Democracy, even a small one, doesn't work if people are stupid.
I think we just hit the high point of all the political threads in this forum. Everything we say here is speculative idealism. In reality, it appears that the majority of people are, indeed, stupid. Democracy = fail. Unfortunately it seems to be the best we've got at the moment.
Unfortunately it seems to be the best we've got at the moment.
Actually, I think we can do better. At the very least if the US had a crazy parliament system, like many other countries, they wouldn't be able to get anything done, and there would be less damage done.
There are two other ways we can do better.
One would be to return to states electing senators instead of people directly electing them.
Two would be to return the electoral college to its original intent. Part of the purpose of the electoral college was to act as a stupidity filter. Even the founding fathers knew people were dumb as bricks. In those days, most people couldn't even read or write, let alone make a good foreign policy decision. If you read the constitution, we citizens aren't even supposed to think about potential presidential candidates. We are supposed to elect an elector, someone local, who goes to Washington and decides. The electors are all supposed to meet at the electoral college and nominate and decide on a person on their own.
I'm betting that the majority of the benefits of our system are lost on you because we don't hear about them. We hear about the outrageous and the negative a lot more. Our system is flawed, but there are benefits to it. I'm not saying the current way things are running is working well, but in GENERAL the system has brought about many good things as well. If they never got anything done, remember that that would mean the good as well as the bad.
One would be to return to states electing senators instead of people directly electing them.
Sorry Scott, this is not a good thing, Why don't you try and explain why this would actually improve anything. In fact this encourages the growth of political machines in my opinion. This would prevent a non-machine candidate from being able to rise above the mess. Even though it's rare today for that to happen Bernie Sanders would not be elected otherwise...
As for the Electoral College, I'm sorry but electing someone local to decide who is going to be president would devolve into the same thing we are dealing with today, except instead of two national candidates we would have a bunch of local dudes trying to get us to give them the ability to vote for us.. I don't see how this actually helps the situation.
Sorry Scott, this is not a good thing, Why don't you try and explain why this would actually improve anything. In fact this encourages the growth of political machines in my opinion. This would prevent a non-machine candidate from being able to rise above the mess. Even though it's rare today for that to happen Bernie Sanders would not be elected otherwise...
The reason it would help is because Senators would actually change, even if they were all from the big two parties. Right now once you are senator, you're basically locked in forever because name recognition matters more than anything. Six years is plenty of time to build up lots of name recognition. If the state legislature picked the senators, they would actually change. Incumbents wouldn't be locked in. Senators could get away with less stupid shit because they would be directly beholden to state legislators who actually pay attention to what's going on. Basically the state works as a stupidity filter for senators the same way the electoral college works as a stupidity filter.
The reason that the electoral college would work better is one I think that your democratic brain can accept. If the electoral college worked as designed, Al Gore would have been president. Instead of Ralph Nader spoiling it for Gore, you would have had green party electors in Washington, free to make any decision they pleased. What do you think would have happened? Due to its very nature, the electoral college would be the one last bastion of actual debate and deliberation in our government. You will also be much more familiar and intimate with the people you are picking as electors, and all of this media circus bullshit will disappear. There will be no national candidates to harass for 8 months.
The reason it would help is because Senators would actually change, even if they were all from the big two parties. Right now once you are senator, you're basically locked in forever because name recognition matters more than anything. Six years is plenty of time to build up lots of name recognition. If the state legislature picked the senators, they would actually change. Incumbents wouldn't be locked in. Senators could get away with less stupid shit because they would be directly beholden to state legislators who actually pay attention to what's going on. Basically the state works as a stupidity filter for senators the same way the electoral college works as a stupidity filter.
Rick Santorum I guess it's because I come from a state where we actually kick our senators out. Who said the state legislature would change who is senator, if a state legislature did not change party they would have no reason to switch out their senator, if their state legislature did change parties they would still have to wait till the term was up to choose a different senator and if this change occurred in the state election there is a good chance in a general election they would boot the senator out just the same. I think you believe that State legislatures change hands more often, they have the same problem as the Senate and the like only it's even more inside baseball.
As for the electoral college working the way you want it. Nadar would NEVER get a electoral vote anyhow. He didn't get nearly enough votes in any state to have any effect on how the electoral votes would have been given out. Are you suggesting that the electoral college select the candidates for president as well as voting them in? So Instead of the media circus around 2 candidates we would have a ton of stories about individual electoral college races in a few states that have a changing demographic.... You would still be dealing with the same B.S.
Are you suggesting that the electoral college select the candidates for president as well as voting them in?
Um, yeah. That's sort of how it worked. A bunch of people get together and decide. When someone is nominated, they ask that person if they accept their nomation. Read the constitution. It's spelled out fairly plainly.
Um, yeah. That's sort of how it worked. A bunch of people get together and decide. When someone is nominated, they ask that person if they accept their nomation. Read the constitution. It's spelled out fairly plainly.
I think your misrepresenting how this process actually works. Which is the parties would still nominate a candidates for office, and the electoral college would still choose from that list. Thus you still "vote" for your presidential choice by voting for the electoral college representative that will place your vote. So now you have to figure out when you elect an elector who they will vote for (which means they will have to pledge who they will vote for ahead of time). Which in the end would be the same process. Candidates would still target you, except now they would call on you to vote for the people running for to be elector... I don't really see how this changes anything.
Democracy is not perfect. There is no doubt. However, neither is any other system. Given the choice, I will always opt for democracy. Power will always exist. When fewer and fewer people hold the power, bad things will happen. The problem with Scott's model is that it assumes that the players will be acting in the interest of the country, and not their own self interest. History suggests otherwise.
The problem with Scott's model is that it assumes that the players will be acting in the interest of the country, and not their own self interest. History suggests otherwise.
It's mechanism design. People always act in their own self interest. You just change the system so that your own self interest is the interest of the country.
Actually, you're not supposed to vote for your members of the electoral college according to whom they will sponsor for president. You're supposed to pick them based on intelligence, values, competence, and all of the rest of the stuff you'd want in someone who is leading your government. The idea is that they are more familiar with the field of knowledge needed for government stuff, and you trust them to make the right choice based on that knowledge. This is a better system for electing a president ASSUMING the college votes in the interest of their constituents, which theoretically should serve their own self-interest. This is the original solution to the "People are stupid" problem...take the decision out of the hands of the stupid people.
Unfortunately, the previous measures that were put in place to restrict voting to the educated have been removed. I do NOT advocate discrimination based on gender or race. However, I do believe you should have to pass a basic competency test in order to register to vote. It could be adapted to meet specific needs just like the SAT or EOG tests. People argue that everyone has the right to vote, no matter how educated they are, but the uneducated really don't seem to know what would be good for us. If people are voting based on things like name recognition, how does that serve the public interest? It doesn't. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to do that. Bring back the education requirements...it's absolutely free for someone to attend K-12th school in our country. May not be the best school system, but you can get a decent education. Can't stay in school to get your diploma? Get a GED. Again, not that hard. If you can't even do that, then I don't want you messing up my government.
People argue that everyone has the right to vote, no matter how educated they are, but the uneducated really don't seem to know what would be good for us.
The problem isn't that the uneducated don't know what's good for "us" it's that they don't know what's good for themselves. A left leaning government, in theory, has higher taxes, and provides more services. Whether you personally lean left or right, you must agree that a left leaning government benefits poor people. Many surveys have been conducted where they ask people for their stances on the issues. On almost every issue, especially health care, people will align with the on-paper platform of the democratic party. Yet, if you ask these people who they are voting for, they continually and repeatedly elect candidates that disagree with them on the issues. Even if you like that, because you are right-wing minded, you can't disagree that people voting against their best interests is bad.
The foundation of democracy depends on people being educated and informed enough to make a good decision. Even though a representative form of government seems fair, if the people are deluded or ignorant, you are electing your government based on lies and random chance. From a purely political science perspective, electing leadership based on chance and lies is not a solid foundation upon which to make decisions for a society.
The problem isn't that the uneducated don't know what's good for "us" it's that they don't know what's good for themselves. A left leaning government, in theory, has higher taxes, and provides more services. Whether you personally lean left or right, you must agree that a left leaning government benefits poor people.
How does creating dependency on government benefit the people? It is to government's benefit that more people are dependent upon it and not the opposite.
How does creating dependency on government benefit the people? It is to government's benefit that more people are dependent upon it and not the opposite.
How can you be independent if you are uneducated? How can you be educated if the government doesn't get enough money to pay for schools, and private schools are only available to the rich people? I'm all for personal responsibility and being independent, but it is not possible for all people in our current situation.
What I'm saying is that these people are incapable of being independent. They lack the education and the resources. They aren't even educated enough to know which candidate agrees with them on the issues. Therefore, they shouldn't be voting.
How does creating dependency on government benefit the people? It is to government's benefit that more people are dependent upon it and not the opposite.
The voter should vote for their own best interests. Poor people should vote for more help from the government. Rich people should vote for less tax from the government. Then, with proper proportional representation, a government is formed that addresses the needs in balance.
The government shouldn't do anything in the best interests of the government, it should do things in the best interests of the people who voted for it.
In the US, as I see it, the rich people have convinced the poor people to vote in the best interests of the rich people.
Steve, I think you underestimate how dependent we already are on the government. Besides, theoretically if something benefits the government, then it should also benefit the people they govern. We need to stop looking at our government as some outside entity that is us-or-them. You can't just say that something is either going to benefit the govt or benefit the people but never both. The government IS part of the people. Hence the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in the Gettysburg Address.
Steve, I think you underestimate how dependent we already are on the government. Besides, theoretically if something benefits the government, then it should also benefit the people they govern. We need to stop looking at our government as some outside entity that is us-or-them. You can't just say that something is either going to benefit the govt or benefit the people but never both. The government IS part of the people. Hence the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in the Gettysburg Address.
Exactly. Being dependent on the government means you are dependent on other people. If you really want everyone to be independent, then you don't want society. If you were totally independent, you would defend your own land, fight your own fires, grow your own food, etc. The reason we have a government is to manage our necessary dependence on each other. Because of mismanagement we are in a situation where many people are incapable of functioning properly within the societal structure.
You say you don't want the government to help these people. Well, the government is you. That means you don't want to help these people. You want those without, or with inadequate, education to remain uneducated. That lack of education precludes them being able to do anything else for themselves.
You say you don't want the government to help these people. Well, the government is you. That means you don't want to help these people. You want those without, or with inadequate, education to remain uneducated. That lack of education precludes them being able to do anything else for themselves.
No. I'm a "teach a man to fish" kind of person.
Yes, there are some things we have to be dependent on government for and there are others that we do not. Where do you draw the line?
Wiping your own ass is clearly on the side of "do it yourself" while insuring foreign armies do not invade us is clearly on the "government do" list.
The original statement I took issue is:
The problem isn't that the uneducated don't know what's good for "us" it's that they don't know what's good for themselves. A left leaning government, in theory, has higher taxes, and provides more services. Whether you personally lean left or right, you must agree that a left leaning government benefits poor people.
I can not agree with this statement unless you clearly define where services/benefits end.
Ok, Steve, let me make another analogy here for you.
Let's say you have an issue to vote on. Not a candidate, an issue. One of those yes/no questions. Let's say you poll everyone in town, and ask them their opinion on the issue. Let's say 75% of the town is in favor, so they want to vote yes. 25% of the town says they are not in favor, so they vote no.
The next day, you get 100% voter turnout. Everyone in town comes to vote. 30% of the town votes yes and 70% of the town votes no.
At the exit poll you ask people again, and you get the original 75% / 25% result.
Democracy is built on the principle that the government acts according to the will of the people. The people express their will via the vote. Here we have a situation where the will of the people is not expressed by the vote because the people are so uneducated they are incapable of expressing their will. Thus, we have a government that is supposed to act according to the will of the people, instead acting against the will of the people.
It doesn't matter what issue or candidate we are talking about. This is purely a matter of political science. Allowing people to vote who are too uneducated to vote is a serious problem. People who clearly have one stance on the issues, and voting for the candidate who does not agree with them on the issues, is a serious problem. It is damaging to the fundamental principles of our form of government.
If you want democracy, you want a government that derives its power from the will of the people. If you have a democracy in a country of uneducated people, then the government no longer derives its power from the will of the people. Instead, the government derives its power from the power to manipulate the uneducated masses. The media you hate so much holds all the power as opposed to the people voting.
And he's suggesting that Palin's experience is much better than his. Look at what he said. "We've had an awful lot of small-town mayors at the Democratic Convention, I assure you," Obama said. "I meet them all the time. The mayors have some of the toughest jobs in the country because that's where the rubber hits the road. You know, we yak in the Senate.
"Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women."
What's with this story? So he his high paying guys are generally the men, he hired them for their experience I'm sure....
What's with this story? So he his high paying guys are generally the men, he hired them for their experience I'm sure....
McCain's highest paid employees are women. Interesting... Are you implying that women aren't experienced enough to do these jobs? I should hope not! McCain certainly did not use that excuse! Under-representation of women is just as bad as pay inequality.
I'm starting to think that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two parties. We pretend that there is, but there isn't. The Democrats have funded Bush's war. That alone makes me disgusted at both parties.
What's with this story? So he his high paying guys are generally the men, he hired them for their experience I'm sure....
McCain's highest paid employees are women. Interesting... Are you implying that women aren't experienced enough to do these jobs? I should hope not! McCain certainly did not use that excuse! Under-representation of women is just as bad as pay inequality.
I'm starting to think that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two parties. We pretend that there is, but there isn't. The Democrats have funded Bush's war. That alone makes me disgusted at both parties.
I'm not implying anything of the sort, I'm implying when you have a small sample size as the 5 top empolyees there can be any reason for this. Most likely nothing to do with gender.
Uhm...7 to 13 isn't a huge disparity. Take a look at the ratio of women to men in the field before you go saying there is an unfair ratio in the workplace. It's not fair to decry something until you have the context. I'd venture that 35% of his top staff being women is pretty good compared to the field in general.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the ratio of qualified men is much higher than qualified women - which you have to assume to defend Obama. McCain has more women in top positions. Given the ratio, that speaks even more highly of McCain.
The ratio argument is a loser.
It could be that the sample size is too small - that's a very valid defense.
Comments
There are two other ways we can do better.
One would be to return to states electing senators instead of people directly electing them.
Two would be to return the electoral college to its original intent. Part of the purpose of the electoral college was to act as a stupidity filter. Even the founding fathers knew people were dumb as bricks. In those days, most people couldn't even read or write, let alone make a good foreign policy decision. If you read the constitution, we citizens aren't even supposed to think about potential presidential candidates. We are supposed to elect an elector, someone local, who goes to Washington and decides. The electors are all supposed to meet at the electoral college and nominate and decide on a person on their own.
Small changes like that can go a long way.
As for the Electoral College, I'm sorry but electing someone local to decide who is going to be president would devolve into the same thing we are dealing with today, except instead of two national candidates we would have a bunch of local dudes trying to get us to give them the ability to vote for us.. I don't see how this actually helps the situation.
The reason that the electoral college would work better is one I think that your democratic brain can accept. If the electoral college worked as designed, Al Gore would have been president. Instead of Ralph Nader spoiling it for Gore, you would have had green party electors in Washington, free to make any decision they pleased. What do you think would have happened? Due to its very nature, the electoral college would be the one last bastion of actual debate and deliberation in our government. You will also be much more familiar and intimate with the people you are picking as electors, and all of this media circus bullshit will disappear. There will be no national candidates to harass for 8 months.
As for the electoral college working the way you want it. Nadar would NEVER get a electoral vote anyhow. He didn't get nearly enough votes in any state to have any effect on how the electoral votes would have been given out. Are you suggesting that the electoral college select the candidates for president as well as voting them in? So Instead of the media circus around 2 candidates we would have a ton of stories about individual electoral college races in a few states that have a changing demographic.... You would still be dealing with the same B.S.
Unfortunately, the previous measures that were put in place to restrict voting to the educated have been removed. I do NOT advocate discrimination based on gender or race. However, I do believe you should have to pass a basic competency test in order to register to vote. It could be adapted to meet specific needs just like the SAT or EOG tests. People argue that everyone has the right to vote, no matter how educated they are, but the uneducated really don't seem to know what would be good for us. If people are voting based on things like name recognition, how does that serve the public interest? It doesn't. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to do that. Bring back the education requirements...it's absolutely free for someone to attend K-12th school in our country. May not be the best school system, but you can get a decent education. Can't stay in school to get your diploma? Get a GED. Again, not that hard. If you can't even do that, then I don't want you messing up my government.
The foundation of democracy depends on people being educated and informed enough to make a good decision. Even though a representative form of government seems fair, if the people are deluded or ignorant, you are electing your government based on lies and random chance. From a purely political science perspective, electing leadership based on chance and lies is not a solid foundation upon which to make decisions for a society.
What I'm saying is that these people are incapable of being independent. They lack the education and the resources. They aren't even educated enough to know which candidate agrees with them on the issues. Therefore, they shouldn't be voting.
The government shouldn't do anything in the best interests of the government, it should do things in the best interests of the people who voted for it.
In the US, as I see it, the rich people have convinced the poor people to vote in the best interests of the rich people.
You say you don't want the government to help these people. Well, the government is you. That means you don't want to help these people. You want those without, or with inadequate, education to remain uneducated. That lack of education precludes them being able to do anything else for themselves.
Yes, there are some things we have to be dependent on government for and there are others that we do not. Where do you draw the line?
Wiping your own ass is clearly on the side of "do it yourself" while insuring foreign armies do not invade us is clearly on the "government do" list.
The original statement I took issue is: I can not agree with this statement unless you clearly define where services/benefits end.
Let's say you have an issue to vote on. Not a candidate, an issue. One of those yes/no questions. Let's say you poll everyone in town, and ask them their opinion on the issue. Let's say 75% of the town is in favor, so they want to vote yes. 25% of the town says they are not in favor, so they vote no.
The next day, you get 100% voter turnout. Everyone in town comes to vote. 30% of the town votes yes and 70% of the town votes no.
At the exit poll you ask people again, and you get the original 75% / 25% result.
Democracy is built on the principle that the government acts according to the will of the people. The people express their will via the vote. Here we have a situation where the will of the people is not expressed by the vote because the people are so uneducated they are incapable of expressing their will. Thus, we have a government that is supposed to act according to the will of the people, instead acting against the will of the people.
It doesn't matter what issue or candidate we are talking about. This is purely a matter of political science. Allowing people to vote who are too uneducated to vote is a serious problem. People who clearly have one stance on the issues, and voting for the candidate who does not agree with them on the issues, is a serious problem. It is damaging to the fundamental principles of our form of government.
If you want democracy, you want a government that derives its power from the will of the people. If you have a democracy in a country of uneducated people, then the government no longer derives its power from the will of the people. Instead, the government derives its power from the power to manipulate the uneducated masses. The media you hate so much holds all the power as opposed to the people voting.
Meanwhile, Obama is just a little hypocritical on matters of equal pay.
And he's suggesting that Palin's experience is much better than his. Look at what he said.
"We've had an awful lot of small-town mayors at the Democratic Convention, I assure you," Obama said. "I meet them all the time. The mayors have some of the toughest jobs in the country because that's where the rubber hits the road. You know, we yak in the Senate.
And why won't he help to rid his home state of corruption? Of course Biden has his own ethical issues to worry about. But that's what happens when you are in the back pocket of big business.
What's with this story? So he his high paying guys are generally the men, he hired them for their experience I'm sure....
I'm starting to think that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two parties. We pretend that there is, but there isn't. The Democrats have funded Bush's war. That alone makes me disgusted at both parties.
The ratio argument is a loser.
It could be that the sample size is too small - that's a very valid defense.