago, this was probably the best and closest we could get to being a true democracy. The people of a community elected an individual to represent their concerns and sent him off on horse back to the national congress. Technology has evolved considerably since then and it is now not impossible to have individuals cast votes through phone, fax, email or even snail mail. Unfortunately, the government has not evolved with the technology and we remain in a political system designed for a pre-industrial, rural era.

True, the US is not the only nation with representative democracy, but the Americans are the only people I know who bring up democracy when expressing nationalistic pride. The point I was trying to make is how important the achievement of democracy is for the average American and how the American citizen seems to have been hoodwinked into believing that the current political system is truly democratic when in fact the definition has changed. As for the comment about there being no modern nation that practice direct democracy, I agree and I should have mentioned that in my OP.

In ancient Athens, women and slaves were the possessions of the citizens (men). Obviously it was flawed, but you can’t really compare what was the norm in ancient Athens with what we consider the norm today. We abolished slavery and have accepted women as equals. So much the better, but I think this is more of a social issue rather than political.

I definitely mean individual liberty here.

I can see the danger to minorities here, but I am not questioning the Bill of Rights, nor am I questioning the Supreme Court. In the case of minorities, I think it’s sad that race and ethnicity is such a major issue in our society. It should not be and individual rights must go beyond racial boundaries. The true democratic nation is the rights of the citizens of said nation to rule itself, regardless of all color and ethnic backgrounds as well as religious beliefs. Again, I think this is more of a social issue, per the previous comparison with Ancient Athens and probably belongs as a separate topic on another thread.

Censorship implies someone in authority is trying to withhold information from the populace. To censor something through a true democratic vote is pointless, as you need to see and judge whether something should be censored before casting a vote.

Many notions of representative democracy rely on the notion of experienced representatives acting in the best interests of the nation as whole (Burkean representation), regardless of the will of the majority or any vocal minority. Of course, in practice it is questionable how effectively this occurs in modern representative democracies.

However, I do not have faith that the majority of the general population (myself included) have the time, the inclination or the access to full and impartial information required to effectively make political and economic decisions. In my own situation, I see this particularly with regard to Britain’s membership of the European Union. Too many people seem to hold very irrational opinions (‘I don’t like the French’ or ‘The Germans just want to take over the sneaky way’) and I do not want the future of my country decided by people making decisions on these grounds.

I admit this opinion is based on a lot of generalisation (and probably no small measure of arrogance), but I do not see a workable direct democracy without radical changes in education and attitude, and I do not see that this is possible in the short term. In an ideal world everyone would voluntarily get involved in decision-making, and everyone would make the best decision for their nation as a whole (rather than their self-interest). At present, though, I feel that a flawed system of representative democracy is a more stable option that a flawed implementation of direct democracy.

Let me just point out that I am not in favor of the British system either. I don’t think I compared Britain in my original post and I certainly find it absurd that the British are clinging to a system where an individual by no other means than to have been born becomes the Head of State. Not to be out done, the Canadians and Australians also considers the same individual living thousands of miles away to represent them as their Head of State. I can’t figure that one out at all. It seems so out dated and surely belong in the history books. I thank you for the reading tip. I will check Amazon for availability, sounds like an interesting read. Out of curiosity, did Mills accept the situation as inevitable based on the time he wrote the book? As I have pointed out previously, the system should reflect the times we live in. I don’t necessarily think that an absolute direct democracy may be possible today, but we should be as close to it as possible. That it works can be shown by studying the Swiss and the plebiscites performed there.

Agreed, I am nitpicking on definitions and moving towards my opinions of what a true democracy is, when in fact I should be more concerned over the true problem. I think I did discuss some of that in the second part of the OP, and kimstu did a marvelous job in more accurately identifying the problem.

Once again, I agree. I think the second half of my post defined the problem at hand and Kimstu added clarity to that argument and even brought up a new rather alarming opinion that we may be moving away from democracy (whatever the definition) all together. Perhaps the difference is, that I believe we are already there.

Good questions, I think my opinions have already been expressed, would be interested to see other people’s opinions.

Um, not necessarily. Demosthenes16478@aol.com logs on to the eAgora and says “Everyone, watch out! The evil Straight Dopers are infecting our society! If we allow Zottiism to run rampant, all our social institutions will rot and decay from within! It will lead to moral and spiritual anarchy! We must–think of the children!–and ban all Zottiist propaganda immediately!” Then The People–or half of the people plus one, at any rate–say “Oh, no! Moral and spiritual anarchy! Not–Not the children!” and they vote to have all the Zottiist subversives thrown in jail or officially ostracized and banished to the Lunar mining colonies or whatever[sup]1[/sup]. There are lots of examples of people wanting to censor stuff they haven’t bothered to read or watch. “I don’t have to watch The Last Temptation of Christ to know that any movie which features Jesus in a bisexual orgy with Mary Magdalene and the Twelve Apostles–[sub][sup]or, uh, whatever it was–I heard it was something real bad[/sup][/sub]–is nothing but filth! I have no intentions of watching that trash! We should just ban it immediately!” “The Satanic Verses is insulting to the Prophet and blasphemes against Islam! Naturally, no true Muslim would read such a thing! Ban it now!”

[sup]1[/sup]Of course, now that I think of it, that might be kind of neat. Luna City, here I come!

Is it even possible to tear the average american away from Ricki Lake or some “Real World” television program long enough to attempt instruction in how our system works? Apparently it’s not possible to get more than half the eligible citizens to even vote in our elections. On second thought, however, maybe that’s a Good Thing ™

I recall staring at the “idiot box” in amazement during the last presidential election while our Talking Heads, with the patience of a Kindergarten Teacher, explained to the American People that we have an interesting constitutional oddity called the Electoral College. This was explained, with a straight face, as if it were some Big Secret or Revealed Knowledge, passed down from the heavens. I couldn’t believe it, till I heard the whining and crying of “It’s not Fair!! It’s not Fair!!”

Tyranny of the Majority aka “Mob Rule” or “Democracy” is an extremely ill advised idea. No points for asking “why?” either…

Okay so I was being idealistic. Obviously a lot of work to be done to come up with a system which does not infringe on individual liberties.

It is that very apathy of the American people that is moving us from a somewhat democratic (Okay, I’ve changed my tune a little) to plutocratic (as described by Kimstu) rule. If people don’t care, they will be taken advantage of.

Actually, I would like to know why you think this. First, Mob rule brings to mind villagers with pitch forks and pick axes marching to Frankenstein’s castle. It also implies ignorance of the masses. If you are saying that American’s are too ignorant to rule themselves, perhaps you make a good point, and more money should be put into education.
Unfortunately, the current government apparently does not believe that education is a major concern. If I were truly paranoid, I would see this as a conspiracy of the ruling elite to keep the people ignorant. Yet you can’t help but wonder…Hmmm

A Netscape poll is not a valid poll. The simple fact that it is on the Internet means that the data will be skewed.

  1. The Internet is not a representitive cross section of America.

  2. In a voluntary poll, people tend to respond only if they feel strongly against something. That also skews the data.

I was speaking in generalities, but I’ll try. Left up to the American people, we would push for a clean environment, low unemployment, low crime, low taxes, perfect roads, etc. The problem is that these goals often conflict with each other. When unemployment is low, inflation rises. Fixing roads and policing the streets cost money, which means higher taxes.

The dificult task of the politicians is to figure out which issues are most important to the majority of 250 million Americans, each with their own interests and agendas.
Take Kyoto for example. Bush didn’t pull out of the conference because he hates the environment. He believes that the environmental restrictions will place an unneccessary burden on big business. That burden translates to higher prices, decreased productivity, and higher unemployment. And you know the American people don’t want that.

IMHO, the role of the president is to do what is best for the country, not to win a popularity contest.