How do you feel about democracy?

[Vice President Christian Man]

Fairly similar to my last post but I want to see what you all think of democracy,

[Biden his time]

Option #8

[Antonio the Sixth]

The short answer is that we need "more democracy", but not in the way in which "more democracy" is traditionally understood.

We emphatically do NOT need to give people more things to vote on. In fact we should probably significantly reduce the number of things people vote on. Direct democracy and the direct election of all sorts of public offices such a judges and cabinet officials in the United States has been an abject failure. It's made government worse on every level, and hasn't empowered citizens in any meaningful way - it's just made it easier for moneyed interests to sway policies to their advantage. Admittedly sometimes it's led to good outcomes (like minimum wage hikes and redistricting commissions) but on the whole it's clearly a failed experiment.

We certainly should make voting more accessible (and even mandatory, ideally, if that could be implemented without negative side-effects). The biggest scandal of American democracy is how few people vote. There are many complex reasons for that, but at least some of the most obvious barriers should obviously be lifted. But beyond how many people vote, there are more fundamental questions we should start asking about how they vote, and how to make the connection between votes and outcomes more tangible to voters. The problem at the core of American democracy is that there's no meaningful connection between the kind of policies voters want and the kind of representation they get. It gets to an almost comical degree where the most #populist politicians are those who support the policies most antithetical to the average voter's values and interests. Solving this fundamental problem is an incredibly thorny issue, and I don't have one clear answer. It probably requires changing both the ways in which people vote (for example moving toward a PR system that more accurately reflects the pluralism of US society), as well as changing the broader environment (notably, the informational environment) in which voters make their choices.

[Alcibiades]

The short answer is that we need "more democracy", but not in the way in which "more democracy" is traditionally understood.

We emphatically do NOT need to give people more things to vote on. In fact we should probably significantly reduce the number of things people vote on. Direct democracy and the direct election of all sorts of public offices such a judges and cabinet officials in the United States has been an abject failure. It's made government worse on every level, and hasn't empowered citizens in any meaningful way - it's just made it easier for moneyed interests to sway policies to their advantage. Admittedly sometimes it's led to good outcomes (like minimum wage hikes and redistricting commissions) but on the whole it's clearly a failed experiment.

We certainly should make voting more accessible (and even mandatory, ideally, if that could be implemented without negative side-effects). The biggest scandal of American democracy is how few people vote. There are many complex reasons for that, but at least some of the most obvious barriers should obviously be lifted. But beyond how many people vote, there are more fundamental questions we should start asking about how they vote, and how to make the connection between votes and outcomes more tangible to voters. The problem at the core of American democracy is that there's no meaningful connection between the kind of policies voters want and the kind of representation they get. It gets to an almost comical degree where the most #populist politicians are those who support the policies most antithetical to the average voter's values and interests. Solving this fundamental problem is an incredibly thorny issue, and I don't have one clear answer. It probably requires changing both the ways in which people vote (for example moving toward a PR system that more accurately reflects the pluralism of US society), as well as changing the broader environment (notably, the informational environment) in which voters make their choices.

I completely agree with this (expect for mandatory voting, which I am deeply opposed to on principle), especially the last point. Unlike most of Europe, Americans simply don’t have the chance to vote for politicians with clear, concrete, policy-focused manifestos which they are expected to deliver on and treat tantamount to promises (and the fact that Americans can vote for so many positions in a funny way actually dilutes the power of each individual vote). Undoubtedly the biggest reason for this is the insane degree of separation of powers, specifically the hugely over-powerful executive and upper house, and incredibly weak lower house. Unfortunately, it is very unrealistic to expect this arrangement to ever change.

[fhtagn]

I stand by my previously stated position that democracy was a mistake.

[parochial boy]

In what will come as a shocking revelation, I actually do strongly believe in direct democracy, and that fits in to idea that the best system is "as much democracy as possible". There is always a tendency for people to point towards things like Brexit, or even hypotheticals as some kind of snobbish proof that "the people" are too stupid/ill informed/immature to be trusted with direct democracy - and then play this off against the alleged maturity of the Swiss in their voting habits (when you know, we decided not to ban banks from being able to lend money or against abolish federal income tax and stuff), but that itself ignores some fairly important fundamentals.

I mean, on the one hand, yes, Swiss referendum results are informed by a pretty strong culturally ingrained risk-aversion, as well as exceptionally - possibly uniquely - high trust in the political institutions; which tend to mean perceived risky or radical options are rejected. However, that absolutely doesn't mean that people don't use referendums to protest vote or make a point. Personally, I have on a number of occasions voted for things that I don't necessarily want to happen - but purely to make a political point about something (most people I know have too), but I, you know, still think I am fairly well informed and whatever.

The point it, Swiss referendums "work" because there are very clear, explicit, uncontested rules about why, and when a referendum happens; how the campaign works; and how voters are informed about the issues. If you hit the criteria to have a vote, you have a vote, if you don't, you don't. That itself is a system that fosters trust, because people know why they are voting; and this in itself tends to lead people to vote based on the questions put before them, rather than based on their opinion of the incumbent government or whatever (and of course, the unique set up of the federal council helps here too - as does the strucutral weakness of political parties in the political and referendum processes relative to elsewhere, which is a result of the referendum system as much as a cause).

Big difference between that and Brexit or the EU consititution and incumbents governments calling referendums to try and legitimise their own hold on power and where, shockingly, the electorates responded as such. And in the former case, where the lack of any clear rules about why and when a referendum is held in the first place lead to the chaos that we all enjoyed so much.

As for democracy itself, what Tony said. Democracy is the only legimitate form of government in my eyes - because a government cannot be legimitate, and it's political programme cannot be legitimate unless it is done with the consent of the people affected by that programme. Or more importantly, government should only ever be in place to serve the interests of the people it represents. The case with judges is that the judicial system is supposed to be neutral and independent. Where judges are elected based on partisan leanings that undermines that as you would expect them to allow that to influence the way they carry out their duties cf the quite frankly disturbing way the supreme court functions.

*elected judges - sort of - exist here, in so far as they are elected by parliament, are technically party partisan - but the fact that no party has a parliamentary majority, as well as all the informal rules, means that they behave as they are guaranteed to lose re-election otherwise. Even then, it's still a deeply problematic system

[Antonio the Sixth]

I stand by my previously stated position that democracy was a mistake.

Wow, you are such a uniquely intelligent individual for arriving at this conclusion. Clearly this remarkable intellect qualifies you as one of the chosen few who ought to rule over the unwashed masses.

[fhtagn]

I stand by my previously stated position that democracy was a mistake.

Wow, you are such a uniquely intelligent individual for arriving at this conclusion. Clearly this remarkable intellect qualifies you as one of the chosen few who ought to rule over the unwashed masses.

Imagine being so triggered over a statement that wasn't even directed towards you.

[Mr. Smith]

Like capitalism unrestrained, it just eats itself alive.

[RosettaStoned]

Democracy is overrated and this is becoming more and more obvious as the world's population increases.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I stand by my previously stated position that democracy was a mistake.

Wow, you are such a uniquely intelligent individual for arriving at this conclusion. Clearly this remarkable intellect qualifies you as one of the chosen few who ought to rule over the unwashed masses.

Imagine being so triggered over a statement that wasn't even directed towards you.

Call it triggered if you want. I'm just perpetually astounded at the sheer lack of self-awareness required to make these kinds of comments.

[fhtagn]

I stand by my previously stated position that democracy was a mistake.

Wow, you are such a uniquely intelligent individual for arriving at this conclusion. Clearly this remarkable intellect qualifies you as one of the chosen few who ought to rule over the unwashed masses.

Imagine being so triggered over a statement that wasn't even directed towards you.

Call it triggered if you want. I'm just perpetually astounded at the sheer lack of self-awareness required to make these kinds of comments.

It's cute that you aren't bothering to reply the same to anyone else here that has since made similar posts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I stand by my previously stated position that democracy was a mistake.

Wow, you are such a uniquely intelligent individual for arriving at this conclusion. Clearly this remarkable intellect qualifies you as one of the chosen few who ought to rule over the unwashed masses.

Imagine being so triggered over a statement that wasn't even directed towards you.

Call it triggered if you want. I'm just perpetually astounded at the sheer lack of self-awareness required to make these kinds of comments.

It's cute that you aren't bothering to reply the same to anyone else here that has since made similar posts.

You mean, the one other person? Who posted after I had already replied to you? lol, obviously I'm not going to repeat what I already said, but the sentiment applies to him too of course.

[GregTheGreat657]

I support a direct democracy with a mandatory government-distributed voter ID

[CEO Mindset]

Democracy sucks but aristotle is garbage.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Democracy is overrated and this is becoming more and more obvious as the world's population increases.

What does the world's population have to do with it?

[afleitch]

Democracy is a fine system soiled by predatory monopolies in both business and the press and heavily imbalanced generational wealth distribution both of which are fueling a distractive culture war. It's not democracy that's a problem, but how it's played.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The short answer is that we need "more democracy", but not in the way in which "more democracy" is traditionally understood.

We emphatically do NOT need to give people more things to vote on. In fact we should probably significantly reduce the number of things people vote on. Direct democracy and the direct election of all sorts of public offices such a judges and cabinet officials in the United States has been an abject failure. It's made government worse on every level, and hasn't empowered citizens in any meaningful way - it's just made it easier for moneyed interests to sway policies to their advantage. Admittedly sometimes it's led to good outcomes (like minimum wage hikes and redistricting commissions) but on the whole it's clearly a failed experiment.

We certainly should make voting more accessible (and even mandatory, ideally, if that could be implemented without negative side-effects). The biggest scandal of American democracy is how few people vote. There are many complex reasons for that, but at least some of the most obvious barriers should obviously be lifted. But beyond how many people vote, there are more fundamental questions we should start asking about how they vote, and how to make the connection between votes and outcomes more tangible to voters. The problem at the core of American democracy is that there's no meaningful connection between the kind of policies voters want and the kind of representation they get. It gets to an almost comical degree where the most #populist politicians are those who support the policies most antithetical to the average voter's values and interests. Solving this fundamental problem is an incredibly thorny issue, and I don't have one clear answer. It probably requires changing both the ways in which people vote (for example moving toward a PR system that more accurately reflects the pluralism of US society), as well as changing the broader environment (notably, the informational environment) in which voters make their choices.

This. Although sometimes this can be the only way to enact good things. The Idaho or Missouri legislatures would have never passed a Medicaid expansion, but the voters did because it's simple: expand health care, yes or no. And considering that >60% of Americans believe the government should provide health care as a right that might be how we get UHC.

[Vosem]

A mix of the first two, though I voted for Swiss-style direct democracy. It's become very clear that direct democracy is a tool that lets people's innate fiscal conservatism shine through, even when fiscal conservatives are outspent and out-organized, so much more of that would be very good. Voting should be accessible, of course, but reasonable restrictions like ID laws seem to increase public confidence in institutions and are probably also good and necessary.

This commentary is limited to the United States (and maybe some other modern First World countries); I think there are many societies where fair votes seem to lead to a 'kill the minorities' result, or similar horribleness, and they probably should not be democracies. But the modern US has too little democracy, not too much.

[Grassroots]

Democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself.

[West_Midlander]

Ideally, the House should primarily use multi-member seats. The House should also be expanded in size somewhat. Voter ID should be encouraged (at the state level) but voter registration should also be automatic at 18.

All primaries should be open and/or there should be no party registration. Nonpartisan elections don't really help anything though. Senatorial races should also use RCV and for the Presidency but we should retain the electoral college.

We should have a competitive, multi-party democracy but most or all of these reforms should be state-level initiatives.

Electors should be allowed to vote their conscience and states should implement the Maine rule if they see fit to. State legislative seats should be drawn competitively or should be elected via multi-member districts.

[progressive85]

I strongly believe that democracy is best, and direct democracy is always the best of the best.  People should be empowered to hold their destinies in their own hands.

As long as you protect minority rights from mob rule, and restrict the rights of marginalized groups from being up for public votes, then I support wholeheartedly the ballot question and think it should be used not only at the local and state level, but also at the national level - but as a non-binding vote to properly gauge public opinion (the polls are unreliable), and also to repeal unpopular federal laws.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

[All Along The Watchtower]

It'd be a good idea.

[S019]

Option 7, I would make some reforms to make voting more accessible, I oppose direct democracy because you can't expect voters to make informed decisions on every issue and they are often swayed by fear-mongering-style campaigning. Just imagine if America had a national referendum on abortion, do we expect most people to listen to the facts or vote based on pre-conceived notions. What I do support is both making voting more accessible (via compulsory voting), as well as making our democracy more representative, this would include the abolition of the Senate, the abolition of districts in the House and instead the introduction of party lists to elect 435 (or more) seats to an at-large house. Also I would get rid of the Electoral College, and replace it with a national ranked popular vote (the popular vote but with ranked choice voting) (Ideally I'd abolish presidentialism altogether and just have the House serve as a unicameral parliamentary government, but that would not necessarily make democracy more proportional, it would simply make it more functional). Ultimately, democracy is a good idea but American democracy is flawed in many ways and reforms should be undertaken to make it more representative and more proportional.