Author Topic: Democracy  (Read 857 times)

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Democracy
« on: November 11, 2003, 03:17:48 PM »
I will be the first to admit that democracy has its uses, especially if it is shown its proper place - but the majority of americans seem to be positively enamored with that concept.

de·moc·ra·cy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


 So it is very surprising how little though and effort americans apply towards improving and modernising their democratic system to suit the modern conditions. That is rife with negative consequences in the operation of american society.
 Democracy is all about representation first and majority second. After all one cannot participate in a majority if one is not represented at all.

 In many respects the american system deteriorated to the state where most people are often not represented and the wishes of majority are ignored, so it can hardly be called a working democracy, whatever the label. The main culprit that I see is the system of elections that was created for conditions very different from those we leave now. All aspects of the state underwent drastic changes except the election system principles and vioting methods.

 1. Simple issues.

 Simple issues concern deciding on a question where there is a limited number of choices (war/peace) or electing a single representative liek a president. Electing a congressman was a single issue once when Congress did very little, had little influence on citizens' lives and an electional district was small.

 Current voting system frequently results in election of a candidate that is clearly preferred to another candidate by a majority of voters - so called electoral paradox. People try to avoid its worst consequences by strategic voting - where they are forced to vote to prevent the most negative outcome rather than to enact the most desirable one. In such cases the majority's will is ignored and minorities get inordinate weight in deciding the issues.

 For example, most people who voted for Nader would support Gore rather than Bush. The majority of the people would support Gore rather than Bush, so the voting mechanism does not allow them to express their preferences.
 The mechanism where by voting your concience one ensures victory of the least desirable candidate is the cause why the US has a two-party system with huge divisions, wild destabilising swings when the power changes hands and the lack of new ideas.

 A Condorsett method of voting would easily prevent that. With Condorsett method a voter would not select one candidate but rank all candidates:
 1. Nader
 2. Gore
 3. Bush
 There would never be a situation that a candidate ranked lower than another candidate by majority of voters would win.

 So a voter could indicate his/her preference to any party without giving the election away to the undesirable candidate. One can vote for libertarian over republican but still rank republican higher than a democrat.

 Condorsett method was hard to implement 200 years ago but today it would be easy.

 2. Complex issues and ongoing policy.

 In cases a legislative body is elected that conducts complex policies, the interests of the society would be better served if compromise was reached rather than completely ignore the votes of those who's candidates lost. As a resident of New York, my vote is always wasted in election for Congress. I get zero representation. That removes safeguards on abuse of power by majority untill it gets so bad that it causes an electoral revolt.
 Many people are not content with either party but they usually have no chance to elect a different candidate.

 The congress now is not what it was in 1787. A much better representation for all the views present in a population would be a parliamentary system - where people would vote for a party lists. Instead of voting for a candidate that matches one's views closest on some issues, one could vote for a party that matches your view on all the issues.
 The population would be much better represented. There would not be obvious majority and swings of power and compromise decisions would be reached, providing for greater stability.

 For instance, I'd say that at least 10% of the population would vote libertarian. Out of those 4% would vote atheist libertatian (that is just a silly example, religion does not matter for libertarian poilitics). And there would be only 2% of libertarians supporting intellectual property concept. Guess what, if they had their own libertarian atheist no-I-property party, they would still get 9! representatives in Congress, among the total of 43 libertarian representatives.
 Certainly even 43 congressman voting as a block would not control the outcome, but at least the people would get their idias heard on the floor of congress and the major parties would have to make alliances and compromises with smaller parties to achieve majority.
 The decisions would be much more of a compromise nature and voted by a greater share of representative rather than totally contrary to 49% and subject to retaliation and overturining at the next elections.

 With a parliamentary system a citizen would have to be in 0.25% minority in order to get no representation in the Congress rather than 49% like it is now.

 There would be much less corruption and vote-buying in politics with citizens voting their concience and being interested in issues rather than electing from two equally unliked candidates. Such voters would be much more difficult to affect with trowing money at the campaign.

 What do you think?

 To foresee one objection. Some will say that many countries have parliamentary system and they are not doing noticeably greater. To which I reply - the unlimited democracy has huge inherent deficiencies, especially in a countries with more socialist traditions. Nevertheless as long as we are sticking with it, some methods are better than others. They could do worse with our system and we could do better with theirs.

 miko

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
Democracy
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2003, 05:29:43 PM »
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner!

the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy it is a representative republic

which is 2 wolves and one well armed sheep voting on whats for dinner.
It's been said we have three brains, one cobbled on top of the next. The stem is first, the reptilian brain; then the mammalian cerebellum; finally the over developed cerebral cortex.  They don't work together in awfully good harmony - hence ax murders, mobs, and socialism.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Democracy
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2003, 10:02:36 PM »
miko is an excellant example of what happens when a person tries to over analyze a subject, their brain turns to mush.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Democracy
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2003, 12:39:28 AM »
miko, I think your numbers only work out, regarding liberatrians and a parlimentary system, if there are a disproportianate number of libertarians in a given electorl riding.

If 10% of the electorate are libertarian, and they are spread out evenly over the entire country, then they will never get any representation, as long as another party gets 10% plus 1 votes.  

And that is the problem with the parlimentary system up here.

For examply,

Party A: Gets 33% of the vote.
Party B: Gets 33% of the vote.
Party C: Gets 34% of the vote.

Party C wins the riding, but they certainly don't represent the majority.  This is issue is enjoying an increase in debate up here.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Democracy
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2003, 02:38:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes Thrawn, Pary C gets to form a government, however they do not have the majority in you Parliament and have to cooperate with Party A and B to form policy and to get votes for resolutions, right?


Not in my senario.

In my senario, each riding (say 100 ridings in total) has the same voter distribution.

If each of the 100 ridings votes 33% for A, 33% for B, and 34% for C.  Then each riding will ectect the member of Party C to represent them.All 100 representitives will be from Party C.  There will be no opposition in government even though 66% of the total electorate didn't want them to form the government.  

The numbers can get worse if you add more potential representitives.  On my last federal election ballet I had no less then 10 possible representives.

Offline Duedel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
Democracy
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2003, 02:53:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by wrag
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner!

the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy it is a representative republic

which is 2 wolves and one well armed sheep voting on whats for dinner.


WRONG the U.S.A. is a plutocracy.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Democracy
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2003, 04:06:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Strange, you must have a different Parliamentary system than us. Here every party gets a certain number of seats in the parliament dependent on how many votes they get.


It does sound different.  Our's is based of the British parlimentary system.  I like the sound of your's though.  

Do the seats in your parliment represent actual districts?

Offline CyranoAH

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Democracy
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2003, 04:55:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Strange, you must have a different Parliamentary system than us. Here every party gets a certain number of seats in the parliament dependent on how many votes they get.


Works the same way in Spain.

Daniel

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Democracy
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2003, 09:18:44 AM »
wrag: the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy it is a representative republic

 It's like saying that Ford' engine is not an internal combustion engine but a 4-cycle 8-cylinder gasoline engine.
 Democracy is a principle of the government organisation as opposed to autocracy. A representative republic is a form of a democratic government.


john9001: miko is an excellant example of what happens when a person tries to over analyze a subject, their brain turns to mush.

 Exellent example of militant ignorance.


Thrawn: If 10% of the electorate are libertarian, and they are spread out evenly over the entire country, then they will never get any representation, as long as another party gets 10% plus 1 votes.

 If the people were allowed to vote for nationwide party lists, the 10% electorate would get to appoint 10% of Congressman. I am not sure what you mean by riding but if it's something like our voting district, there obviously have to be one for the whole country for an election into the country legislative branch.
 
 In your example, Party C will get the most congressmen but the other parties would be represented proportionately to the number of their voters.
 Since the parties do not form the government here but rather the president is voted for in a separate election, the Party C would not even get to create a government.


Duedel: WRONG the U.S.A. is a plutocracy.

 Right. Partly for the reasons described above.

 miko

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Democracy
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2003, 10:32:46 AM »
Troll, troll, troll your post,
Gently down the feed.
Merrily, merrily troll along,
A life is what you need.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Democracy
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2003, 11:07:45 AM »
GScholz, thank you for the information.  In return.  :)

"Canada was established as an independent democracy, the Fathers of Confederation created a parliamentary system of government that retained its ties to Britain by preserving its sovereign as Canada's constitutional head of state. Thus, formal executive authority is vested in Queen Elizabeth II and exercised at all times by her Canadian representative in Canada, the Governor General, except when the monarch is in Canada.

But apart from extraordinary circumstances, the Governor General exercises all powers of the office on the advice of the federal cabinet. This council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, represent the government that holds power.

Though the federal cabinet is responsible for most legislation - with the sole power to prepare and introduce bills providing for the expenditure of public money or imposing taxes - all laws must first pass Canada's bicameral Parliament located in the country's capital city, Ottawa.

 
Legislation is first introduced to the 301-seat House of Commons, where Members of Parliament represent ridings distributed across Canada based on population and are elected by people living in those constituencies. Ordinarily the political party that elects the most Members of Parliament (MPs) to the Commons forms the federal government with the winning party's leader becoming Prime Minister. However, if the sitting government before an election does not win a majority of seats, it can seek a mandate by forming alliances with other parties.

Once the Commons passes a bill, the legislation proceeds to the Senate, also known as the Upper House, which has all the powers of the House of Commons except that of initiating financial legislation. The Senate usually consists of 105 members from across Canada appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Ontario and Québec each have 24 senators as do the Maritime provinces (10 each from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and four from Prince Edward Island) and the Western provinces (six each from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia). Newfoundland has six senators, while the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have one senator apiece. While senators must be at least 30 years of age to serve in office, they must also retire once they reach the age of 75.

In order for a bill to become a law, it must pass first, second and third readings in both the House of Commons and the Senate before receiving Royal Assent in the Senate from the Governor General or a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The highest court in the land, Canada's Ottawa-based Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and eight puisne, or ranked-after, judges appointed by the federal Cabinet. By law, three of the judges must come from Quebec, which has its legal system based in civil law derived from France's Code Napoléon. By tradition, three of the Supreme Court justices come from Ontario, two from Western Canada and one from an Atlantic province where common law is practiced.

In addition to granting leave and hearing cases appealed to it when it involves a matter of public importance or raises an important question of law, the Supreme Court can also consider questions of law or fact concerning the Constitution and provide an opinion to a federal or provincial Cabinet. Canada is the only country in the common-law world where the highest court has this so-called reference jurisdiction."



miko, it appears that you are advocating a parlimentary system more like Norway's, than Canada's.  And yes, it sounds like a riding is more or less the same as a voting district.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Democracy
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2003, 01:48:45 AM »
But wasn't british system partialy coming from viking tradition ?