Democracy - maybe this is as good as it gets?

[Mursilis]

The "Why can't Democrats lead?" thread got locked (so let's not beat that dead horse again), but maybe it asks the wrong question. Maybe the question we should be asking is, can anyone lead in a large democracy like the U.S.?

This is a nation of about ~316M people, ~207M of which are eligible to vote, and about half of which usually do, at least in a major election. Not only does each voter represent different, and usually competing, interests, most voters aren't even internally consistent. They want low taxes but abundant gov't services. They want free markets and less red tape, but also want to be protected from monopolies, predatory loans, and other consumer pitfalls. They want everyone to have high-quality healthcare, but they don't want to pay too much for it. They want the gov't to protect us from terrorist plots and crazed shooters, but they also want civil liberties protected. And on and on . . . To address these interests, we've got a President, a Supreme Court, and a legislative body of 535 people, of which the average voter only gets to vote for 3. And we expect efficient and effective gov't from this? Is this even a realistic expectation in a nation of this size?

Someone in the other thread suggested our system wasn't designed to be efficient - it was designed to be inefficient, to limit the potential for abuses. In that sense, our gov't has been pretty good about not destroying our nation (akin to Hitler's rise to power and dissolution of representative democracy in Germany) or killing a good number of its own citizens (the Civil War being the big exception) so, if it can do little good, at least it can do no major harm either. Should we really expect much more?

Looking at large organizations like private corporations, the armed services, etc., it's clear that they don't utilize much in the way of democratic principles. A publicly-held corporation may have a board of directors, but their oversight is limited and of questionable effect. A military unit is about as anti-democratic as you can get, as the commander does not answer to the troops under his command at all, yet few people question this organizational structure.

So why do we expect the representative gov't of a nation this side to anywhere near as effective, especially with the constant level of churn in the top ranks?

Thoughts? And please try to keep this nonpartisan - I'm only interested in structural issues here, not whether one party is any better than the other in actually running our country.

 

[dank69]

I think you hit on the core issue that people expect too much from the government. That does not mean I think it would be better to have no government at all. I just think it is important to make sure the government isn't making things worse. Of course everyone has different ideas on what would make things worse.

I think where I stray from a lot of Democrats is that I don't necessarily believe that it is the role of government to make things "better," at least not with respect to everything. I think the primary role of government should be to step in to stop abuses, if that is general enough for you.

 

[randomrogue]

The fact that our union is enormous makes things very difficult. If you look at the other large populations China is deplorable, India ain't bad but has serious issues, Russia is reverting back to authoritanariasm, Indonesia and Brazil are making headway like India but still have issues, etc. This should be kinda obvious though. Anyone who has been a leader of a company or group of individuals must have noticed that to get anything truly done you ultimately have to tell everyone else to STFU and just make an executive decision. The alternative is to just cater to a portion of the population. We do just that. We cater to the rich and could give two fucks about the rest of the country.

So you need smaller chunks to govern. Thus why we have State and Local governments. The problem is when the federal government tries to dictate policy nationally that is impossible to get an agreement on. As far as I'm concerned there should be Universal Healthcare. Let states opt out though. We'll see how stupid they look.

The issue I have is that despite their being tax differences across the nation there really isn't much that anyone gets for their 25%-45% tax burden. It's pretty lousy. Some might get nice parks with their property taxes but for the most part the USA has a shitty system as far as government benefits. We pay too much for too little. This creates a problem since the "too much" part sticks out and people want to naturally pay less taxes. They don't really realize that they should be getting more.

A flat tax is probably a good solution nationally. If we want to give more rights to states and local governments then maybe we could end up with a nice portion of the country that pays higher taxes and gets lots of benefits and then the rest of the country that pays less taxes and lives like shit. Not really good for the nation but maybe then people would be able to really see how things work. Like many nations we're very patriotic so we have a very hard time comparing to other countries. We're the best even when we suck ass.

One thing is certain, the USA's system is not the best we can do. I'd really love to sit down and do a mathematical comparison between some European countries or even Canada and Australia to see where the true divide lies. Who really benefits from these lower taxes and less benefits? Rough math says it's at least people who make $150,000 or more. Considering only 5% of the population makes more than 100K and 2% more than $200K you can clearly see that the vast majority of Americans are getting hosed.

Do the math. How much do you pay for daycare? Healthcare? Transportation? Education? Even internet? It's fleecing at its finest.

 

[fskimospy]

There is usually a tradeoff between stability, action, and how representative something is.

Our government is designed to be highly stable, but where it is difficult to act. It isn't easy to make large changes to our system. As for our lack of representativeness, again we sacrifice that for stability. (the two party system is not representative, but is highly stable) This is a sliding scale for the most part, one where I believe we have sacrificed too much ability to act and too much representativeness for stability.

For example, under our current system it is possible for senators representing less than 11% of the US population to effectively stop almost all legislation, cabinet nominees, etc through use of the filibuster. That ensures a broad consensus is needed to enact new legislation, but in my opinion that is VASTLY more broad than what we should be shooting for.

It doesn't have to be this way, but that's the way it is.

 

[randomrogue]

The average cost of center-based daycare in the United States is $11,666 per year

Several states are way more expensive. Infant care is more expensive. I'd like to bring up the average for simplicity sake though. If you're making $100,000 a year then you're paying 11.6% in "taxes" for your daycare. Where I live it costs about $130 a month. So yes I pay more in taxes but I sure as hell don't pay 11.6% more to cover that cost. Something is wrong here.

In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a "moderate" college budget for an in-state public college for the 2012–2013 academic year averaged $22,261. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $43,289.

The cost for one year of tuition and fees varies widely among colleges. According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2012–2013 school year was $29,056 at private colleges, $8,655 for state residents at public colleges, and $21,706 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.

Education. I didn't realize until a few weeks ago how out of control tuition was. I don't know what happened but I graduated a bit over a decade ago and didn't pay anything near this. Almost half. Once again the numbers above are an average.

So the question you have to ask yourself is if you get a state education and graduate in 5 years it's going to cost you $44K just for tuition and fees. Might as well go with their budget numbers since we all know we need books, food, housing, etc. So 5 years and your degree costs you $111,305. Graduate degrees obviously are going to add another chunk to that. You pay this off over 10 years. I don't care how you want to look at this but lets call it an even $100,000 with interest since you somehow got a bargain basement education and some grants and divide it over 20 years since your parents paid for everything. That's a 5% additional tax that your parents paid for you to get your free education. Now we're up to almost 17% more in "taxes".

Lets do Healthcare. I pay zero for healthcare and if I get sick it costs me about $150 a year. I pay more taxes. I don't quite remember what my healthcare cost me in the states but I think I put $2600 in a HSA each year and paid my deductible from that. I had my own company though and I know that there were some years the balance wasn't used. One year though an MRI alone cost me $5,000. My mother has poor health and is too young for government aid so it costs my parents $12,000 a year in healthcare. Obviously we need to find an average though. The average family of 4 pays $3600 so lets divide that by 4 for simplicity sake and call it $900. Another 1% tax. We're up to 18%.

Not a perfect example since daycare only last so long and maybe you don't have kids or maybe you get a free ride but the point is that far too many Americans are paying too much for too little.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm undecided about the fillibuster. It's a problem right now because it's being abused to routinely require a super-majority to get anything passed in the Senate. It isn't a bad rule if it is used sparingly as originally intended.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm undecided about the fillibuster. It's a problem right now because it's being abused to routinely require a super-majority to get anything passed in the Senate. It isn't a bad rule if it is used sparingly as originally intended.

Well it was never originally intended to exist at all, it's just an outgrowth of never creating parliamentary rules to limit debate.

It was less harmful in the past because it was used sparingly, but there have never been any institutional requirements that force it to be used sparingly. Having rules for governance that are dependent on people deciding to behave well is never a good idea.

 

[dank69]

Several states are way more expensive. Infant care is more expensive. I'd like to bring up the average for simplicity sake though. If you're making $100,000 a year then you're paying 11.6% in "taxes" for your daycare. Where I live it costs about $130 a month. So yes I pay more in taxes but I sure as hell don't pay 11.6% more to cover that cost. Something is wrong here.

...

Wow, I pay $200/week for my daughter, but it is a neighbor we trust.

 

[randomrogue]

That's $800 a month though Dank. That's a lot of money. I'm from California and $1200-$1500 is pretty normal. So a family of 4 has to make some very hard choices. Does one of them quit their $50,000 a year job or do they pay the $30,000 daycare bill?

 

[nehalem256]

Several states are way more expensive. Infant care is more expensive. I'd like to bring up the average for simplicity sake though. If you're making $100,000 a year then you're paying 11.6% in "taxes" for your daycare. Where I live it costs about $130 a month. So yes I pay more in taxes but I sure as hell don't pay 11.6% more to cover that cost. Something is wrong here.

So basically the problem is that you can't get other people to pay for your life choices.

Well it was never originally intended to exist at all, it's just an outgrowth of never creating parliamentary rules to limit debate.

It was less harmful in the past because it was used sparingly, but there have never been any institutional requirements that force it to be used sparingly. Having rules for governance that are dependent on people deciding to behave well is never a good idea.

Funny because depending on people behaving well is pretty much a fundamental requirement for a free society. If we cannot even trust our elected representatives to behave well, people who should be at least above-average individuals, how can we trust the rest of people to behave well?

 

[Jaskalas]

The fact that our union is enormous makes things very difficult. If you look at the other large populations China is deplorable, India ain't bad but has serious issues, Russia is reverting back to authoritanariasm, Indonesia and Brazil are making headway like India but still have issues, etc. This should be kinda obvious though. Anyone who has been a leader of a company or group of individuals must have noticed that to get anything truly done you ultimately have to tell everyone else to STFU and just make an executive decision. The alternative is to just cater to a portion of the population. We do just that. We cater to the rich and could give two fucks about the rest of the country.

So you need smaller chunks to govern. Thus why we have State and Local governments. The problem is when the federal government tries to dictate policy nationally that is impossible to get an agreement on. As far as I'm concerned there should be Universal Healthcare. Let states opt out though. We'll see how stupid they look.

Trial and error. Learning by example. Supporting State's Rights lets us achieve these things. Lets us move beyond petty two party politics in Washington. It might end up with just two parties per State, but they will differ between States. Not all States will have the same two parties. They will branch out and try different solutions. States leading in success and prosperity will pave the way for others to follow.

We need diversity and specialization. To play to our strengths instead of our weaknesses. We need to overturn the absolutist centralized view of government - and let Democrats and Republicans BOTH have what they want at the same time.

I'd argue Democracy isn't bad - but our model of it is deeply flawed and can be improved by refinement. Our Federal Government needs to be remade into a framework of protections. While the regular, everyday authority, is made as local as humanly possible. Smaller Democracy is better Democracy.

We would move further as a nation if we practiced live and let live, instead of trying to conquer all.

 

[randomrogue]

I think the solutions are rather simple to get the ball rolling. Somehow stop the two party monopoly. It's a shell game and is fundamentally flawed. I don't know why we don't force candidates to all play with the same pool of money. As it is right now we have candidates that are buying their way into office with special interest money. It's corrupt.

Flat tax. As long as we have our current tax system then the rich will get richer. I firmly believe that people have a right to earn their fortunes but they need to pay the same percentage as everyone else. At least. We have a tax system where I live where you pay a set amount and then for every dollar above that you pay a higher rate. That works out quite well. Just don't overdo it. I think it was France that basically had their richest people going to nearby countries for cheaper taxes since their rate was 75%. There has to be a way to stop the offshore accounts and tax evasion.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny because depending on people behaving well is pretty much a fundamental requirement for a free society. If we cannot even trust our elected representatives to behave well, people who should be at least above-average individuals, how can we trust the rest of people to behave well?

The amount of protections you have against a behavior is proportional to the potential harm of that behavior. Being able to grind the country to a halt should not be easy to do.

 

[nehalem256]

The amount of protections you have against a behavior is proportional to the potential harm of that behavior. Being able to grind the country to a halt should not be easy to do.

Its not easy. You still need 41 senators.

And grind the country to a halt is a sensationalist claim to begin with. The country didn't grind to a halt, Democrats were just unable to pass all the legislation they wanted.

 

[fskimospy]

Its not easy. You still need 41 senators.

And grind the country to a halt is a sensationalist claim to begin with. The country didn't grind to a halt, Democrats were just unable to pass all the legislation they wanted.

The minimum requirement to get 41 senators is approximately 11% of the population.

This 11% could effectively stop nearly all legislation from going forward.

This is a bad way to structure governance.

 

[sm625]

Thoughts? And please try to keep this nonpartisan - I'm only interested in structural issues here, not whether one party is any better than the other in actually running our country.

The structure itself is actually pretty bad. Sure, we elect leaders but it just so happens that the choices we have are a carefully crafted illusion. What would Romney have done differently than obama? Naive persons might actually attempt to make a list of things that would be different, but I do not believe that list would be near as long as others might pretend to believe. Who actually thinks Romneycare would be any different than obamacare, in any meaningful sense? Drone strikes? The TSA groping? Trillion dollar deficits and ladling of billions into the pockets of the rich? Millions more on food stamps every year? What exactly would be different depending on who gets elected?

So the fact is there actually is no choice. So, what do you call a system that has "totally free and open elections", giving the people a choice between two candidates who are exactly the same? You can call that a democracy if you wish, and most people do, but it is clearly not. What we have is a farce. It is an oligopoly split between large corporations and special interest groups like the Council on Foreign relations. That is the key structural issue. We are given a choice of leaders, but we have no choice in how they lead. And people tolerate this for whatever reason...

 

[cwjerome]

How do you get the 11% figure?

 

[fskimospy]

How do you get the 11% figure?

Combined population of the smallest 21 states. (it's an approximation of course.)

 

[cwjerome]

Combined population of the smallest 21 states. (it's an approximation of course.)

So you're saying the 11% figure could happen in theory, but hasn't happened and is about as likely as Obama being struck by lightning tomorrow.

I see the point the theoretical number is trying to make, but because it's so unrealistic, it's not very persuasive.

 

[fskimospy]

So you're saying the 11% figure could happen in theory, but hasn't happened and is about as likely as Obama being struck by lightning tomorrow.

I see the point the theoretical number is trying to make, but because it's so unrealistic, it's not very persuasive.

Well sure it's unlikely, but we're talking about the structure of government. An important thing to note is that the Senate is very different now than it was when the Constitution was written. The difference in population between the large and small states is VASTLY larger now than it was in 1789, meaning that the Senate has become much, much less democratic than how it was originally envisioned.

As a real-world example, that recent gun legislation was blocked by senators that represented only 38% of American citizens. If even 38% of people can grind all business to a halt, that's a big problem.

 

[Murloc]

I haven't read the rest of the thread but I think strong semidirect democracy on all levels is the last piece missing to the US to make it the ultimate democracy.
I don't like the two-party/presidential system either but it becomes secondary if the people is sovereign and the US isn't unstable despite of this anyway.

To me it's clear that purely representative democracy doesn't work, any other country I look at I just see politicians behaving in an out-of-touch manner, or doing their own interests.

As a real-world example, that recent gun legislation was blocked by senators that represented only 38% of American citizens. If even 38% of people can grind all business to a halt, that's a big problem.

that's the point of the bicameral system. Protecting the states with a lower population from abuse by the big ones.
You could reverse this: through the other chamber, coastal megacities can block something wanted by the majority of states.
It's about protecting minorities.
Now you could argue that the US isn't that diverse, everybody speaks English and has an american culture, there's much stronger cultural syncretism than in other countries. In this case, you should redraw the state borders and make some aggregations since the historical reasons for the actual borders may have become extinct (unless new reasons arose).

 

[cwjerome]

Well sure it's unlikely, but we're talking about the structure of government. An important thing to note is that the Senate is very different now than it was when the Constitution was written. The difference in population between the large and small states is VASTLY larger now than it was in 1789, meaning that the Senate has become much, much less democratic than how it was originally envisioned.

As a real-world example, that recent gun legislation was blocked by senators that represented only 38% of American citizens. If even 38% of people can grind all business to a halt, that's a big problem.

38% seems like a much more reasonable figure to make the point, although "grind all business to a halt" is an extreme take on blocking a piece of legislation.

I am not sure the Senate has become much, much less democratic than how it was originally envisioned. It's speculation to say that the Framers didn't envision changes in the population gaps between states or that the same ratio was expected into eternity. Besides, with the 17th Amendment, the Senate became more democratic than they envisioned.

I am open to changes in Senate rules but I still see the Senate as a minor check on majority or democratic excess and abuse, and certainly don't see it as being like the House. I am certain some common sense tweaks could be made that would help ensure better function, but I think there are a lot of larger social-political issues at play on why the government is where it's at.

 

[nehalem256]

Well sure it's unlikely, but we're talking about the structure of government. An important thing to note is that the Senate is very different now than it was when the Constitution was written. The difference in population between the large and small states is VASTLY larger now than it was in 1789, meaning that the Senate has become much, much less democratic than how it was originally envisioned.

The Senate was originally appointed by state legislatures instead of being directly elected.

No where is deciding issues by strict majority necessary for Democracy.

No where in the constitution does it say that all issues put before the Senate should be decided in such a matter, and in fact on various occasions specifically requires a super-majority.

As a real-world example, that recent gun legislation was blocked by senators that represented only 38% of American citizens. If even 38% of people can grind all business to a halt, that's a big problem.

38% is not much different than 41/100 now is it? Stop one bill is not grinding all business to a halt.

 

[bradly1101]

Do the math. How much do you pay for daycare? Healthcare? Transportation? Education? Even internet? It's fleecing at its finest.

Also with government owned by corporations and whatever crazy group has enough money, can we really call it a democracy (recent privacy issues notwithstanding)?

We need a new name. Monocracy?

Citizen lobbying = democracy.

Corporate lobbying and unlimited contributions = bribery.

 

[fskimospy]

38% seems like a much more reasonable figure to make the point, although "grind all business to a halt" is an extreme take on blocking a piece of legislation.

I am not sure the Senate has become much, much less democratic than how it was originally envisioned. It's speculation to say that the Framers didn't envision changes in the population gaps between states or that the same ratio was expected into eternity. Besides, with the 17th Amendment, the Senate became more democratic than they envisioned.

I am open to changes in Senate rules but I still see the Senate as a minor check on majority or democratic excess and abuse, and certainly don't see it as being like the House. I am certain some common sense tweaks could be made that would help ensure better function, but I think there are a lot of larger social-political issues at play on why the government is where it's at.

I think if you look at how the filibuster is now employed "grinding business to a halt" is a very accurate term.

The senate was already designed to give minority populations outsized representation. A combination of population growth and the filibuster has expanded that disparity beyond the boundaries of what qualifies as effective governance in my opinion. It needs to be changed.