Democracy is crap

[JSFLY]

Title was to get your attention.

I do want to make the point that despite what most Americans think, democracy isn't the be all end all of forms of government/political systems. I think it is the best we have during this time period, but I also think we can do better.

What sucks about democracy?

Stagnation - (Can't get Sh*t done)

Republican president and democratic majority in congress? Can't get Sh*t done
Democratic president and republican majority? Can't get Sh*t done
One party controls both presidency and congress? Can get sh*t done, but still takes a lot of politicking and bickering. Also, necessary aggressive reforms are sometimes washed down to appease the other side.

Long term planning

Hard to reach goals extending beyond 8 years because of political shifts.
eg: Clinton enacts environmental reforms, Bush scraps them when he steps into office.

Politics made into a game

Because of re-election cycles, most politicians do what's necessary for re-election, not what necessary for the good of our country.

Let's now make a comparison. Regardless of what you think of the Chinese Communist Party, China's "single-party socialist republic" political system does not have any of the above problems. Granted they do have problems of their own that are non-existent within our democratic system, but isn't it funny how a form of government often demonized in the American media can be better in some ways than our democracy?

Just some food for thought.

Oh and my proposal for how to evolve our democratic system for the better is to have a one party democracy. Didn't really have time to think this through so feel free to poke holes in it.

 

[JKing106]

Yep, because dictatorships, hidden or overt, are so much better. Just look at the last 8 years to see what that does.

 

[dawp]

what do you propose? A constitutional monarchy where the king/queen has actual power?

No, I think we need more, not fewer parties where one can't run rough shot over the other. where a coalition has to be formed to get anything done. as it is now, a party in power can create laws that serve a small minority at the expence of the majority.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: dawp
No, I think we need more, not fewer parties where one can't run rough shot over the other. where a coalition has to be formed to get anything done. as it is now, a party in power can create laws that serve a small minority at the expence of the majority.

Yep. Democracy isn't the problem, but our two party system is. Europe has plenty of countries with democracy, but their structures aren't the same as USA's.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Bad democracy is just like any other bad government; democracy doesn't automatically make a government good.

Yep, because dictatorships, hidden or overt, are so much better. Just look at the last 8 years to see what that does.

IMO, a benevolent, long-looking dictator is the best type of government. Unfortunately, dictators are rarely benevolent and almost always focused on the short-term.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Title was to get your attention.

I do want to make the point that despite what most Americans think, democracy isn't the be all end all of forms of government/political systems. I think it is the best we have during this time period, but I also think we can do better.

What sucks about democracy?

Stagnation - (Can't get Sh*t done)

Republican president and democratic majority in congress? Can't get Sh*t done
Democratic president and republican majority? Can't get Sh*t done
One party controls both presidency and congress? Can get sh*t done, but still takes a lot of politicking and bickering. Also, necessary aggressive reforms are sometimes washed down to appease the other side.

Long term planning

Hard to reach goals extending beyond 8 years because of political shifts.
eg: Clinton enacts environmental reforms, Bush scraps them when he steps into office.

Politics made into a game

Because of re-election cycles, most politicians do what's necessary for re-election, not what necessary for the good of our country.

Let's now make a comparison. Regardless of what you think of the Chinese Communist Party, China's "single-party socialist republic" political system does not have any of the above problems. Granted they do have problems of their own that are non-existent within our democratic system, but isn't it funny how a form of government often demonized in the American media can be better in some ways than our democracy?

Just some food for thought.

Oh and my proposal for how to evolve our democratic system for the better is to have a one party democracy. Didn't really have time to think this through so feel free to poke holes in it.

The exceptions don't dictate the rules. There is no better method of governance in principle than democracy.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Yep, because dictatorships, hidden or overt, are so much better. Just look at the last 8 years to see what that does.

OMG! You just overtly called Bush a dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. thats SOOOOOOOOOO FUNNAY!!!!!! You should make a video of you saying that and put it up on Youtube!

 

[StageLeft]

Benevolent dictatorship. Give me the reigns and we will see some sh*t done. I will be a defender of justice and an oppressor of evil. I will make changes you cannot believe. The power will not corrupt me.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

the scope and function of government should be very small, the legislature was DESIGNED to hinder lawmaking

the less shit the government gets done, the less mistakes they make

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Bad democracy is just like any other bad government; democracy doesn't automatically make a government good.

Yep, because dictatorships, hidden or overt, are so much better. Just look at the last 8 years to see what that does.

IMO, a benevolent, long-looking dictator is the best type of government. Unfortunately, dictators are rarely benevolent and almost always focused on the short-term.

And even if you had a benevolent, visionary dictator, who's to say the next guy won't use those sweeping powers to crush everything and everyone?

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll address one point.

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Long term planning

Hard to reach goals extending beyond 8 years because of political shifts.
eg: Clinton enacts environmental reforms, Bush scraps them when he steps into office.

Term limits are anti-Democratic. It's just that simple, if people thought Clinton was doing a good job then he should have been available to stay in office just as FDR and previous presidents were able to do.

Bad Presidents are thrown out by the vote.
Good Presidents are thrown out by term limits.

Our Democracy wasn't built to function that way.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

The only thing I will concede is that most authoritarian regimes will, indeed, "get things done" much quicker than any sort of democracy.

Otherwise, I shudder to think about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Ceausescu, or Kim Il-Sung...

 

[ProfJohn]

""Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.""
Churchill

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
""Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.""
Churchill

Anecdotal response forthcoming: Based on my experience in over a dozen other countries, I would say I personally havent seen a better form of government. Its easy to read the interwebs and think the grass is greener *over there*, but its a different story to spend time in countries that DONT have democracy, and see how shitty the alternatives really are.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
""Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.""
Churchill

drat beat me to it!

well perhaps a different form of democracy would be better? maybe direct votes instead of reps? or something crazy like that?

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: dawp
what do you propose? A constitutional monarchy where the king/queen has actual power?

No, I think we need more, not fewer parties where one can't run rough shot over the other. where a coalition has to be formed to get anything done. as it is now, a party in power can create laws that serve a small minority at the expence of the majority.

Read last sentence of OP is where I make my proposal

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I'll address one point.

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Long term planning

Hard to reach goals extending beyond 8 years because of political shifts.
eg: Clinton enacts environmental reforms, Bush scraps them when he steps into office.

Term limits are anti-Democratic. It's just that simple, if people thought Clinton was doing a good job then he should have been available to stay in office just as FDR and previous presidents were able to do.

Bad Presidents are thrown out by the vote.
Good Presidents are thrown out by term limits.

Our Democracy wasn't built to function that way.

So true. Agree 100%

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
the scope and function of government should be very small, the legislature was DESIGNED to hinder lawmaking

the less shit the government gets done, the less mistakes they make

This obviously hasn't worked. One word....... Iraq.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: dawp
what do you propose? A constitutional monarchy where the king/queen has actual power?

No, I think we need more, not fewer parties where one can't run rough shot over the other. where a coalition has to be formed to get anything done. as it is now, a party in power can create laws that serve a small minority at the expence of the majority.

Read last sentence of OP is where I make my proposal

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I'll address one point.

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Long term planning

Hard to reach goals extending beyond 8 years because of political shifts.
eg: Clinton enacts environmental reforms, Bush scraps them when he steps into office.

Term limits are anti-Democratic. It's just that simple, if people thought Clinton was doing a good job then he should have been available to stay in office just as FDR and previous presidents were able to do.

Bad Presidents are thrown out by the vote.
Good Presidents are thrown out by term limits.

Our Democracy wasn't built to function that way.

So true. Agree 100%

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
the scope and function of government should be very small, the legislature was DESIGNED to hinder lawmaking

the less shit the government gets done, the less mistakes they make

This obviously hasn't worked. One word....... Iraq.

How is a one party democracy, a democracy? You know that North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, right? They have a 'one party democracy' too.

Our system of government, like most else in our society is based upon the idea of competition. The branches of government compete against one another, and ideas compete against one another. Arguing for a one party democracy is like saying that having two businesses competing with one another is wasteful because they're both supplying the same service.

Oh, and also...while Bush might have undone some of the things Clinton did, the vast, vast majority of Clinton's actions stayed. So the worry about things being 'undone' isn't too big a deal.

 

[Titan]

The U.S.A is not a democracy. That term is overused by everybody who mainly get it form the media. We have a democratic system, embedded within a constitutional republic.

In short, democracy is majority rule. If group A is bigger than group B, group B is basically at the mercy of group A. Used purely, it is one of the worst forms of government. Applied skillfully it can be good, but it can never trump the defined rights of the individual. At least it's not supposed to. That's why gay marriage keeps getting passed in so many states.

We are a constitutional representative republic that is supposed to protect certain inalienable rights of the individual so that no matter how many cabbage patch kids you have on your kickball team, you can't touch me.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: dawp
what do you propose? A constitutional monarchy where the king/queen has actual power?

No, I think we need more, not fewer parties where one can't run rough shot over the other. where a coalition has to be formed to get anything done. as it is now, a party in power can create laws that serve a small minority at the expence of the majority.

Read last sentence of OP is where I make my proposal

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I'll address one point.

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Long term planning

Hard to reach goals extending beyond 8 years because of political shifts.
eg: Clinton enacts environmental reforms, Bush scraps them when he steps into office.

Term limits are anti-Democratic. It's just that simple, if people thought Clinton was doing a good job then he should have been available to stay in office just as FDR and previous presidents were able to do.

Bad Presidents are thrown out by the vote.
Good Presidents are thrown out by term limits.

Our Democracy wasn't built to function that way.

So true. Agree 100%

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
the scope and function of government should be very small, the legislature was DESIGNED to hinder lawmaking

the less shit the government gets done, the less mistakes they make

This obviously hasn't worked. One word....... Iraq.

How is a one party democracy, a democracy? You know that North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, right? They have a 'one party democracy' too.

Our system of government, like most else in our society is based upon the idea of competition. The branches of government compete against one another, and ideas compete against one another. Arguing for a one party democracy is like saying that having two businesses competing with one another is wasteful because they're both supplying the same service.

Oh, and also...while Bush might have undone some of the things Clinton did, the vast, vast majority of Clinton's actions stayed. So the worry about things being 'undone' isn't too big a deal.

1. North Korea doesn't hold legitimate elections, they are a democracy only in name. More like a dictitorial monarchy.

Competition is still there in a one party democracy. Think of Primary elections.


2. Clinton left office with a national surplus. His goal was to put us on the path to erasing our national debt. Bush wiped out this surplus with a stroke of the pen and doubled our national debt. Yes it is a big deal.

Originally posted by: Titan
The U.S.A is not a democracy. That term is overused by everybody who mainly get it form the media. We have a democratic system, embedded within a constitutional republic.

In short, democracy is majority rule. If group A is bigger than group B, group B is basically at the mercy of group A. Used purely, it is one of the worst forms of government. Applied skillfully it can be good, but it can never trump the defined rights of the individual. At least it's not supposed to. That's why gay marriage keeps getting passed in so many states.

We are a constitutional representative republic that is supposed to protect certain inalienable rights of the individual so that no matter how many cabbage patch kids you have on your kickball team, you can't touch me.

Yes you are absolutely correct.

 

[ProfJohn]

One party democracy??

Are you on drugs. Imagine the corruption that would exist when the leaders of that party know they don't risk being thrown from office.

Look at the places in the US that have one party democracy, Chicago, Detroit and NYC prior to Rudy for example, and look at the corruption and waste that exists in those cities.

Right now congressmen are getting free vacations, their cars washed and maybe a new add on to the house. Under one party rule they will all be driving around in Limos and have their own personal highway lanes like they do in N Korea.

 

[Thump553]

As to the OP's premise, I quote Winston Churchill:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. "

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree. I think we need to think outside the box and come up with a new style of government that hasnt been done before. So far nothing is even close to perfect. Each brings to the table certain strengths and weaknesses. Now if we could just pull all those strengths together we'd be golden.

 

[Carmen813]

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

The failures in America's democracy are almost directly due to the failures of it's citizens. You can blame politicians and media all you want, but they are merely responding to what their constituents want.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One party democracy??

Are you on drugs. Imagine the corruption that would exist when the leaders of that party know they don't risk being thrown from office.

Look at the places in the US that have one party democracy, Chicago, Detroit and NYC prior to Rudy for example, and look at the corruption and waste that exists in those cities.

Right now congressmen are getting free vacations, their cars washed and maybe a new add on to the house. Under one party rule they will all be driving around in Limos and have their own personal highway lanes like they do in N Korea.

Well the idea did come right off the top of my head as I stated in the OP, so I'm sure there are many problems with the notion.

However corruption due to the lack of risk being thrown from office isn't one of them. Obviously the competition and "risk" comes from other members of their own party replacing them if they failed to live up to public expectations.

 

[Carmen813]

We should have significantly more than 2 viable parties.