Democracy is Dead

[Stevicus]

so says Lester Thurow in his 2004 speech

and explains that representation of senators ….two per state
does not represent the voting majority

our founding fathers would be appalled
as California having soooooo many people
is represented by only two people in Senate

but the fathers did not for see California as the fifth largest
economy on the planet

the smaller states …..Republican for the most part
carry the vote in that manner

that is not the voting majority

rebuttals?

Well, I suppose there are some possibilities which could be tried. One, large states like California could be broken up into smaller states, so they would each get two senators and greater representation.

But I'm not sure if that's really the issue as far as democracy being dead. At the Federal level, it was never really "alive" to begin with.

 

[Brickjectivity]

rebuttals?

The libertarians claim that the purpose of the electoral college is to make sure that all 50 states have enough of a say that they don't become the thralls of one or two states with high populations. That is, the electoral college exists for the purpose of blocking California from having overwhelming control of the landmass of the USA. Otherwise we would quickly have a flag with two stars instead of fifty. People in the middle of the country would be disadvantaged by having little or no say in the governance of their own lands. That's what the libertarians claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure if people really like the big two. Independent is the biggest political party though most of them lean one way or another but mainly out of necessity.

Political party strength in U.S. states - Wikipedia

They still vote overwhelmingly for the Big Two.
If we set aside what qualifies for "liking" a candidate,
we observe that voters are not so dissatisfied with
Dems & Pubs to vote for significantly different agendas.

 

[Thief]

Personally, as a patriot and engaged citizen, I am absolutely shocked that there are still people who stare at me in ignorance when I say the words "Cambridge analytica".

I hear you
and I am shocked that my fellowman isn't

 

[Thief]

Well, I suppose there are some possibilities which could be tried. One, large states like California could be broken up into smaller states, so they would each get two senators and greater representation.

But I'm not sure if that's really the issue as far as democracy being dead. At the Federal level, it was never really "alive" to begin with.

yeah

but if California would be a new COUNTRY

new ball game

 

[Heyo]

Tis the quandray I face every 4 years.
(But it's not really a Catch 22, which is a self defeating choice.)

Its rare but Nowhere Man is right here. You don't want to vote for the lesser evil because that sends a signal to the politician that it's OK to be just "not as bad" as the others. But then you risk that "the greater evil" wins - which sends the message that it's OK to be evil.
Its a self serving, built-in mechanism of two party systems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Tis the quandray I face every 4 years.
(But it's not really a Catch 22, which is a self defeating choice.)

Has to be self defeating. There are no other party's that I know of that has any real chance of being dominate and influencial enough to win a major election in the foreseeable future.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Its rare but Nowhere Man is right here. You don't want to vote for the lesser evil because that sends a signal to the politician that it's OK to be just "not as bad" as the others. But then you risk that "the greater evil" wins - which sends the message that it's OK to be evil.
Its a self serving, built-in mechanism of two party systems.

That's because I'm a rare Nowhere Man in a rare Nowhere Land.

 

[Heyo]

That's because I'm a rare Nowhere Man in a rare Nowhere Land.

... making all his Nowhere Plans for Nobody

 

[Altfish]

We’re a republic. Not pure democracy. If we operated under pure democracy we still don’t know who would have won. Do you understand?

Yes, I fully understand.
The greatest democracy in the world isn't a democracy ... who knew?

 

[Revoltingest]

Its rare but Nowhere Man is right here. You don't want to vote for the lesser evil because that sends a signal to the politician that it's OK to be just "not as bad" as the others. But then you risk that "the greater evil" wins - which sends the message that it's OK to be evil.
Its a self serving, built-in mechanism of two party systems.

There is no being right on this.
Such is the nature of quandrays, ie, both choices have flaws.
It's about one's preference.
I change things up....sometimes the lesser of 2 evils cuz there's a
possibility that I'll prevent the greater of 2 evils.......or sometimes
I vote for the Libertarian, who is guaranteed to lose, but this registers
my disgust with the Big Two's offerings.
So I'm not wrong....I'm not even wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Has to be self defeating.

No, it's merely defeating....not self-defeating.

From Wikipedia...
"Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes "Catch-22" to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in creating the request and thus cannot be declared insane. This phrase also means a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.[3]:"

 

[Stevicus]

yeah

but if California would be a new COUNTRY

new ball game

Well, I guess they could be that. Not sure how politically stable it would be.

 

[Stevicus]

Its rare but Nowhere Man is right here. You don't want to vote for the lesser evil because that sends a signal to the politician that it's OK to be just "not as bad" as the others. But then you risk that "the greater evil" wins - which sends the message that it's OK to be evil.
Its a self serving, built-in mechanism of two party systems.

The message that's strongly imposed on people is that if one votes for a third party or independent candidate, it's the same thing as voting for the "greater of two evils." That's how a lot of people are conditioned to vote. I remember that back in 2004, when Ralph Nader was running and Democrats were saying "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

The other part of this is that most elections are lost in the primary stage. That's when the people of both major parties get the chance to select from a wide range of candidates. But again, they're conditioned to vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of winning the election - even if it may not be the one they personally want.

The major political parties are democratic institutions in that their members get a chance to vote for whichever candidate they want, yet all they do is vote for crap.

The only signal the politicians are getting is that the vast majority of the voting public are stupid fools who are easily manipulated.

If democracy dies because the voters are dumb, then that's a just fate.

Just like in a monarchy, if the monarch is stupid and gets overthrown, then that's the monarch's fault. In a democracy, the people are the "monarch," and if they're stupid, the same fate will befall them.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, I fully understand.
The greatest democracy in the world isn't a democracy ... who knew?

Actually, according The American's Creed, we are identified as "a democracy in a republic":

I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, I fully understand greatest democracy in the world isn't a democracy ... who knew?

Sounds like you understood half of what I said.

 

[sun rise]

It's a part of the catch 22.

Go third party and let others decide between the entrenched two, or go for the entrenched one you think will do the least amount of damage.

We can have much more choice at a local level. Starting on the bottom and building strength slowly can work.

 

[MikeDwight]

The "Founding Fathers" didn't have an open election until the 1800's! Balderdash! The last Founding Father Andrew Jackson would have opened a vote to the Land Holding Male, the Restricted vote. Its literally one of a few sinews to be cut from any semblance of our patriotism or duty to the intellectual concept of the United States of America. States in compact represent their interests by signing a Constitution with no superior officer, that's the original Confederate political viewpoint of Constant debate, constant supremacy, constant mention of nearly 100 years. If these states having appointed Directly in their powers Without a vote the executive of their wishes, should have no signs of any recognitions of the States in the Union then why draw any map of States in the United States, its America, its an American Empire.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We can have much more choice at a local level. Starting on the bottom and building strength slowly can work.

That's actually true. I agree 100%.

 

[Thief]

I say....every politician should issue a manifesto

publish said work as he enters public life

then the voters will hold him to it