Dave, over at This Is Not News, is taking a couple of political science seminars this semester, and it has him asking, when it comes to democracy, can people handle the power? I think it is a very important question that any struggling democracy (such as ours) has to ask itself every once in a while.
Dave continues:
Does the average citizen have what it takes to make democracy work? Do we know enough to make informed decisions? Do we have the temperament to make good decisions? Are we capable of expressing what we want? And if the answer to any of these questions is “no†right now, do we have a realistic chance of changing that?
Because you have to login to comment on his site, it’s not the most user-friendly conversation to jump into, so instead of just pointing you over to his site, I thought I’d try to redirect the conversation over to here in order to make it easier for anyone to join.
My comment was that I think the question is one that any informed citizen has to ask, but I also think it is the reason that we don’t live in a pure democracy, but rather, a republic. The founders themselves were weary of the intelligence of the masses, which is why they set up a representative democracy. They even went so far as to only give the people the direct vote on their representatives in the House. The State Legislatures were the ones who were supposed to elect the senators, not the people (this was changed in 1913 by the 17th Amendment); and the electoral college was supposed to vote on the President, and unlike the way it works today, I’m relatively sure that the electoral college should have been voted in on its merits, not the merits of the presidential candidate that they promised to vote for. The rationale behind all this was that the people could be expected to know the strengths and weaknesses of their local representatives and electors, but they couldn’t be trusted to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a national or statewide candidate, such as would run for President and Senator, respectively.
Which is why I guess my answer is, “No.†I don’t think the average citizen has the time or the inclination to make a pure democracy work.
What do we do, then? The answer is clear. First, we make sure this doesn’t become a majoritarian democracy. And second, we keep talking amongst ourselves, and welcome anyone who wants to join in the conversation.
Democracy, at its root, means choice. And that includes the choice of whether to participate. Personally, I think the whole living thing is more interesting when I’m paying attention, but I’m not about to force that opinion on anybody.
13 Comments
“What do we do, then? The answer is clear.”
-Kyle Callahan addressing the “apparently easy” question of solving the intricacies of a pure democracy.
if only.
We can’t even get people to undersand the system we have now which is pretty simple and you want then to learn that. I read it three times and I still am not 100% sure on how the hell people get elected. Chances are if only a minority of people want something there is a good reason why.;)
First, Adam, I wasn’t solving the intricacies of a pure democracy. I was solving the problem of this one.
Justin, the idea of a pluralist democracy is that the diverse special interests will better represent the diverse wills of a diverse population than will a straight-up majoritarian democracy, which only represents the majority.
Is your question about how people get elected directed toward the proposal that I linked to, the Weighted Delegate System, or toward the representative system in our pre-17th Amendment Constitution?
I understand how things worked before the 17th amendment and I am glad it has changed because it is easier to currupt a small amount of people then it is a large group of people. My questions are to the WDS.
I might have this wrong but just try to help walk me through it. If a person is for saving the whales they can try to run on that issue? Also if people run and win wouldnt they have to vote on other issues that maybe they know nothing about? In a majority democracy isn’t there a myriad of different people elected who believe in different things but maybe agree on the main points of their party?
While I guess there is nothing to stop a party from forming that would concentrate all of its agenda on the continuation of the whale species, the Weighted Delegate System is not necessarily about single issue parties.
The WDS does, however, attempt to weaken the two-party system. The strength of this is that you end up with more solutions to choose from. It brings the free market to the world of poltics, of policies, and of ideas. Things aren’t automatically segregated into Democrat and Republican, a segregation that has led to little more than antagonisms between the party faithful.
Not that WDS would erase antagonism in politics, but it may subtract from its power. Promoting despisal of another party is only effective if it rallies a majority of the troops, but in a multi-party system, it will be more difficult for any party to hold the majority (50% + 1).
Instead of having to choose between Democrats and Republicans, individuals will be able to vote for a large number of parties without worrying about wasting their vote. If the economic agenda of the Green Party suits your fancy, you can give them your number one vote. But because you are able to vote for more than one party (weighing them according to preference), you can give your second vote to, say, the Democrats, which is a larger party and will probably win some serious votes, so if the Greens lose, your vote isn’t thrown away, but given to the Democrats.
Of course, ideally, you’d have several parties to choose from, not just the Greens, the Democrats, and the Republicans. The effect of such a system, actually, would probably demolish the major parties. The Republicans would possibly split up into the fiscal and cultural conservatives. The Democrats would probably dissolve into the diverse interests that make it up. You’d see the rise of a Women’s Party, and all sorts of ethnic parties. There’d probably be a Worker’s Party, an Environmental Party, and a Business Leaders Party. Personally, I think the WDS system would probably end up with more centrist parties than extremist ones, but the nature of the system would make sure that everyone had their say.
And when you voted, you would never lose your vote. You just might not get your first preference.
Wouldn’t it be harder to get anything done?
Also isn’t most of the issues already covered under the major parties platforms? Lets say in the democratic party there is a group of elected officials that want to save the whales. If they broke off and formed the save the whales party and got elected wouldn;t that be the same if they were already elected under the democratic party?
My point i guess is just because a person is part of either party does not mean they agree will everyone else in that party. Would different people get elected? Seeing how you would still need the majority vote wouldn’t all these groups form common allinces and we would pretty much end up back where we are?
Let’s say their are seven representatives from your state. Those representatives do not represent districts, as they do now. So, in the election, the electorate has to vote for seven different candidates. But parties can only stand one candidate for the whole election. They don’t nominate one candidate for each opening, but just one candidate.
So no candidates need a “majority” vote. They just need enough votes to be in the top seven. Theoretically, every person in the state will have voted — at some point on their ballot — for at least one elected candidate, and so every individual in the state has at least some form of representation, as opposed to the win/lose system we have now, where anyone who voted for the loser does NOT have their views represented in Washington.
You ask, “Would it be harder to get anything done?” To which there are two answers.
The day to day activity of the beauracracy wouldn’t change. Right now, it doesn’t much matter to someone working at the DMV whether there is a Republican or Democratic governor (it might as far as their wages and benefits go, but not too much in the way they do their job). It would be the same if there was a multi-party Congress (where multi- is more than two). The DMV person’s major duties would not be effected, and if what you wanted to get done was to occur at such a personal level, then getting it done would be just as easy (and as difficult) in a WDS system as the system we have now.
But the long-term activity of the country would be more difficult to change, I imagine. There would probably be more of a need for alliances, which would probably make the bill-passing process longer, but in a country where some bills are voted on before the representatives even have a chance to read the thing (like the first PATRIOT Act), perhaps slowing things down might not be a bad thing.
You also said, “My point i guess is just because a person is part of either party does not mean they agree with everyone else in that party.”
While this is true, the function of the congressional leaders and the congressional whips is to make sure the effect of such individuals are few and far between. I have to imagine that many of the Republican congressman and women don’t agree with the leadership on everything, but the party is so strong that few of them have the courage (or the financial security) to do anything about it.
This goes for the Democrats as well. The fact that few Democrats stood up with Russ Feingold to support his censure petition, despite the fact that many of them actually DO support the idea of censure (or impeachment), is because they think it looks bad for the party.
Hopefully, a WDS system would break this two-party monopoly on the debate and on the country.
Sounds like american idol.
In the democratic party in congress there is a lot of different issues represented. Same with the republican party. Do you think that within these parties that a lot of these issues are not addressed? Its not like the government harps on only certain things while ignoring others.(for the most part)
What issues do you think have been left behind or have not been debated because of the two-party system?
Anything having to do with the electoral process, including meaningful campaign finance reform.
Anything having to do with poweful lobbies (i.e., healthcare reform and media-ownership reform).
Basically, the issues that effect the wallets of Congress. In a multi-party system, the diversity of parties, the diversity of interests, will (most likely) prevent the corporate corruption that ails the system now. There will be too many parties for the lobbyists to corrupt. Remember, voting in the country occurs at the state level, not the national level. Even when it comes to presidential elections, voters don’t vote for a president, but for a group of electors. With each state having its own share of multiple parties, what parties exist in Massachusetts may not exist in Mississippi. For lobbyists to carry the weight that they do now, they’d have to spend A LOT more money. They’d have to spread their budgets to multiple parties in multiple states, as opposed to a single national party. And because the power of the party-machines would be weaker, individuals would be more apt to vote their conscious, and not their party line.
Would this prevent corruption? Of course not. But it would weaken its effect.
I hate this computer, I just posted a big ole message that got sent to the cyber-morgue.
Ok maybe I am getting dumb in my old age but work with me. What would stop a company that makes billions of dollars from funding their own party? What is the difference between this and the focus groups already in congress? Also if I have a pro-whaling party that is only in Massachusetts how do I get federal funding? Federal money is the whole countries money shouldn’t everyone have a say on how it is divvied out?
Nothing would stop them from forming their own party. The question is how they would get themselves elected.
As it stands, people get elected by a process that basically equals choosing the lesser of two evils. But in a multi-party system, the chances are greater that you’ll find a candidate who most represents your way of thinking about the world.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that this is a perfect system. But I do think it is better than the two-party system we have now.
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but here’s Reason’s review of the book “The Tyranny of the Two Party System.” Check it out.
They would just use their bajillions of dollars, kind of like todays candidates, actually this isn’t true. At least the Idea that money buys can buy you a seat but that is a whole other topic.
In a multi party system you are not gaurenteed to find someone you really like so you would be elecing people that has similiar values and putting up with the values you do not agree with. You would be choosong in a “lesser of multi-evils”
I still do not get how federal money gets appropriated (or how ever you spell it).
My main point is just because a candidate is democrat or republican they can still be in favor or saving whales wouldn”t I just vote for that person.
I guess the main issue would be that you might have a person that you want and that person, because of their party offiliation, does not make it past the primaries. So if the party does not elect them you are forced to vote for a narrower selection.