Remember back in 2002, when we were going into Iraq and Afghanistan?  One of the popular justifications among supporters of Dubya was that we were 'spreading democracy'.

Fast-forward to today, and there are people who are referring to Trump's presidency as the 'end of democracy'.

Now, aside from the fact that both are pretty wrong, what is the strong tie we have to democracy?  It feels like a buzz word almost.  Something of which you're not supposed to speak ill.  However, the closer one gets to democracy, the closer it seems one gets to the tyranny of the majority.

Is it actually the best system?  Why or why not?

A representative republic is the best form. We are not a democracy and anyone who claims we are failed high school civics class.

At best they could call us a democratic republic.

How our founders originally designed our government was the best form, 3 branches with equal power, most of the power goes to the local (state) and people with a federal government with limited power. 

Unfortunately we have bastardized that into a system where the federal government has most of the power and most of THAT power is held by 1 person...

Representative republic; and thank the Lord for granting the founders with the wisdom to come up with our form of government including the electoral college. Imagine being effectively completely ruled by liberal urban ignorant socialists.

I'd say a democracy is the best form of government overall, and based off of how a country is broken down politically, socially, and demographically they can determine what type of democracy. A republic works for us, but it may not be best for other countries. 

Democracy is garbage and it saddens me that we've been hoodwinked into thinking it's some great saviour of humanity. Any system that puts the rights of the individual up for a vote is not worth having.

All voting demsoc will be banned.

I don't have an answer, but I do know that this bullshit 2 party system is not it.

posted by QuakerOats

 

Representative republic; and thank the Lord for granting the founders with the wisdom to come up with our form of government including the electoral college. Imagine being effectively completely ruled by liberal urban ignorant socialists.

Come down here to Alabama to live.  We're as far from liberal urban as you can get - redder than red.  You'll see how great conservative across the board state government is - second to last in most everything (thank God for Mississippi).

posted by justincredible

Democracy is garbage and it saddens me that we've been hoodwinked into thinking it's some great saviour of humanity. Any system that puts the rights of the individual up for a vote is not worth having.

I think you're view is very much in the tradition of the country's founding.  It is kind of our reason for being in the first place.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I think you're view is very much in the tradition of the country's founding.  It is kind of our reason for being in the first place.  

The reason for being?  Eh, we were separating from a constitutional monarchy, were we not?  King George and all that?

posted by justincredible

All voting demsoc will be banned.

LOL!

posted by justincredible

Democracy is garbage and it saddens me that we've been hoodwinked into thinking it's some great saviour of humanity. Any system that puts the rights of the individual up for a vote is not worth having.

I've never received a logical explanation to justify the taking of wealth I created because more than half the people want to do so.

posted by O-Trap

The reason for being?  Eh, we were separating from a constitutional monarchy, were we not?  King George and all that?

Well, the individual rights aspect of what he was saying.  The "rugged individualism" is a big part of our country's DNA.

posted by queencitybuckeye

I've never received a logical explanation to justify the taking of wealth I created because more than half the people want to do so.

I look at it this way.

I do not have the right to walk next door and take my neighbors property. But, through the magic of democracy, I can vote their stuff away and claim the moral high ground? Hard pass.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Well, the individual rights aspect of what he was saying.  The "rugged individualism" is a big part of our country's DNA.

Ah, to a degree, sure.

Even then, though, they still appeared to believe democracy had a role.

posted by queencitybuckeye

I've never received a logical explanation to justify the taking of wealth I created because more than half the people want to do so.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Come down here to Alabama to live.  We're as far from liberal urban as you can get - redder than red.  You'll see how great conservative across the board state government is - second to last in most everything (thank God for Mississippi).

You both are right...kind of. Across the board governance by either party sucks. The dems have owned major cities for decades and ran most of them to the ground.

The repubs have owned Mississippi and Alabama for decades and those states are still in the 60s economy wise.

The states that flourish are typically the ones that have a mix of both parties.

This is why, even though our 2 party system blows donkey balls, I have always said that whatever party has POTUS, I hope the HoR and Senate majorities are the other party. 

It effectively slows down the slippery slope to either ideology and typically (not lately) makes the 2 sides compromise.

posted by kizer permanente

MUH ROADS!

The biggest problem is big city liberals voting to transfer more and more power from the state to the feds.  And that's because of simple economics - liberalism can't work on just the state level, it has to be forced federally from the top down.

The "green new deal" and the climate change BS prove this.  They think if they print enough money they can redistribute wealth.  And only the federal government can print money.

posted by jmog

You both are right...kind of. Across the board governance by either party sucks. The dems have owned major cities for decades and ran most of them to the ground.

 

The repubs have owned Mississippi and Alabama for decades and those states are still in the 60s economy wise.

 

The states that flourish are typically the ones that have a mix of both parties.

 

This is why, even though our 2 party system blows donkey balls, I have always said that whatever party has POTUS, I hope the HoR and Senate majorities are the other party. 

 

It effectively slows down the slippery slope to either ideology and typically (not lately) makes the 2 sides compromise.

That is a good point. There are some on this site who constantly harp on the conditions of large cities run by Ds...while completely ignoring the large percentage of the lowest-education and/or poorest states that are known to be Red States. To me, it seems the main thing to take away isn't that a city or state is Red or Blue, but that it is generally dominated government-wise by one party.

I suppose that it says a lot about our government when the big takeaway is that both sides suck, but if they are in a situation where they either have to work together and compromise OR they don't and because they're evenly-matched, that just means nothing gets done, then things are WAY better in general.

posted by Heretic

That is a good point. There are some on this site who constantly harp on the conditions of large cities run by Ds...while completely ignoring the large percentage of the lowest-education and/or poorest states that are known to be Red States.

I'm not sure the answer is that simple.  Education is related to wealth, which is related to jobs/companies and tends to be somewhat "sticky".  Very difficult to lure jobs away from another state in any meaningful way.

It's a popular liberal talking point, but the reality is there are red and blue states that do well on economics and education, and also poorly.  Most gaps would probably disappear if you could control for all factors.  I just looked at several studies and a common factor is "quality of universities", which aside from being pretty subjective is mostly meaningless is evaluating a state's educational system (unless you want to inject some good bias into your study).

My very crude analysis looked at SAT scores.  Among states with nearly 100% participation, WV was lowest at 943.  50-100 points lower than other states with near 100% participation.  Probably not a huge gap, and probably driven by income and education of the parents (and not Republican educational policy).  Doesn't appear to be much correlation between blue and red states.

Not something I've done much research on, but it seems pretty obvious that attempting to compare Alabama and Illinois is apples-to-oranges.  Probably also funny given how much we hear about "bias" in testing, that it's never occurred to ivory tower liberals that their testing might be biased against rural people.  You're not smart because you can't read a bus schedule - why would I need a bus schedule when I can navigate the woods on my own without getting lost?

I keep going back to that Freakanomics study that found, after controlling for other factors, schools and teachers really don't make a difference. I think on a national scale we'd see pretty much the same thing.  That, for instance, children of wealthy educated parents in rural AL do just as well as children of wealthy educated parents in NY.  How do kids growing up in poverty in Chicago do vs. kids growing up in poverty in little town Arkansas?  My guess is not that differently.

Hard to say we have a representative republic when everyone in the 3 branches is in someones back pocket. 

posted by kizer permanente

Hard to say we have a representative republic when everyone in the 3 branches is in someones back pocket. 

Eliminate retiree pension and health care benefits for public officials and a lot of problems will solve themselves.  The more the entrenched stay entrenched because of the golden parachutes, the more likely corruption can take root.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

 

Eliminate retiree pension and health care benefits for public officials and a lot of problems will solve themselves.  The more the entrenched stay entrenched because of the golden parachutes, the more likely corruption can take root.

Eh, I'd argue the corruption just changes then.  Not that this isn't a good idea, mine you.  I think long-term benefits for politicians certainly incentivizes making re-election campaigns a much larger priority than they should be.  As such, I think your recommendation is actually a good idea.

But if we shorten the length someone is able to be in office, I think we just change the corruption game.  Get in, get what you can, and get out.

posted by O-Trap

Eh, I'd argue the corruption just changes then.  Not that this isn't a good idea, mine you.  I think long-term benefits for politicians certainly incentivizes making re-election campaigns a much larger priority than they should be.  As such, I think your recommendation is actually a good idea.

But if we shorten the length someone is able to be in office, I think we just change the corruption game.  Get in, get what you can, and get out.

There's only one solution.

posted by justincredible

There's only one solution.