Democracy...

[Boerseun]

Somewhere in March we're having local elections again. And this got me thinking...

Say, for instance, that I'm a die-hard supporter of party A. And only because they promote Economic Model X. Party B is in favour of Economic Model Y, which is totally against my belief. Is it as simple as that?

Let's say a '1' represents a point I agree with, that I'll support, and a '0' represents the opposite. Then the scoreboard might look like this:

Issue: Party A Party B
Economy 1 0
Welfare 0 1
Education 1 0
Death Penalty 0 1
Defense 0 1
Employment 0 1
Research 1 0
...
...
...

...and so on. There are a kazillion possible issues. But aren't we simplifying the whole concept by being allowed to vote for only one party? Wouldn't the idea of 'governance by the people' be better served if, instead of having an elected president, we have an appointed official, like any other government job, and the ballot is a card enumerating the fifty biggest issues and whether you're for it or against it - and then the government must incorporate the electorate's decisions towards these goals and/or issues.

Party politicking is too much spin and make-up; it's all about personalities and marketing. They don't give a rip about the issues at hand - they're there because they're blinded by power and the prospect of getting more.

I think reducing all the issues the electorate must consider to a simple "x' on a ballot sheet for only one single party, simplifies the complexity of the issue of running a country beyond acceptable levels.

And what's with limiting a President's rule to two terms? I can only speak for the RSA, but I know in the US presidents don't really care to commit themselves to projects that span beyond their final term. George Bush Sr. committed himself to returning to the Moon - a project that would have culminated round about now - mid 2000-2010. Clinton scrapped it, and didn't have to take a knock for it, because it was simply his predecessor who had a stupid idea to blow federal funds. Now, on the short term, he can free those same funds and give it to healthcare, gaining instant points with the electorate. George Bush Jr. have committed federal funds towards the same goal, also beyond his term in office. This is suppose to happen by 2020 now. Mark my words - long before that, the next president of the US will can the project in order to loosen up some funds for some obscure short term benefit, and then blaim Dubya for being stupid in the first place.

I don't think despotism is a danger - if a president is good at his job, he'll get re-elected and might actually see some of his projects through.

But then - I'm of the opinion that a president should be appointed, like any other gov employee - and his job should fall under "Diplomacy". He should have zero executive powers as well. That should reside in the parliament, or the US version thereof.

But I digress.

What's your idea of voting, as I described above?

[lindagarrette]

See the Robert Redford move "The Candidate" for some insight on how the system works.

[questor]

since Robert Redford is totally committed to far out liberal causes, i would not put much faith in any issues he espouses. there are several problems in our system of government. here are a few:
1. a poorly informed and apathetic electorate. less than 50% of eligible voters participate.
2. power hungry politicians
3. money hungry lobbyists and politicians
4. lack of oversight on abuses
5. pork barrel politics. quid pro quo on local issues not important to the country
6. a liberal leaning public media which espouses the liberal line no matter what harm it does to the country
7. a poorly run Federal government that acts as a vast welfare system for
incompetent workers and beaurocrats.
8. a poorly conducted election system in which the issues are not clearly defined or presented
9. an election system in which money plays the most important role
10. lack of full disclosure and truth by the media

[Buffy]

Hi Mr. Mullet!

You're being scientific about voting. If the electorate in America did that, we'd see very different people in our government!

Voting is an emotional decision for most people. That is why especially in America, politicians (or rather their svengali political directors) identify "hot button" and "litmus test" issues and "stay on message" about them. As in your case, you're making the decision because you feel "strongly" about "economic model X": that's all most people do. There are lots of people who either "don't feel strongly enough" or are cynical enough to say "they're all the same" and then decide based on which candidate or issue "feels right."

To the extent that political campaigns "stay on message" you'll probably never get enough information to fill out your matrix and combine the positions with your weights. And you never know when a politician is going to change his mind ("read my lips, no new..."), which brings in not only current positions, but also probability that they will be held under the pressure of future conditions or lobbyist money.

Linda is right: "The Candidate" is an *excellent* view of this process (and in my view folks who refuse to listen to all voices in society endanger it, questor: you have to listen just as much to Bill O'Reilly as you do to Al Franken if you really want to form your own opinion and not be just a "dittohead" (on either end of the political spectrum)) . However, politics has gotten *much* more sophisticated from a marketing viewpoint, and no longer do we have candidates who get very far without a well defined (although sometimes hidden!) agenda, so there'll be no more quaint endings (SPOILER ALERT) with lines like "so...what do we do now?"

Pro-Jeffersonian-Educated-Electorate,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

there are several problems in our system of government. here are a few:

Hey questor!

Here are some things to think about from your list:

Originally Posted by questor

1. a poorly informed and apathetic electorate. less than 50% of eligible voters participate.

Apathy comes from getting the feeling that "they're all crooks" and "it doesn't matter anyway because the people in power control the politicians." I definitely agree that the electorate is poorly informed, but that's got a lot to do with lack of education. My class was one of the last in my high school that had a *required* Economics class. For manipulative politicians, insistence that children focus solely on the three R's is one of the worst things to happen in education, although it will help them over time from ever being booted out of office!

Originally Posted by questor

2. power hungry politicians

Anyone who likes to get up in front of audiences is power-hungry and egotistical. It takes one to know one, so lets just say I speak here from experience. The power-hungry *will* do a good job as long as you keep them in a box! They're motivating and they're talented! Being "power-hungry" is not necessarily bad! The whole point of our democratic institutions and laws are to keep these folks in a box and make sure they don't have unchecked power. This is why when *any* excuse for ignoring the law (e.g. "war on terror justifies any action by the president regardless of the law"), can lead to very horrible "unintended consequences".

Originally Posted by questor

3. money hungry lobbyists and politicians

Money is nice, power is what motivates the politician though. Lobbyists do like money, but unlike Jack Abramoff, most like to stay behind the scenes, and they only are interested in serving the desires of their clients, no matter what the consequences. Lobbyists serve a useful function if their role is limited--as it originally was--to educating the elected officials--rather than what it has become which is "vote goes to the highest bidder." Favorite quote from a letter to Lou Dobbs on CNN: "If this is the best government money can buy, we're getting ripped off!"

Originally Posted by questor

4. lack of oversight on abuses

Yep. That's what my response to point 2 above is about. When party loyalty is more important than keeping the system healthy, you start to get in real trouble. That's why the "politics of personal destruction" and "polarization of issues" which sells well because everything is black and white, is so horribly destructive. Politicians have to stop talking about "our side vs. their side" and start talking about *we the people*.

Originally Posted by questor

5. pork barrel politics. quid pro quo on local issues not important to the country

Bringing home the bacon is a popular issue when it comes to jobs. Because of the push toward issues that mostly benefit non-local corporate interests, almost all of the pork these days has been relegated to money for government funded local projects (like Alaska's "bridge to no where"), and that's why the federal budget is completely out of control, causing such bleeding heart liberals as John McCain to complain about congress being a bunch of drunken sailors.

Originally Posted by questor

6. a liberal leaning public media which espouses the liberal line no matter what harm it does to the country

How would you know if you don't watch it? Does Bill O'Reilly tell you? In fact the biggest complaint that most have about the media these days is that they are scared to death of doing anything "investigative" or counter to what the people in power want to have said lest they lose their "press access" (the white house does shut out reporters they don't like!) "Liberal media" is a red herring: just ask this question: if the media is so liberal and so influential, why are there still so many conservatives?

Originally Posted by questor

7. a poorly run Federal government that acts as a vast welfare system for incompetent workers and beaurocrats.

True. Its hard to run large beauraucracies. Even the ones we know are necessary (FBI, CIA, Pentagon), are acting no more efficiently than the Keystone Cops. Does that mean we get rid of them too?

Originally Posted by questor

8. a poorly conducted election system in which the issues are not clearly defined or presented

Fault the parties for that. Most political observers will tell you that the main reason that the Republicans have been so effective is that their messages have been presented as very clear "right vs. wrong," regularly oversimplifying problems and proposing inadequate solutions, while the Democrats respond with "well, its not as simple as that" and put people to sleep with details and trade-offs. Again, if the goal was to do what is right for the people rather than "ensuring a (political party) majority" we'd all be much better off.

Originally Posted by questor

9. an election system in which money plays the most important role

Yep. Said enuf above. Why is it that John McCain is pilloried by his party for saying we've got to fix it?

Originally Posted by questor

10. lack of full disclosure and truth by the media

...and politicians too. Actually the problem with the "media" is that so much of it is paid for anyway, as we've seen both in America (paid off columnists) and Iraq (US-ghost-written stories in all their papers).

There are demons everywhere. Be aware of them, and be aware fo their motives, and don't blindly follow anyone who just shares your hot-button issues. If you can't find an issue where two people particular people disagree that fosters discussion on rational alternatives, then our democracy is not working.

Fight Partisanism!
Buffy

[Boerseun]

Hi, your most excellent Buffness - and a Most Excellent Happy New Year to you! (but by now you should be tired of that line...)

Thanks, guys - good replies.

But what I want to know, if I can reduce it to the simplest issue:

Does 'Democracy' as we know and understand it, actually mean anything at all if we vote only on the most public issues?

There's so many variables at stake that (in my mind) it should simply be impossible to vote for one single party, and have a clear conscience afterwards. There is not a single political party on the face of this (my most favourite) planet who fits my political expectations 100% - in other words, whoever I vote for in the current system will end up being a compromise towards what I would actually want to see happen in my country.

For instance - I'd end up trading 'Economic Model X' for a ban on the Death Penalty, and my stance on Welfare would take second seat towards Healthcare, etc...

I dunno...

Politics are for people who wanted to go into marketing, but weren't satisfied with the exposure...

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Does 'Democracy' as we know and understand it, actually mean anything at all if we vote only on the most public issues?...There is not a single political party on the face of this (my most favourite) planet who fits my political expectations 100% - in other words, whoever I vote for in the current system will end up being a compromise towards what I would actually want to see happen in my country.

Its the debate between "direct democracy" (everyone votes on everything) vs. "representative democracy" (you vote for people who you hope will vote like you would). Direct democracy is inefficent and in an increasingly complex world, not every individual has the time or inclination to reach reasonable conclusions about issues. In representative democracy you can also have forces haggle and horse-trade to get reasonable conclusions about what should be done that are compromises between all parties (something that used to be done really well in the US congress in the 20th century, but is a lost art now for some reasons I discuss above). No, you're not going to find a politician that agrees with you 100%, and as I argue above, if you do, there's something wrong, but more over, no one but you will vote for them!!!

"Democracy is the worst form of Government...except for all the others." -- Winston Churchill

Vote! Its good for you!
Buffy

[Boerseun]

Sure...

'Direct' vs 'Representative' Deomcracy is the issue - but 'Representative' Democracy creates the gap for egotistical losers to make their stand; their stand being exactly what the popular issue at the time might be.

'Direct' might be more of a schlep, but I think it would be closer to the ideal of what we mean when we talk of 'Democracy' to begin with.

'Representative' would be 'Governance by an egotistical a-hole who happened to agree with you on one single point'.

'Direct' would be 'Governance by the people on every issue, executed by an appointed team who could also be removed by the people if incompetent'.

Am I idealistic? Am I a dreamer? Probably. I just think the whole representative deal favours a small minority of people, and 'governance by the people' goes flying out the back door.

[Buffy]

How much overlap you have on your list with the people that get elected is a good idea of how "extreme" (not "liberal" or "conservative"!) you are. Hot-button issues are more likely to lead you to vote for people who disagree with you on lots of other issues, but that may be a rational economic/political trade-off for you. That's your decision.

Representative *is* supposed to mean that they can be "removed by the people if incompetent". But the real issue is that people don't have the time for direct. I'll argue direct is more in the "spirit" of "true" democracy, but it doesn't work! Lots of nice theories don't work in the real world, sorry! What happens with direct democracy is that you get a 0.0001% turnout on the vote, with only the interest groups voting and the rest of us who were too apathetic to vote get stuck with it. So, yeah, you are a dreamer, but as usual, the advice is to not stop dreaming! Its still the goal!

Lobbying for the right causes,
Buffy

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

There's so many variables at stake that (in my mind) it should simply be impossible to vote for one single party, and have a clear conscience afterwards.

Mr Boerseun; this statement is without question a real mouthful . My response would be: Truer words were never spoken. ...............Infy