U.S. Politics

[A'Villan]

We have proportional representation here in Australia.

@bickster While I don't understand why local government has to suffer you seem to have a grasp of what happens here.

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

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.

Am I? Is it?

Obviously my attempts to clarify are futile.

I am comfortable using etymology as it is an indicator of the history that has come before us and can offer context and explanation to the behavior of both past and present.

it's no coincidence that the origin of both the culture and the word to describe it come from the same place, both defining and giving meaning to what it means to be. That's all.

If you can't understand why that holds significance in the discussion, then I don't know what to say. That culture is the very reason behind the terminology you use today.

Hopefully you can appreciate what I mean, when I acknowledge that democracy by virtue is fundamentally about social equality and engagement. Everyone having a voice.

If Athens had the population of the U.S, then over 6.5 million people would be elected for the responsibility of voting on decrees, voting on law proposals and electing magistrates.

Now, in our representative 'democracy', we have right-wing governments in power, who are inherently adverse to social equality. I can't see how this translates to democracy myself.

We have a handful of political organisations who represent a different set of policies and ideologies, that are based on the judgements and decisions of a select few who lead them.

This is hardly a means of opening up the discussion and allowing a diverse representation of different ideology and policy to be scrutinised and voted on by the public.

Lastly, the idea of democracy in a capitalist society being led by conservatives is farcical. Just look at the history. Few profiting from war, slavery and financial engineering.

Multi-billion dollar corporations are taxed less than 1% and people living below the poverty line are still taxed 20%. That's not social equality. It's not natural either.

When a people hand over responsibility of governance and decision making to political representatives, those employed should operate with integrity and with the interests of all.

I miss Fred Hampton, his deeds and initiatives were what community leadership is all about, the reason behind the FBI assassinating him. Democracy, hey.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

While I don't understand why local government has to suffer

You've misunderstood. The local representation I'm talking about is that each constituency has an MP who is elected by and represents that area in parliament. These MP's (in theory) hold surgeries where local people can raise issues with them in the hope that the MP will raise the issue or help in some way. I wasn't talking about lower tier government. My point is that this disappears under most PR systems

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Am I? Is it?

Yes, I'm afraid.

7 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Obviously my attempts to clarify are futile.

You aren't seeking to clarify. You're repeating.

9 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

it's no coincidence that the origin of both the culture and the word to describe it come from the same place, both defining and giving meaning to what it means to be. That's all.

Of course it's no coincidence. What an utterly banal statement.

13 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

If you can't understand why that holds significance in the discussion, then I don't know what to say. That culture is the very reason behind the terminology you use today.

...

I'm sorry but you don't appear to understand what you're discussing, the actual origins of what you're discussing and/or the relevance of what you claim to want to be discussing to today.

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Now, in our representative 'democracy', we have right-wing governments in power, who are inherently adverse to social equality. I can't see how this translates to democracy myself.

The type of government isn't responsible for the opinions of the people elected. It would be wrong to abandon a system of government based on who it elects, changing styles of government should always be about increasing the fairness of the electoral system so the people's views are properly represented

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

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. 

 

Yes, I am aware. You forgot Socrates. Some of their input on the discussion resonates with me and has merit.

Socrates gave the apt analogy of a ship undertaking a journey by sea and asking who should take charge of the vessel, any random person, or someone who knows the sea.

He did not oppose democracy in itself, just that uneducated people should not be eligible to vote as those with the skills and knowledge of running a functional society.

As for Plato, his friend and mentor was put to death by a trial of 500 jurors, on what was apparently trumped up charges. This might have influenced perspectives.

I'm not familiar with the preference of a representative democracy by these men, just that they took issue with the level of understanding of the average man in political matters.

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

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.

PR lists take much larger populations/geographical areas and assign multiple MPs to each ward. After the election the MPs are elected in proportion to their % vote for each party. If you tried to run a PR system but kept the same ward boundaries you'd end up with a parliament many times larger than the current system with multiple MPs representing the percentage vote of each party in each ward. 

Hence it can be difficult for a local MP to get elected representing local issues in a PR system as the ward area is so much larger. It takes a whole party machine to gather enough of the vote to get over the threshold for representation. Conversely though the smaller parties, like the Greens or UKIP for instance, will get the number of MPs their vote deserves based on the proportion of their vote in that ward. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by LondonLax

[A'Villan]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

The type of government isn't responsible for the opinions of the people elected. It would be wrong to abandon a system of government based on who it elects, changing styles of government should always be about increasing the fairness of the electoral system so the people's views are properly represented

I agree wholeheartedly.

[A'Villan]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

You've misunderstood. The local representation I'm talking about is that each constituency has an MP who is elected by and represents that area in parliament. These MP's (in theory) hold surgeries where local people can raise issues with them in the hope that the MP will raise the issue or help in some way. I wasn't talking about lower tier government. My point is that this disappears under most PR systems

No, I didn't misunderstand. At least I don't think I did.

My local MP has his office just down the street. I have been approached by political movements as well as other organisations to hold discussions with him regarding a variety of topics.

That's why I couldn't understand why a PR system would have a detrimental influence on local government.

[LondonLax]

3 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

No, I didn't misunderstand. At least I don't think I did.

My local MP has his office just down the street. I have been approached by political movements as well as other organisations to hold discussions with him regarding a variety of topics.

That's why I couldn't understand why a PR system would have a detrimental influence on local government.

Have you had the same level of contact with your local senator (i.e. your member of government elected under a PR system)? 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

No, I didn't misunderstand. At least I don't think I did.

My local MP has his office just down the street. I have been approached by political movements as well as other organisations to hold discussions with him regarding a variety of topics.

That's why I couldn't understand why a PR system would have a detrimental influence on local government.

How is your local MP elected by PR?

Local Government as a term means a specific tier of government in the UK, it is below the national government, typically at the city or town level (but not always) and they come in different types. We'd normally consider this the second tier of government but they've rather messed that idea up now by having elected regional mayors with responsibilities for certain aspect of local government.

[A'Villan]

17 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Yes, I'm afraid.

You aren't seeking to clarify. You're repeating.

Of course it's no coincidence. What an utterly banal statement.

I'm sorry but you don't appear to understand what you're discussing, the actual origins of what you're discussing and/or the relevance of what you claim to want to be discussing to today.

If that's your take on things, that's enough for me to reconsider my understanding.

I was seeking to clarify. Obviously poorly. You said earlier I am repeating myself in a slightly different form, that's my attempt to clarify. Apologies that you didn't gain anything from it.

I wanted to address the comment on it being madness to argue that the ancient Greek was a pure version, and the impression you got that I was arguing direct democracy to be the only true democracy. When all I wanted to convey was that neither statement is entirely accurate and not reflective of my thought process.

A banal statement? Fair enough. I'm glad you understood part of my post at least.

You went from saying that I was calling direct democracy the only true democracy to saying that I was in denial about it being a benchmark for what qualifies as democratic.

I was trying to use that banal statement to show that ancient Greece is one benchmark for what qualifies as democratic, and despite any flaws it is fairly true to it's description.

I'll take that last line in my stride, but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

 

 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

You went from saying that I was calling direct democracy the only true democracy to saying that I was in denial about it being a benchmark for what qualifies as democratic.

I don't think that I did.

[A'Villan]

30 minutes ago, bickster said:

How is your local MP elected by PR?

Local Government as a term means a specific tier of government in the UK, it is below the national government, typically at the city or town level (but not always) and they come in different types. We'd normally consider this the second tier of government but they've rather messed that idea up now by having elected regional mayors with responsibilities for certain aspect of local government.

Okay now I realise I did misunderstand, at some point. My fault.

I'm not sure if they are elected by PR. I know that's how we determine the Senate and House of Representatives.

The MP I was referring to is the federal member for Melbourne. So he's elected by PR.

We have federal, state and local tiers of government, the mayor from my understanding is a token title here.

 

 

[A'Villan]

11 hours ago, snowychap said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

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.

 

22 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't think that I did.

There are the quotes. Apologies if I've misconstrued your message.

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Have you had the same level of contact with your local senator (i.e. your member of government elected under a PR system)? 

There are 12 senators for Victoria. I haven't spoken to any.

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, A'Villan said:

There are 12 senators for Victoria. I haven't spoken to any.

Yes that’s how PR works. The senators collectively represent a whole state and are elected bast on the proportion of vote from each party. Where as in the lower house you have local members representing local areas on local issues in small electorates.

If you had PR in the lower house as well as the upper house the electorates in the lower house would be much larger, like they are in the senate, and you’d probably never meet your local MPs.  

[A'Villan]

3 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Yes that’s how PR works. The senators collectively represent a whole state and are elected bast on the proportion of vote from each party. Where as in the lower house you have local members representing local areas on local issues in small electorates.

If you had PR in the lower house as well as the upper house the electorates in the lower house would be much larger, like they are in the senate, and you’d probably never meet your local MPs.  

Thanks for that. Senators that are based in my state have offices that are local, two within walking distance from me, yet I have never been referred to them to discuss policy or issues.

As you've probably gathered I'm guilty of the criticism dished out by Socrates in relation to a voter who doesn't know the full ins and outs of the system in which his vote holds sway.

It's interesting, my local MP for Melbourne is the only representative for his party with a seat in the lower house, yet his party seemingly represents the best case for election.

People disregard them because they are not as established as the other two major players and think that they are too idealistic in their approach, that they can't deliver.

We're a conservative bunch, that's for sure. How can you bring about change for the better without the willingness to try something different from the same traditions and dogma?

If anyone's sick of reading my crap then you'll be relieved to know I've exhausted my soapbox stance for this discussion I think.

[OutByEaster?]

It seems to me that the biggest problem with our current representative democracies are in how the representatives we select from are chosen for us and who chooses those candidates, it's increasingly a problem here and it's particularly pronounced in the US.

[bickster]

40 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It seems to me that the biggest problem with our current representative democracies are in how the representatives we select from are chosen for us and who chooses those candidates, it's increasingly a problem here and it's particularly pronounced in the US.

That'll be parties then

[El Zen]

12 hours 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

That’s not necessarily true at all. We have PR in Norway, but still have constituencies. I think the same is true for most PR democracies, with a few exceptions (Israel and Netherlands are single constituency PR, iirc.) 

All Norwegian MPs are elected from, and accordingly represent, their respective counties. My county has 17 MPs, including one from the party I voted for (would never, ever happen under fptp). Constitutionally, they represent me and my county, not their party (political parties are not mentioned in the constitution at all.)

If you need convincing why PR is the better option, read Arend Lijphart’s book ‘Patterns of Democracy’. It convincingly argues that PR democracies outperform fptp systems on more or less any relevant metric (equality, growth, trust, public safety etc.)