How would the US be different if it were a true democracy?

[fskimospy]

Of course it's relevant. It suggests larger outside variables is the cause of the budget problems. States can get their revenues from a variety of places. Some states get more from property, other from incomes, etc. All of them are subject to fluctuations.

And all of them are not subject to the same degree of fluctuation, which was the whole point. It's an economy, of course there are additional variables. None of them make prop 13 any less of a disaster.

EDIT: Not to mention all the other propositions that have fucked up California's legislature.

 

[Infohawk]

And all of them are not subject to the same degree of fluctuation, which was the whole point. It's an economy, of course there are additional variables. None of them make prop 13 any less of a disaster.

EDIT: Not to mention all the other propositions that have fucked up California's legislature.

Not only are there other variables but they are more important. I just don't see how one can blame so much on direct democracy when other states without it have very similar outcomes and when in fact direct democracy in California is quite limited. One could look at Switzerland which has direct democracy and is successful in many regards.

Either you believe there is a benefit in people controlling their own destiny or you don't. If you can't trust people to choose a law you certainly can't trust people to choose an elected representative.

 

[fskimospy]

Not only are there other variables but they are more important. I just don't see how one can blame so much on direct democracy when other states without it have very similar outcomes and when in fact direct democracy in California is quite limited. One could look at Switzerland which has direct democracy and is successful in many regards.

Either you believe there is a benefit in people controlling their own destiny or you don't. If you can't trust people to choose a law you certainly can't trust people to choose an elected representative.

I'm not sure why you would say that other variables were more important in California's budgetary process. Seriously. Sure there is the overall economic environment for the country, but that doesn't explain the enduring inability to fix it. The problems come not only from direct democracy creating crazy tax laws, but it also comes from direct democracy creating crazy legislative procedure. The people of California screwed the budget and then broke the procedures for fixing it.

As for your second paragraph that's clearly untrue. I can most certainly trust people to elect representatives but not trust them to understand all the causes and consequences of specific laws they are passing. (this is in fact the root of the problem with the proposition system, the people don't understand larger consequences) I trust myself to choose a good lawyer, but I don't trust my abilities at representing myself in court. Same principle.

The will of the people should be respected in choosing the general direction of the country. They are utterly incompetent at figuring out the details of how to get there. What's worse is that the people don't realize just how incompetent they are.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not sure why you would say that other variables were more important in California's budgetary process.

Are you really telling me that you think California's budget problems are mainly because of prop 13? You don't think the fact that fewer people are working and that wages are falling is the main reason revenues are down? Again, this is happening all over the country.

As for your second paragraph that's clearly untrue. I can most certainly trust people to elect representatives but not trust them to understand all the causes and consequences of specific laws they are passing. (this is in fact the root of the problem with the proposition system, the people don't understand larger consequences) I trust myself to choose a good lawyer, but I don't trust my abilities at representing myself in court. Same principle.

When people hire trades they're hiring experience and in some cases education. (Let's use doctors since I actually think lawyers are not a good example of what you're talking about: people are not good at choosing them.) That idea does not translate well into politics. People understand political values and government. Most people interact with government on a daily basis. Compare that with a doctor. People don't see cancer every day; they don't see surgery every day. And remember career professionals often create regulations and implement them. The politicians people vote for rarely draft the actual legislation. They are just pushing their values. This is something any human can do.

The will of the people should be respected in choosing the general direction of the country. They are utterly incompetent at figuring out the details of how to get there. What's worse is that the people don't realize just how incompetent they are.

Again, I think you're overestimating how involved politicians are with the details. Anyway, your statement is pretty vague and doesn't mean much in itself. I could use your argument to set up a system where people vote on a direction like "fairness for all" and then some politician would claim to implement that with all sorts of specifics most people don't agree with.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you really telling me that you think California's budget problems are mainly because of prop 13? You don't think the fact that fewer people are working and that wages are falling is the main reason revenues are down? Again, this is happening all over the country.

I think Prop 13 is one of the largest contributors, yes. In fact it's one of the largest contributors for the exact reasons you mentioned. California is unusually reliant on income taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes. This is primarily due to prop 13 undercutting local property taxes, which shifted educational tax burdens onto the state as a whole. Income taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes are generally more subject to fluctuation than property taxes. This makes California's tax base more unstable.

When people hire trades they're hiring experience and in some cases education. (Let's use doctors since I actually think lawyers are not a good example of what you're talking about: people are not good at choosing them.) That idea does not translate well into politics. People understand political values and government. Most people interact with government on a daily basis. Compare that with a doctor. People don't see cancer every day; they don't see surgery every day. And remember career professionals often create regulations and implement them. The politicians people vote for rarely draft the actual legislation. They are just pushing their values. This is something any human can do.

Most people do not understand how government works in any way, shape, or form. Greater than 90% of people on this political message board have basically no idea how government actually functions. This is simply false.

While legislators do not draft the specific language in most cases they have a vastly (VASTLY) greater understanding of the functions of government than the average voter does. They are absolutely not just 'pushing their values'. That is also simply false.

Again, I think you're overestimating how involved politicians are with the details. Anyway, your statement is pretty vague and doesn't mean much in itself. I could use your argument to set up a system where people vote on a direction like "fairness for all" and then some politician would claim to implement that with all sorts of specifics most people don't agree with.

No I'm not overestimating it at all, I'm quite aware of what I'm saying. There are many different levels of detail and representatives work at levels many degrees higher than the average citizen understands. While they don't draft the language itself, to say that their level of detail is similar to a citizens is not even close.

 

[Infohawk]

I think Prop 13 is one of the largest contributors, yes. In fact it's one of the largest contributors for the exact reasons you mentioned. California is unusually reliant on income taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes. This is primarily due to prop 13 undercutting local property taxes, which shifted educational tax burdens onto the state as a whole. Income taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes are generally more subject to fluctuation than property taxes. This makes California's tax base more unstable.

Prop 13 has been around for a while. Isn't it interesting that California has really gone down hill at the exact same time that other states have suffered? Doesn't that suggest other factors are much important?

Most people do not understand how government works in any way, shape, or form. Greater than 90% of people on this political message board have basically no idea how government actually functions. This is simply false.

While legislators do not draft the specific language in most cases they have a vastly (VASTLY) greater understanding of the functions of government than the average voter does. They are absolutely not just 'pushing their values'. That is also simply false.

No I'm not overestimating it at all, I'm quite aware of what I'm saying. There are many different levels of detail and representatives work at levels many degrees higher than the average citizen understands. While they don't draft the language itself, to say that their level of detail is similar to a citizens is not even close.

You act like politicians are political science PhDs. They are not. They really don't have any specialized knowledge going in. Now maybe what you're saying is that you don't think uneducated people should have as much of a say in society as educated people?

 

[fskimospy]

Prop 13 has been around for a while. Isn't it interesting that California has really gone down hill at the exact same time that other states have suffered? Doesn't that suggest other factors are much important?

No, it's not interesting at all. I'm not sure what you didn't get from what I wrote earlier?

You act like politicians are political science PhDs. They are not. They really don't have any specialized knowledge going in. Now maybe what you're saying is that you don't think uneducated people should have as much of a say in society as educated people?

No I don't, I don't believe you understand what I'm talking about here either. Have you ever worked with politicians? Have you ever worked in public policy in any way? They don't have specialized knowledge going in, but most politicians haven't been on the job for 2 weeks. Most legislation is drafted and marked up in committees and people who just showed up aren't the ones drafting it right away. Once they understand how government works better, then they become more active in the creation of legislation for the most part.

I am unaware of any credible source that would back up your claim that a mass democracy would be equally good or better at producing quality legislation than representative democracy is.

 

[hal2kilo]

The people of California screwed the budget and then broke the procedures for fixing it.

I lived in California for 3 years and that's really what's wrong with California.

We know which party broke the procedures for fixing it.

 

[ShawnD1]

How would the US be different? Do you think we'd be better off or worse? I realize that at the time of our founding this wouldn't have been possible (no fast and reliable national form of communication), so let's say this change occurred with the popularization of the private telephone, ~1950.

Better or worse is subjective. What's not subjective is that policies would take a radical jump to the left. Poll after poll show that Americans are a lot more liberal than the politicians representing them. For example, almost everything in Obamacare has majority support from both democrats and republicans. Can't be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions? Self identified democrats and republicans show overwhelming support for that. Legalize medical marijuana? More than half of the US supports medical marijuana. A majority of Americans think the War On Drugs is a lost cause (that does not mean they want everything legalized).


Y'all are saying California has some twisted form of democracy at this time. Is Cali considered hardcore left or hardcore right? There ya go.

 

[techs]

President Gore would be on Mt. Rushmore.

 

[Infohawk]

No, it's not interesting at all. I'm not sure what you didn't get from what I wrote earlier?

I don't get why you blame one particular measure for California's budget problems when it's obvious from looking around the country that the economy is behind California's budget problems especially when the law was around during periods when California's budget problems weren't as severe.

No I don't, I don't believe you understand what I'm talking about here either. Have you ever worked with politicians? Have you ever worked in public policy in any way? They don't have specialized knowledge going in, but most politicians haven't been on the job for 2 weeks. Most legislation is drafted and marked up in committees and people who just showed up aren't the ones drafting it right away. Once they understand how government works better, then they become more active in the creation of legislation for the most part.

I don't share personal information on this forum. One main reason is that it's not relevant. Saying you're an authority on something doesn't make you correct.

If politicians don't have specialized knowledge going in and they gain experience as they go along, I don't see why the average citizen couldn't if they felt they had a more direct impact. One thing about current direct democracy is that it is still very limited. I don't see any reason why people wouldn't be able to correct and learn from prior voting experiences. One problem today is that most people have zero impact on their government. Can you blame them for not taking an interest?

I am unaware of any credible source that would back up your claim that a mass democracy would be equally good or better at producing quality legislation than representative democracy is.

When you say "quality" what does that really mean? I suspect you're not blaming Prop 13 on the precise wording of the document right?

Democracy is really just a way to solve political disputes without resorting to violence. Its direct goal is not to produce "good" decisions. If you really wanted to do, wouldn't you promote some technocratic council of PhDs to run the country. Now it happens that an indirect effect of democracy is to produce better results than other systems. Why? Because when you take into account everyone's point of view, there tends to be less conflict left over that can destabilize a society.

We can see the negative effects of representative democracy today with the disproportionate effect that monied interests have on the political system. There's a reason the lobbying industry exists. It works nicely on representatives.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't get why you blame one particular measure for California's budget problems when it's obvious from looking around the country that the economy is behind California's budget problems especially when the law was around during periods when California's budget problems weren't as severe.

I didn't blame one measure alone for California's budget problems. It is a large contributor to their severity however. This destabilizing influence comes directly from a foolish implementation of direct democracy, one we should all take a lesson from. Direct democracy is an attack on the very heart of effective governance, intelligent and informed decision making.

I don't share personal information on this forum. One main reason is that it's not relevant. Saying you're an authority on something doesn't make you correct.

What I'm asking you to do there is think for a minute that perhaps you are speaking from a position of ignorance on how government in the US actually functions. I already know the answer to my question, it is clearly no. No one who had worked in policy would have taken some of those positions.

If politicians don't have specialized knowledge going in and they gain experience as they go along, I don't see why the average citizen couldn't if they felt they had a more direct impact. One thing about current direct democracy is that it is still very limited. I don't see any reason why people wouldn't be able to correct and learn from prior voting experiences. One problem today is that most people have zero impact on their government. Can you blame them for not taking an interest?

The legislator who gains specialized knowledge does so in large part because it is their 24/7 job to do so. They also have the benefits of staff members whose whole job is to assist legislators in their understanding of the issues present. This is simply not possible with direct democracy for obvious 'physical impossibility' reasons. Look at this board. It is filled with people who ostensibly take a significant, direct and personal interest in public policy. I couldn't even begin to count the number of totally bizarre, basic errors about public policy that I read here on a constant basis.

I simply have no idea why you think that people would take several hours a night (which would be the minimum level necessary to intelligently vote on issues) after their 40 hours a week in order to learn enough to vote. They would take information shortcuts through interest groups that would tell them what to think and how to vote. All this would do is shift representation to less accountable institutions as it has repeatedly done with interest groups for California propositions.

When you say "quality" what does that really mean? I suspect you're not blaming Prop 13 on the precise wording of the document right?

Quality means legislation that best serves the needs of the constituency that it is created for. Prop 13 most certainly has not done that.

Democracy is really just a way to solve political disputes without resorting to violence. Its direct goal is not to produce "good" decisions. If you really wanted to do, wouldn't you promote some technocratic council of PhDs to run the country. Now it happens that an indirect effect of democracy is to produce better results than other systems. Why? Because when you take into account everyone's point of view, there tends to be less conflict left over that can destabilize a society.

We can see the negative effects of representative democracy today with the disproportionate effect that monied interests have on the political system. There's a reason the lobbying industry exists. It works nicely on representatives.

Democracy gains much of its legitimacy from the fact that it consistently returns better overall outcomes than other forms of government. It is most certainly not used due to the fact that it refrains from violence, history clearly shows we have no problem with violence when it serves our ends.

As with most systems Democracy has strengths and weaknesses. Its primary weakness is that voters in today's society have basically zero understanding of the issues. We mitigate this through representatives specifically to counteract the disaster that would ensue from direct democracy.

Oh, and if you think lobbying isn't effective on the average voter you aren't paying attention very well. It just takes different forms.

 

[Orignal Earl]

If the US was a true democracy, it no doubt would be broke up into several states.
And half of them would be Theocracies.

 

[Infohawk]

No one who had worked in policy would have taken some of those positions.

That is a ridiculous argument. Stroke your ego all you want and assume I'm completely uneducated if you'd like, it doesn't address my actual arguments though. (Are you the one that tried to act like nuclear proliferation issues were beyond the common person's understanding?)

Quality means legislation that best serves the needs of the constituency that it is created for. Prop 13 most certainly has not done that.

What best serves the constituency depends on your political preferences. You act like there's some technocratic formula that determines if governance is "good" or "bad" and that representatives have some special insight into that. That is absurd. The oddest thing about this whole discussion is you don't seem to recognize actual political preferences behind the passage of Proposition 13. I don't know why you would recognize that a variety of people, including representatives, support Prop 13 for political reasons that are no different in nature than those of the people who oppose Prop 13.

Oh, and if you think lobbying isn't effective on the average voter you aren't paying attention very well. It just takes different forms.

Lobbying is generally defined as influencing representatives and officials. I hope you're not confusing that with general political campaigning / marketing.

Democracy gains its legitimacy from the fact that it's participatory and that in theory people have equal rights. Direct democracy simply has more of these qualities. Your arguments could equally be applied to some sort of technocratic dictatorship where if someone argued they produce better outcomes then you would consider them the better choice. Never mind that people do not want anyone, whether it be a monarch or a technocrat who's income comes from his position, to tell them what is better for them.

 

[fskimospy]

That is a ridiculous argument. Stroke your ego all you want and assume I'm completely uneducated if you'd like, it doesn't address my actual arguments though. (Are you the one that tried to act like nuclear proliferation issues were beyond the common person's understanding?)

I most certainly am not that person, I'm just trying to ask you to take a minute and understand an industry you have no experience with. Politics is a unique discipline. If I were a chemist, a physicist, etc, nobody would attempt to tell me they knew better than me about how my discipline worked. I work in politics however, so no matter how ignorant a person might be they think they know better than I do. It's a pretty standard problem.

What best serves the constituency depends on your political preferences. You act like there's some technocratic formula that determines if governance is "good" or "bad" and that representatives have some special insight into that. That is absurd. The oddest thing about this whole discussion is you don't seem to recognize actual political preferences behind the passage of Proposition 13. I don't know why you would recognize that a variety of people, including representatives, support Prop 13 for political reasons that are no different in nature than those of the people who oppose Prop 13.

No. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Prop 13 was bad by any measure.

Lobbying is generally defined as influencing representatives and officials. I hope you're not confusing that with general political campaigning / marketing.

Democracy gains its legitimacy from the fact that it's participatory and that in theory people have equal rights. Direct democracy simply has more of these qualities. Your arguments could equally be applied to some sort of technocratic dictatorship where if someone argued they produce better outcomes then you would consider them the better choice. Never mind that people do not want anyone, whether it be a monarch or a technocrat who's income comes from his position, to tell them what is better for them.

If you think lobbying is reduced to only representatives you are hopelessly naive. Spend some time in California and you will learn better. Direct democracy is a catastrophe that you should not wish on any person.

 

[Infohawk]

I most certainly am not that person, I'm just trying to ask you to take a minute and understand an industry you have no experience with.

Please. We both know that you don't know what my educational or work background is. The fact that I disagree with you isn't proof of whatever assumptions you have. Mostly I would just ask you to spare me the irrelevance of your arrogant assumptions whatever they might be. To the extent you have expertise, show it through your arguments.

I most certainly am not that person, I'm just trying to ask you to take a minute and understand an industry you have no experience with. Politics is a unique discipline. If I were a chemist, a physicist, etc, nobody would attempt to tell me they knew better than me about how my discipline worked. I work in politics however, so no matter how ignorant a person might be they think they know better than I do. It's a pretty standard problem.

All humans engage in politics. Nobody has a monopoly on it. If you're talking about the drafting of legislation specifically, you're ignoring the fact that fundamental political choices direct the drafting. Prop 13 isn't about specific ordering of subparts. It's mostly about the political desires of the people that drafted it and voted for it.

Your science comparison is silly. First of all, one can't just say "I'm right because I'm an expert" in physics. Physicists in particular make a huge deal about proving things mathematically and with experiments. Now I'm not as cynical about social sciences as many, but even there you can't just say "I'm right because I'm an expert." I wonder how far you'd take this bizarre position. Should only Political Science PhDs be allowed to participate in government? Vote?

(Oh and I just checked and yes you did try to act like you were above everyone who wanted to discuss nuclear proliferation in a certain thread.)

If you think lobbying is reduced to only representatives you are hopelessly naive. Spend some time in California and you will learn better. Direct democracy is a catastrophe that you should not wish on any person.

Conclusory statements that add nothing. If you're tired of discussing the issues nobody's forcing you to respond.

Do you really think that there are no people in California who support direct democracy? Really? Are these the kinds of assumptions you like to make? I don't understand why you're bothering to make such a ridiculous argument.

 

[fskimospy]

Please. We both know that you don't know what my educational or work background is. The fact that I disagree with you isn't proof of whatever assumptions you have. Mostly I would just ask you to spare me the irrelevance of your arrogant assumptions whatever they might be. To the extent you have expertise, show it through your arguments.

I've been trying. Apparently it doesn't do it for you.

All humans engage in politics. Nobody has a monopoly on it. If you're talking about the drafting of legislation specifically, you're ignoring the fact that fundamental political choices direct the drafting. Prop 13 isn't about specific ordering of subparts. It's mostly about the political desires of the people that drafted it and voted for it.

Your science comparison is silly. First of all, one can't just say "I'm right because I'm an expert" in physics. Physicists in particular make a huge deal about proving things mathematically and with experiments. Now I'm not as cynical about social sciences as many, but even there you can't just say "I'm right because I'm an expert." I wonder how far you'd take this bizarre position. Should only Political Science PhDs be allowed to participate in government? Vote?

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that your ideas about how human politics work are coming from a place of fundamental ignorance. Whether what I'm saying is correct or not is one thing, but it's quite clear that what you're arguing comes from a place where you have literally no knowledge.

That's where the physics or chemistry comparison comes into play. You have no real understanding of government but you want to tell people how it should work. You would never attempt to command people in other disciplines that you had similar ignorance of.

(Oh and I just checked and yes you did try to act like you were above everyone who wanted to discuss nuclear proliferation in a certain thread.)

Yes. If you would like to talk about nuclear proliferation issues I would love to correct whatever misconceptions you might have.

Conclusory statements that add nothing. If you're tired of discussing the issues nobody's forcing you to respond.

Do you really think that there are no people in California who support direct democracy? Really? Are these the kinds of assumptions you like to make? I don't understand why you're bothering to make such a ridiculous argument.

I have never made the argument that no person in California supports direct democracy. How many people support it has nothing to do with how horrible it is, which is quite horrible. If you ever end up with significant experience in either government or with direct democracy you will understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Infohawk]

I've been trying. Apparently it doesn't do it for you.



That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that your ideas about how human politics work are coming from a place of fundamental ignorance. Whether what I'm saying is correct or not is one thing, but it's quite clear that what you're arguing comes from a place where you have literally no knowledge.

That's where the physics or chemistry comparison comes into play. You have no real understanding of government but you want to tell people how it should work. You would never attempt to command people in other disciplines that you had similar ignorance of.



Yes. If you would like to talk about nuclear proliferation issues I would love to correct whatever misconceptions you might have.




I have never made the argument that no person in California supports direct democracy. How many people support it has nothing to do with how horrible it is, which is quite horrible. If you ever end up with significant experience in either government or with direct democracy you will understand what I'm talking about.

You've clearly gotten frustrated since you've stopped making any actual arguments and have resorted to "you don't know what you're talking about."

The California argument is a good indicator of your level of debate. You are assuming that people who've lived in California don't support direct democracy because otherwise you wouldn't suggesting that I need to spend time in California. There is an obvious possibility that I could live in / have spent time in California. (And if you don't think that's obvious then you're denying that there are people in California that support direct democracy.)

 

[fskimospy]

We've already had the debate, there isn't a lot more to say. But yes,it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. I pointed out a number of fundamental misconceptions that I believe you have about our structure of government and how it works. You don't appear inclined to accept this idea and so what else can I say other than to suggest that you go learn for yourself?