U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

Arguing that ancient Greek democracy is some pure version of it is madness.

[AJ]

17 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Are we living in a democracy? I don't believe we are. We have strayed from what it means to be democratic and given it a new identity.

Democracy derives from Greek, and means 'power of the people'. The ancient Greek democratic system was not like ours.

Calling something a democracy implies that it is true to it's meaning. That power, including freedom and equality, is there for all.

In ancient Greece, the system was a direct democracy, and so you can understand the meaning behind the word, 'power of the people', if you understand the direct democracy concept.

In that system the people vote on policy and legislation rather than voting for the election of a representative who will then vote on policy and legislation for them.

In a direct democracy people have the power to propose changes to the constitution and call upon a referendum of any law introduced by a federal or municipal body.

We live in a representative democracy, where officials are elected and given power over decisions. They can and do make their own judgements on what the interests of the people are.

In this type of government, elected officials are not required to fulfill promises made before their election and are able to promote their own self-interests once elected.

No wonder campaigns and dialogue with the public often turn into personality contests and who can tarnish the reputation of someone else to their own personal benefit.

We have lost sight of what it means to be democratic, and yet we mistakenly believe that our version of it embodies the values and meaning of the old. it doesn't

We go to war on the notion that democracy may be threatened, and we are duped into believing that the threat to democracy is a physical one, from foreign people and ideologies.

The greatest threat to democracy is when it loses the meaning that belongs to it. It ceases to exist the moment it disappears from the minds of those that give life to idea. People.

 

Absolutely agree, because that was what I was getting at, but with less wordy stuff.

We don't elect our leader. We elect an impotent representative within the borders of imaginary lines on a map. The actual leader is chosen for us in the boardrooms of the respective parties. It is extra farcical to democracy that we have had 3 national leaders that did not gain power as a result of an election in this decade.

The actual folly is this. You don't like a party leader, you believe he is a menace to the country for some reason, yet his  representative is a personal friend who you know has his heart and mind in the right place. Or, your representative is a scumbag who enjoys kicking puppies and is only in it for the benefits, but the party leader speaks for and wishes to address the issues which you are most concerned about. You are screwed, and so is your vote.

We are not getting the best of candidates either. Our Prime Minister is paid more than the US President. Very often, political wages come into discussion ( usually after they have given themselves a hefty 40% plus pay raise, but baulk at giving soldiers, our nation;s defenders, a 2.50% pay increase), and the reason they justify this is that if the pay wasn't good, then they may prefer to cross over into the private sector. Well, f##ing good! We would be much better off without politicians motivated by money. I would rather vote for somebody who actually gives a damn about the direction of the country. ( Or, more accurately, I would vote for their weasel faced, personality of a house brick representative).

Our system sucks, and we are kidding ourselves that it is democracy. I would happily embrace a system similar to the US, but with less convolution. But, I guess that would be too idealistic.

 

 

 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, AJ said:

Our system sucks, and we are kidding ourselves that it is democracy. I would happily embrace a system similar to the US, but with less convolution.

You can't be serious

[A'Villan]

29 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Democracy is a very broad description of potential systems of government.

Democracy does not simply mean direct democracy as practised by the Athenians (the power was not 'there for all' by any means in ancient Greece).

There are many 'threats' to democracy, not least suggesting that there is only one true, pure thing called democracy.

Demagogues are having a field day doing just that at the moment.

I never said democracy simply means direct democracy. I said people give meaning to words, and that our current understanding of democracy is different to the original.

I said it means 'power of the people' or 'rule of the people', if you trace the etymology. I imply that the contrasting culture of direct and representative democracy are not synonymous.

In discussing where the word derives from and the meaning, I insinuate that it's no coincidence that the etymology of the word takes us to a Greek origin and a direct democracy.

The power was not there for all by any means in ancient Greece you say. That would be correct in the earliest days. Women, slaves and foreigners were not included.

I'm saying that the political process and the title that comes with, 'democracy', is more true to it's meaning in a system where it relies upon citizens to govern and not representatives.

 

[AJ]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

You can't be serious

Similar, in the way the people can directly choose the leader. Not exactly alike, as there is way too much BS in their system which bogs it down, and turns it into a circus where the animals have chronic diarrhoea, and the clowns come out turning it into a shit fight.

* Example of US used to simply try to put my toe in the door of keeping my rant on topic. I am sure there are several countries out there with direct democracy who have a far better election process.

Edited May 23, 2019 by AJ

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I never said democracy simply means direct democracy. I said people give meaning to words, and that our current understanding of democracy is different to the original.

I said it means 'power of the people' or 'rule of the people', if you trace the etymology. I imply that the contrasting culture of direct and representative democracy are not synonymous.

In discussing where the word derives from and the meaning, I insinuate that it's no coincidence that the etymology of the word takes us to a Greek origin and a direct democracy.

The power was not there for all by any means in ancient Greece you say. That would be correct in the earliest days. Women, slaves and foreigners were not included.

I'm saying that the political process and the title that comes with, 'democracy', is more true to it's meaning in a system where it relies upon citizens to govern and not representatives.

 

Of course, our current understanding is different to how it happened in Athenian Greece. I would hope that our current understanding of anything and everything has developed and built on what went before.

You say that you 'never said democracy simply means direct democracy' and then you continue with an argument based upon the etymology of the term, contrast representative democracy with direct democracy, talk about the Greek origins of the system (via the etymology) and then say that the process and title are 'more true to its meaning' when it's a direct democracy.

That really sounds like posing an argument that the only true democracy is direct democracy.

As I said above, it's not a good argument.

There are many arguments against democracy (especially democracy without bounds - which is where direct democracy can and often does lead) and, in my view, the biggest is the fetish regarding anything that emanates from a democratic system as by necessity a virtuous result but all of this is for a different discussion elsewhere as I fear the theory is rather OT regarding US Politics.

[Chindie]

No countries use direct democracy, certainly not the US, at anything beyond very local levels, and even those are in a vast minority. It doesn't work very well. The US system was established in part as a reaction against direct democracy.

[A'Villan]

27 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Arguing that ancient Greek democracy is some pure version of it is madness.

I tell you what is madness. The notion that past and foreign people alike are lesser than us.

What else is madness? The United States, United Kingdom and Australia are represented largely by the right-wing.

By definition they are conservative, and therefore averse to change, they want the social and economic power to stay where it is. With the few.

The belief that social inequality is a 'natural' phenomena and therefore something to go unchallenged by governance is inherent in everything they do.

That is a total contradiction to the meaning of the word democracy. And the consequence is it creates a system where no one wants to oppose the few. No one can afford to.

At least the Greeks had a setup whereby those who were male citizens could implement but also challenge any law or policy. Simply being in the interests of the many was enough.

I imagine there might be more interest in politics in our current culture should we be afforded such power. People might actually begin to think differently about it all.

As it is, we vote in war-mongers who tell us we're free because we're not living as rough as others have or do.

These are the people representing the people in 'democracy' as we know it in the western world. We vote them in to make decisions for us. That's madness.
 

[A'Villan]

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No countries use direct democracy, certainly not the US, at anything beyond very local levels, and even those are in a vast minority. It doesn't work very well. The US system was established in part as a reaction against direct democracy.

Switzerland.

[A'Villan]

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No countries use direct democracy, certainly not the US, at anything beyond very local levels, and even those are in a vast minority. It doesn't work very well. The US system was established in part as a reaction against direct democracy.

The U.S is responsible for slavery and genocide.

The U.S has spent over 90% of her history at war.

The U.S security agencies are responsible for cointelpro, mk-ultra, Program Northwood and the like. Committing terrorist acts on their own people.

The U.S is responsible for the eugenics movement which inspired Nazi beliefs and politics. It also took on Nazi officials post war and employed them.

That's what you get with representative democracy. It isn't representative of the original meaning of democracy in any way.

[Chindie]

12 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Switzerland.

Not quite pure direct democracy, they have about the closest anyone gets to it but it's still got elements of representative democracy, just with considerably more balance towards citizen influence.

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Of course, our current understanding is different to how it happened in Athenian Greece. I would hope that our current understanding of anything and everything has developed and built on what went before.

You say that you 'never said democracy simply means direct democracy' and then you continue with an argument based upon the etymology of the term, contrast representative democracy with direct democracy, talk about the Greek origins of the system (via the etymology) and then say that the process and title are 'more true to its meaning' when it's a direct democracy.

That really sounds like posing an argument that the only true democracy is direct democracy.

As I said above, it's not a good argument.

There are many arguments against democracy (especially democracy without bounds - which is where direct democracy can and often does lead) and, in my view, the biggest is the fetish regarding anything that emanates from a democratic system as by necessity a virtuous result but all of this is for a different discussion elsewhere as I fear the theory is rather OT regarding US Politics.

If there is a place for progression, there is also one for regression. No one likes to see themselves at fault.

In regards to my argument, I think it's fair to say, I am not suggesting that direct democracy be the only true democracy. Simply that it is synonymous with the meaning of the word.

My argument is more intended to reflect the contradictory nature of the representative democracies that we champion as the most civilised and advanced in the world.

It is also only meant to highlight that they bear little resemblance to the origins of that form of governance to convey how poorly it represents what it means to be democratic.

It's ironic that it's called representative democracy, because it doesn't represent democracy and neither do it's representatives.

That's not to say that it can't or won't in future.

Hopefully that makes my standing a bit more clear.

You're right, it's not exactly in theme with the posting of current U.S events. I don't want to derail the thread.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by A'Villan

[villakram]

Bring in proportional representation and then your standard parliamentary "democracy" corresponds much more to the will and wishes of the masses.

The US system of government was and is explicitly designed to prevent the "tyranny" of the majority. There's a really interesting philosophical fight brewing with Nevada on the verge of bringing the popular vote compact up to 195 EC votes. They are still quite a ways from 270 needed to enact it and essentially render the EC defunct, but they finally have enough votes that various people are paying attention, particularly those in the tiny states with un-earned political influence.

However, much like the UK, proportional representation and speech around it is verboten.

On the other hand there are some small signs of progress, e.g., the courts just pissed on the nonsense that is the massively gerrymandered voting districts here in the Mitten. An independent commission has been proposed, but it's unclear if that will make things any better, i.e., "independent".

Edited May 23, 2019 by villakram

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, villakram said:

Bring in proportional representation and then your standard parliamentary "democracy" corresponds much more to the will and wishes of the masses.

Not sure that has any basis in truth, the current situation in the UK being a case in point. proportional representation also forces parties on the people. It would be next to impossible for a non-party candidate to get elected from a PR list and as soon as parties get involved compromises get made and local level politics also suffer

[villakram]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Not sure that has any basis in truth, the current situation in the UK being a case in point. proportional representation also forces parties on the people. It would be next to impossible for a non-party candidate to get elected from a PR list and as soon as parties get involved compromises get made and local level politics also suffer

It forces compromise, e.g., see the relatively constant middle ground in Irish politics over the past 30yrs. Of course, you can also end up with Italian style instability I suppose... though they are mostly FPP.

Most importantly, it also gives every facet of society political representation, e.g., see the exclusion of the 10% of the British electorate who voted for Farage and his gang pre Brexit. I'm not sure where your "forcing parties on people" point comes from given you that live in a 2-3 party state. States with PR have loads of parties and independent candidates who can also get elected. It also gets rid of this ridiculous wasted vote business.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, villakram said:

it also gives every facet of society political representation,

No it doesn't, significant voter levels still have to be reached to gain seats

5 minutes ago, villakram said:

I'm not sure where your "forcing parties on people" point comes from given you that live in a 2-3 party state

Independent candidates do enter and win, so that point is utter nonsense 

I was actually coming round to PR but your arguments are again swinging me the other way

10 minutes ago, villakram said:

It also gets rid of this ridiculous wasted vote business.

Yes I agree it does

It absolutely removes local representation though and that for me has always been the sticking point. I can question (some would say I harass) my local MP as is my current democratic right, under PR who would my local representative be? No-one

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, A'Villan said:

In regards to my argument, I think it's fair to say, I am not suggesting that direct democracy be the only true democracy. Simply that it is synonymous with the meaning of the word.

My argument is more intended to reflect the contradictory nature of the representative democracies that we champion as the most civilised and advanced in the world.

It is also only meant to highlight that they bear little resemblance to the origins of that form of governance to convey how poorly it represents what it means to be democratic.

It's ironic that it's called representative democracy, because it doesn't represent democracy and neither do it's representatives.

That's not to say that it can't or won't in future.

Hopefully that makes my standing a bit more clear.

But you're just arguing the same thing over again in a slightly different form which is what you claim not to be arguing.

You are using the origin of (relatively) sophisticated democracy as the benchmark for how to measure what is truly democratic even if you keep on claiming that you aren't.

You are also basing a substantial part of your argument on etymology which is exceptionally bad way of defining a political idea.

[snowychap]

55 minutes ago, bickster said:

It absolutely removes local representation though and that for me has always been the sticking point. I can question (some would say I harass) my local MP as is my current democratic right, under PR who would my local representative be? No-one

Isn't there an argument that, if there were a number of representatives for a region (I'm not talking MEP size regions here) you might feel that you get more sympathy from one of the representatives that more closely fits your political views?

Though local MPs ought to attempt to push the case of individual constituents (if they're valid and not vexatious, obviously), perhaps they won't if they diametrically oppose the point of view of the MP?

Surely there's a bit of self-selection amongst those who question (harass ) their MP so that most people won't bother if all they expect (or do get) in return is boilerplate party patter?

Edited May 23, 2019 by snowychap

[LondonLax]

6 hours ago, A'Villan said:

If there is a place for progression, there is also one for regression. No one likes to see themselves at fault.

In regards to my argument, I think it's fair to say, I am not suggesting that direct democracy be the only true democracy. Simply that it is synonymous with the meaning of the word.

My argument is more intended to reflect the contradictory nature of the representative democracies that we champion as the most civilised and advanced in the world.

It is also only meant to highlight that they bear little resemblance to the origins of that form of governance to convey how poorly it represents what it means to be democratic.

It's ironic that it's called representative democracy, because it doesn't represent democracy and neither do it's representatives.

That's not to say that it can't or won't in future.

Hopefully that makes my standing a bit more clear.

You're right, it's not exactly in theme with the posting of current U.S events. I don't want to derail the thread.

 

Two of the greatest philosophers of their time, Aristotle and Plato, thought Greece’s direct democracy model was fatally flawed as it led to the tyranny of the majority at the expense of minority groups. 

They preferred a system of representative democracy where leaders were more independent of the mob rule and could (theoretically) make decisions based on what was best for everyone, not just the mob. 

 

[villakram]

Districts etc. still exist. It's not some national level thing. That would be all sorts of bonkers, or in a way somewhat similar to the Chinese system where patronage dominates.

How would your local MP disappear in this system, kidnapped by the communists and disappeared or something. If he/she could get enough votes to win before then surely they'd be able to compete for enough to hit the quota under a PR system. This system does not get rid of a typical 2-3 party dominated system; however, it does enable smaller parties with important political points to have some say, e.g., greens, monster raving looney party, the fascists and even those dastardly communists.