NationStates Jolt Archive

Why American Democracy Will Fail
And the Rational Solution
By William Young

Governments fail when the interests of the government are not the interests of the people, regardless of the size or form of government. Whether it's a single dictator such as the Shah of Iran or the overwhelming bureaucracy of the Soviet Union. In both cases, one party took power with the consent of the people. After taking power, they took steps to enrich their own lives, because their governments had lack of representation. So, it is representation which is the most important aspect of a governmnent, because without strong representation, all other checks and balances are meaningless and political collapse is inevitable.

Many believe that republics most efficiently represent the people, but they do not understand the concept of "hegemony," which so many Neoconservatives have recently discovered, discussed, and used to their advantage. Hegemony is the means by which democracy can be fixed. Because people vote based upon how they percieve politicians, not how politicians are in reality. Being that politicians' lives are known only from the limited number of snippets within the media, during their scripted public appearances, often sheltered from society, kept within pre-screened audiences, very few people in a republic truly know who their politicians are. But rather, they pick through the anecdotal evidence provided to them by the media, and take the position that they would have already taken, regardless of any revealed facts. They organize facts to support their beliefs, rather than supporting their beliefs with the facts.

In the Roman Republic, there was hegemony. Despite the fact that most of those under Roman control were not Romans, the majority of the government was controlled by Romans, despite being legitimately democratic. And in America, there is hegemony. The United States government is dominated by white, male, upper-class Protestants, despite that white, male, upper-class Protestants are not the majority or even a plurality. Anmd every single American President with the exception of John F. Kennedy has been a white, male, upper-class Protestant. Also, 90% of U.S. Congressmen do not face much, if any, political opposition, but are simply re-elected. This is hegemony.

The reason for this isn't any conspiracy, but rather, human nature. Human beings have a tendency to conform to large social groups. In a classic episode of Candid Camera during the 1950's, this was proven when Candid Camera had individuals planted in elevators, and would coerce unaware individuals into ridiculously silly behavior. For instance, a man would enter the elevator, and the Candid Camera employees inside would all face the back of the elevator. The unknowing man would mimic their behavior. They'd go up one floor and suddenly decide to to face front, and once again, the unknowing man would follow. In another scenario, the Candid Camera employees took their hats off and another man did the same. The next floor, they put their hats on, and yet again, he followed their behavior.

When one is aware of the "Asch line study," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) which proves human beings will agree with outright nonsense, because that's what the majority says, there can be no doubt that democracy is severely flawed. Because when there is a political party that is the majority, even if they speak absolute nonsense, the average human being would likely support them.

But even in cases without a large political majority, human beings are easily swayed by the poor logic and lies of any political party. Yale University once did a famous study on persuasion (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/yale_attitude_change.htm) and they demonstrated that the most important factor in persuasion is percieved credibility (which is drawn from physical attractiveness and reputation) and the least important factor is a strong argument. There was a classic example of this, in a debate between Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Nixon was more logical, with far stronger arguments, but he looked tired, old, and generally ugly. However, John F. Kennedy was rather young and attractive. After their debate was over, surprisingly, the majority of radio shows declared Nixon the winner (because they never saw what he looked like) while the majority of those which televised the events or attended declared Kennedy the winner. The reason was because the viewers weren't listening to the arguments. But rather, they had already made up their minds during the first moment that they saw both men. These are the reasons for why hegemony is possible and why the Neoconservatives have gained so much success.

And this hegemony is a danger, because it creates (and has created) a ruling class. When such classes are created, they take political actions which are to their own benefit. By having this ruling class, the democratic government ceases to represent the people. Irving Kristol, the founder of Neoconservativism, believes that humanity's flaws, which I have just described, can be overcome by economic prosperity, and his basis is history. But I would ask him, then: When, in history, did wealth ever cure mankind of his selfishness, laziness, and stupidity?

Indeed, economic prosperity can educate people, in that we base much of our ethics on logic and we are no longer stoning people to death or burning them at the stake. However, not once in history has the intelligence, adherence to conventional morality, or ambition of mankind been changed, which is why Shakespeare's plays are still relevant today. Because while you may change the knowledge people have, human nature cannot be overcome, unless one advocates Transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) and believes that neurotechnology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotechnology) such as "artificial memory," in the movie, Johnny Mnemonic, or "universal translators," such as in Star Trek will one day be developed. But such developments are a long way off. And even if they are possible, the currently irreversible flaws in humanity are leading to political collapse in America.

And there is some evidence to point to this. Many independent parties have demanded substantial political reform, such as limiting or eliminating "soft money" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_money) for political campaigns. According to polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans agree that all politicians recieve too much money from corporations, but Congress has outright ignored the people. One major component to stop political corruption was also the Freedom of Information Act, which eventually required all politicians' documents to be publicly released. But President Bush signed an Executive Order, allowing certain documents to be withheld at the President's whim, up until the President's death. Before their death, a President may declare someone to be in charge of their privacy rights, concievably keeping a President's records secret permanently. Some Democrats also proposed a Constitutional amendment recently, which would allow Presidents to serve more than two terms. And although it hasn't been discussed much (if it hasn't already been struck down, as Congress often brings forth ridiculous bills that are quickly thrown out), it is appauling that any politician would even suggest such a thing. Flaws in the electoral college and the potential for voting fraud have also been outright ignored by both parties.

During Nixon's presidency, he used the intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents. And since the Nixon presidency, there have been little to no reforms to prevent that from happening in the future. But rather, the reverse has happened: Under FISA and the PATRIOT Act, the intelligence agencies have gotten even greater funding, greater power, and the Executive branch has gotten even greater control over them. In short, regardless of whether you believe President Bush is corrupt, another Nixon is inevitable because there are no safe-guards. For instance, Congress may not even know what the National Security Agency uses its funding for--our tax dollars, and where do they go? Very few people in the government know. But the NSA receives more funding than the FBI and CIA combined.

And the solution, to prevent the inevitable political corruption is simple, one that both Liberals who advocate "liberty," and Conservatives who advocate "small government," should both agree with: more direct democracy. However, not pure direct democracy, because democracy is a balance between selecting individuals who truly represent the people and selecting individuals who are qualified. On one hand, if every individual voted on every bill, that would be a pure direct democracy. And that would give us the greatest amount of representation, but then laws would be passed poorly, if very many laws were passed at all. Furthermore, it is necessary to not always fully represent the people, to prevent being ruled by "tyranny of the majority." In other words, in most cases, politicians should simply do what the people demand. But there are some cases, such as with slavery and segregation, where even if the majority agrees with a certain idea, to protect the liberties of the minorities, the majority must be ignored.

On the other hand, though, if every politician were chosen based purely on their qualifications, such as their education and experience, that would be Technocracy. The downside to that is that this "ruling class," would pass laws for their own interests. This has been the general trend of every monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, and oligarchy in history.

So, what we need is a balance between the two, which we clearly currently do not have. The answer, I feel, is to dissolve the current Senate of the United States and replace it with a "Senate of the People." Now, you would not want to have this Senate of the People be every citizen in the United States. Because very few people could physically attend and if voting were done electronically, there are little guarantees that it would not be fraudulent. Furthermore, you want individuals who can devote the majority of their time, listening to the facts and deliberating, rather than ignorant individuals who log on daily, read a few sentences, and press a button.

However, a radical, unheard of form of selection could be done, which stems from the Athenian Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy) which our government is partially based on: Sortition. In other words, random selection. Now, one may question how motivated our politicians would be or how fully they would represent the people if they were randomly selected. Well, the issue of motivation is addressed, because those who do not wish to participate if they are selected may choose to decline. As for the issue of representation, scientists often do studies according to "sampling," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_sample) and it is a scientifically-accurate way of representing the population. The degree to which it is wrong (the level of confidence) is determined by the ratio between the size of the sample and the size of the original group. The size of the Senate of the People would be determined purely by statistics. While this may seem odd, it is a far more accurate way of political representation than a statewide or nationwide popularity contest subject to voting fraud.

Senators of the People would be chosen randomly at birth, within a queue of other potential senators, and at adolescence, they could decide whether or not they would serve. If they chose to serve, their education and housing would be paid for, with the requirement that they gain a college degree within certain fields, including a fair amount of education in law and political science. If they declined, the next person in line would be chosen. This would also address the issue of randomly-selected individuals not being competent enough. And the entire purpose is to create a strong balance of power. The lower house would continue to be dominated by wealthy aristocrats, but the upper house, which would continue to work the same way, would truly represent the people, making sure that the aristocrats' corruption never gets out of line.

Interesting... but I can already see a number of flaws in it.

1. Who pays for it?
2. Citizen legislatures are nice, but the Congress meets for far longer, can we take people out of their lives for 6 year streches, randomly?
3. With random selection, there is a chance that all senators would be selected from California (largest population base, more chances to be selected) losing the balance of power between the states. If you limit or try to jink the number, you lose any credability for randomness.
4. Loss of the senate every 6 years for new, random people, would slow the Senate to a crawl as new political leaders and groups would be formed, and that takes time. You also lose any any all experiance with how the system works.
5. Can it be stated that a child reaching early adolence knows that they are willing to run the country (besides the obvious)?

But interesting.

I see one main problem with the idea of a Senate of the People, so far. How do you make sure these senators are incorruptable? I'm not saying that people are naturally corruptable of course. Rather, I find it odd to think that these people would have any sort of confidence in the decisions they make while governing the country simply because they have no mandate from the people. As such, they lack two vital characteristics that a politician should have.

Firstly, they lack the knowledge that their ideals have the support of the people. They have never had to win an election, and as such, they will typically be less confident in their own ability to accurately represent the people. I would predict that these people who are unsure of themselves and lack any sense of entitlement to the position they have been given would easily fall victim to just following the whims of the other established branches of government, whether it be influence from the executive, legislative or judicial branches. As such, I believe that the introduction of this system would trigger very little independent thought as the pre-existing parts of government would simply swallow up any new Senator into the bipartisan system. The Senator, being inherently unsure of himself (assuming it's a he) due to the basic randomness of the system that produced him would all too happily give in to the will of those people already in the government.

Secondly, there would seem to be no way to remove these members of the Senate of the People, and as such, the Senators would have no accountability to the average American citizen. So what if he doesn't read any of the legislation and votes yay or nay based on a flip of the coin? There is still no way to remove an inept Senator. The answer, you would say, is to make it so that life as a Senator is not a free ticket on the gravy train, but what happens when Senators start to use their powers to change that? They could, conceivably, hold up any legislation until they got what they wanted, and there would no way to remove them from power because these people wouldn't be elected. The lack of accountability to the American public involved in this position poses a major threat to the concept of checks and balances.

Basically, the flaws of this system are two sides of the same coin. The essential pitfall is that any Senator needs just the right amount of confidence or he (again assuming it's a he) will fall by the wayside. He will either not have enough confidence and be dominated by the already existing political forces or be too confident and rule only for his own personal gain. As I see it, the chances of a person having the exact right balance of confidence to be a good Senator is so small that we would see far more wayward Senators than responsible ones under this system, which in turn would make the whole system horribly inefficient and an inacurate representation of the people.

Governments fail when the interests of the government are not the interests of the people, regardless of the size or form of government.

well, the current administration meets the stated intrests of 52% of the people - isn't that good enough?

well, the current administration meets the stated intrests of 52% of the people - isn't that good enough?

Keep reading: that's not what this article is about at all.

Keep reading: that's not what this article is about at all.

well, yeah, I get your concept about an arostocracy but people get to vote on this one - they feel it does represent them - if they didn't why would anyone bother to vote? why wouldn't they just riot like they did in the examples you gave?

well, yeah, I get your concept about an arostocracy but people get to vote on this one - they feel it does represent them - if they didn't why would anyone bother to vote? why wouldn't they just riot like they did in the examples you gave?...

Many believe that republics most efficiently represent the people, but they do not understand the concept of "hegemony," which so many Neoconservatives have recently discovered, discussed, and used to their advantage. Hegemony is the means by which democracy can be fixed. Because people vote based upon how they percieve politicians, not how politicians are in reality. Being that politicians' lives are known only from the limited number of snippets within the media, during their scripted public appearances, often sheltered from society, kept within pre-screened audiences, very few people in a republic truly know who their politicians are. But rather, they pick through the anecdotal evidence provided to them by the media, and take the position that they would have already taken, regardless of any revealed facts. They organize facts to support their beliefs, rather than supporting their beliefs with the facts.

In the Roman Republic, there was hegemony. Despite the fact that most of those under Roman control were not Romans, the majority of the government was controlled by Romans, despite being legitimately democratic. And in America, there is hegemony. The United States government is dominated by white, male, upper-class Protestants, despite that white, male, upper-class Protestants are not the majority or even a plurality. Anmd every single American President with the exception of John F. Kennedy has been a white, male, upper-class Protestant. Also, 90% of U.S. Congressmen do not face much, if any, political opposition, but are simply re-elected. This is hegemony.

The reason for this isn't any conspiracy, but rather, human nature. Human beings have a tendency to conform to large social groups. In a classic episode of Candid Camera during the 1950's, this was proven when Candid Camera had individuals planted in elevators, and would coerce unaware individuals into ridiculously silly behavior. For instance, a man would enter the elevator, and the Candid Camera employees inside would all face the back of the elevator. The unknowing man would mimic their behavior. They'd go up one floor and suddenly decide to to face front, and once again, the unknowing man would follow. In another scenario, the Candid Camera employees took their hats off and another man did the same. The next floor, they put their hats on, and yet again, he followed their behavior.

When one is aware of the "Asch line study," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) which proves human beings will agree with outright nonsense, because that's what the majority says, there can be no doubt that democracy is severely flawed. Because when there is a political party that is the majority, even if they speak absolute nonsense, the average human being would likely support them.

But even in cases without a large political majority, human beings are easily swayed by the poor logic and lies of any political party. Yale University once did a famous study on persuasion (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/yale_attitude_change.htm) and they demonstrated that the most important factor in persuasion is percieved credibility (which is drawn from physical attractiveness and reputation) and the least important factor is a strong argument. There was a classic example of this, in a debate between Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Nixon was more logical, with far stronger arguments, but he looked tired, old, and generally ugly. However, John F. Kennedy was rather young and attractive. After their debate was over, surprisingly, the majority of radio shows declared Nixon the winner (because they never saw what he looked like) while the majority of those which televised the events or attended declared Kennedy the winner. The reason was because the viewers weren't listening to the arguments. But rather, they had already made up their minds during the first moment that they saw both men. These are the reasons for why hegemony is possible and why the Neoconservatives have gained so much success.

Interesting... but I can already see a number of flaws in it.

1. Who pays for it?
2. Citizen legislatures are nice, but the Congress meets for far longer, can we take people out of their lives for 6 year streches, randomly?
3. With random selection, there is a chance that all senators would be selected from California (largest population base, more chances to be selected) losing the balance of power between the states. If you limit or try to jink the number, you lose any credability for randomness.
4. Loss of the senate every 6 years for new, random people, would slow the Senate to a crawl as new political leaders and groups would be formed, and that takes time. You also lose any any all experiance with how the system works.
5. Can it be stated that a child reaching early adolence knows that they are willing to run the country (besides the obvious)?

But interesting.
1. Whaddya mean "who pays for it"? Taxes. I'm sick of hearing this question from Conservatives every time I propose any idea. Bills should be judged on how useful they are. Immediately disagreeing with a bill simply because it costs money is silly. The G.I. Bill pays for the college of people in the military, for pretty much as long as they serve. Paying for Senators' college would be a necessary incentive to make sure that they get a top-quality education, and it wouldn't be anymore than the G.I. Bill or the current government scholarships. It could also furthermore be paid for by a reduction in Congressional salaries and overall tax reform, such as eliminating tobacco subsidies, creating a flat tax (that's either progressively-indexed or a negative income tax), and reducing spending on advanced weapons research, such as Star Wars and the Missile-Defense System, which have both been utterly useless programs. The CIA had a program for researching psychic ability for several decades that turned up absolutely no results. Military spending should be strong, but focusing on conventional weaponry would free up tax money, in addition to making sure we're actually gaining something for the money we spend.
3. It depends on the size of the sample and the algorithm could be adjusted to be a certain number of senators distributed equally within all states.
4. No, it wouldn't, because the House would continue to propose legislation and work in the same way it always has. The Senate's primary focus is to review already-approved legislation. Plus, it wouldn't "slow to a crawl," because the Senate of the People would be composed of the same types of people year after year: random citizens.
5. I never said "early adolescence." The age isn't set and could be anywhere from 14 to 18.

I see one main problem with the idea of a Senate of the People, so far. How do you make sure these senators are incorruptable? I'm not saying that people are naturally corruptable of course. Rather, I find it odd to think that these people would have any sort of confidence in the decisions they make while governing the country simply because they have no mandate from the people. As such, they lack two vital characteristics that a politician should have.
Because of the nature by which they come into office.

When you have voting, there is the chance for corruption, because large parties are formed. These large parties then create propaganda and smear-campaigns, which makes them popular. After they're popular, this creates hegemony, which gives them control over the government, regardless of how logical they are or how effective their policies have been.

But if the Senate were randomly selected, there are no parties, so this wouldn't create the aristocracy that we have now. Yes, concievably, after joining the Senate, they could join the large parties (Democrat and Republican) within the House, but having a randomized Senate would likely create far more parties than the simple two we have now, because it would reflect a less monolithic, more diverse group of people.


Firstly, they lack the knowledge that their ideals have the support of the people.
No single individual's ideals "have the support of the people." The will of the people is not simply one idea, but many ideas which often contradict. True political representation is about having people who represent these multiple ideas make decisions. Having it randomized is a more scientifically accurate way of representing the people than voting. But, as I said, a government shouldn't be determined by randomism alone, either, for obvious reasons.


They have never had to win an election, and as such, they will typically be less confident in their own ability to accurately represent the people. I would predict that these people who are unsure of themselves and lack any sense of entitlement to the position they have been given would easily fall victim to just following the whims of the other established branches of government, whether it be influence from the executive, legislative or judicial branches. As such, I believe that the introduction of this system would trigger very little independent thought as the pre-existing parts of government would simply swallow up any new Senator into the bipartisan system. The Senator, being inherently unsure of himself (assuming it's a he) due to the basic randomness of the system that produced him would all too happily give in to the will of those people already in the government.
I don't believe that you have any concept of psychology, science, or my article. I suggest you read it again. You don't need to be "confident," to represent the people. According to statistics, if you take a large sample of several thousand people, then they can accurately reflect several million people. Whereas, voting is influenced by poor reasoning and nonsense.


Secondly, there would seem to be no way to remove these members of the Senate of the People, and as such, the Senators would have no accountability to the average American citizen. So what if he doesn't read any of the legislation and votes yay or nay based on a flip of the coin? There is still no way to remove an inept Senator.
Yes, there is. Senators would not have permanent seats and impeachment hearings would still be possible.


Basically, the flaws of this system are two sides of the same coin. The essential pitfall is that any Senator needs just the right amount of confidence or he (again assuming it's a he) will fall by the wayside. He will either not have enough confidence and be dominated by the already existing political forces or be too confident and rule only for his own personal gain. As I see it, the chances of a person having the exact right balance of confidence to be a good Senator is so small that we would see far more wayward Senators than responsible ones under this system, which in turn would make the whole system horribly inefficient and an inacurate representation of the people.
Their confidence is irrelevant.

well, the current administration meets the stated intrests of 52% of the people - isn't that good enough?
As the person after you said, you need to read my article.

Secondly, 52% voted for Bush, but that doesn't mean 52% support all of Bush's policies. Many Libertarians voted for Bush, but they still find his policies on abortion, homosexual marriage, and religion ridiculous. There are also moderates who sometimes disagree with him as well.

And finally, if you'd take a look at Bush's recent historically-low approval ratings, far less than 52% of Americans support Bush.

Many believe that republics most efficiently represent the people, but they do not understand the concept of "hegemony," which so many Neoconservatives have recently discovered, discussed, and used to their advantage. Hegemony is the means by which democracy can be fixed. Because people vote based upon how they percieve politicians, not how politicians are in reality. Being that politicians' lives are known only from the limited number of snippets within the media, during their scripted public appearances, often sheltered from society, kept within pre-screened audiences, very few people in a republic truly know who their politicians are. But rather, they pick through the anecdotal evidence provided to them by the media, and take the position that they would have already taken, regardless of any revealed facts. They organize facts to support their beliefs, rather than supporting their beliefs with the facts.











But even in cases without a large political majority, human beings are easily swayed by the poor logic and lies of any political party. Yale University once did a famous study on persuasion (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/yale_attitude_change.htm) and they demonstrated that the most important factor in persuasion is percieved credibility (which is drawn from physical attractiveness and reputation) and the least important factor is a strong argument. There was a classic example of this, in a debate between Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Nixon was more logical, with far stronger arguments, but he looked tired, old, and generally ugly. However, John F. Kennedy was rather young and attractive. After their debate was over, surprisingly, the majority of radio shows declared Nixon the winner (because they never saw what he looked like) while the majority of those which televised the events or attended declared Kennedy the winner. The reason was because the viewers weren't listening to the arguments. But rather, they had already made up their minds during the first moment that they saw both men. These are the reasons for why hegemony is possible and why the Neoconservatives have gained so much success.


I'm not going to analyze the whole thing, mainly cause there's so much bullshit in it that it stinks to high heaven. So I'll just respond to these two paragraphs.


Paragraph 1.

This has been true since the second day of the first democracy outside of tribal councils. The idea that the neocons somehow "discovered" it is absurd, to say the least. Fuck, look at chicago.



Paragraph 2.

Which party rules the political radio waves again? Oh, that's right, the republican party. Stinky Air America only made it off the ground because of assholes like Soros and certain embezzling bastards. On it's own it would collapse faster than a balsa wood model soaked in lighter fluid and set on fire.

Paragraph 1.

This has been true since the second day of the first democracy outside of tribal councils. The idea that the neocons somehow "discovered" it is absurd, to say the least. Fuck, look at chicago.
Until the Neoconservatives, no one has ever used such psychological techniques so adeptly and craftily in American history. Such as Karl Rove bugging his own office and implying it was his opponent that did it. Now, obviously, they didn't discover it. "Re-discover," would probably be a better word. Because I don't believe any past American political group believed in the idea of permanent hegemony. Nor has any past American political group written so extensively on it.


Paragraph 2.

Which party rules the political radio waves again? Oh, that's right, the republican party. Stinky Air America only made it off the ground because of assholes like Soros and certain embezzling bastards. On it's own it would collapse faster than a balsa wood model soaked in lighter fluid and set on fire.
I don't understand the purpose of these statements... Are you criticizing the Republicans for having a "Conservative media conspiracy," over radio, or are you criticizing Liberals for being "stinky"? In either case, it's irrelevant, because the purpose of this thread is not to rant about arbitrary points or why one political party is bad, but discuss why American democracy's flaws will or will not lead to political collapse.

Thanks for taking the time to go through my post, but I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding of the necessity of confidence in making a decision.

Before that, I will grant you that you have successfully answered some of the question I have brought forward. To be specific, your response to my second contention, that of senators who were not accountable to the public, makes a great deal of sense and was good to read. Checks and balances should be maintained whereever possible, and your assurance that the seats are not permanent and that impeachment will still exist is exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about.

That said, on to where we differ. My point about confidence, and believe me when I say I read the whole article, is that it is one thing for a Senator to have an opinion to have an opinion. It is an entirely different thing for a Senator to vote based on that opinion. This is a common theme in all parliamentary forms of government and even in republics. Consider the very role of a party "whip". The idea is to keep members in line with platform they don't necessarily agree with for the greater good. I'm worried that because the bipartisan system will continue to exist in all the other branches of government, the parties will begin to exert undue influence over the members of this Senate of the People. Normally this influence can be offset by a politician's confidence that his views represent those of his constituents, but in this case that confidence in one's own ideals because one has, in a way, been vindicated through the election process, does not exist. Essentially, I'm asking what this system offers to stop individual senators from just giving in to the two major parties. We've already seen that politicians will already tow the party line despite their own personal beliefs. Wouldn't the fact that the senators in the Senate of the People would seem to have no particular skill or merit (an inherent part of the sortition process) only make them more likely to give into the party machine?

That's paragraph 2, not paragraph 1. In response: Until the Neoconservatives, no one has ever used such psychological techniques so adeptly and craftily in American history. Such as Karl Rove bugging his own office and implying it was his opponent that did it. Now, obviously, they didn't discover it. "Re-discover," would probably be a better word. Because I don't believe any past American political group believed in the idea of permanent hegemony. Nor has any past American political group written so extensively on it.


I don't understand the purpose of these statements... Are you criticizing the Republicans for having a "Conservative media conspiracy," over radio, or are you criticizing Liberals for being "stinky"? In either case, it's irrelevant, because the purpose of this thread is not to rant about why one political party is bad, but discuss why American democracy's flaws will or will not lead to political collapse.
The paragraphs were numbered in the order I quoted them, not in the order they appeared in the article.


Again, look at chicago. You obviously haven't been paying attention.


Did you look at the second paragraph I quoted? He was bitching about how kennedy won the debates because of his crafted image on the boob tube. Now, which political party can't gain support over the radio, where you can't see the candidates faces? I'll give you 3 guesses and a tip, it ain't the republicans. Then he goes on and places the idea of physical image as the main reason the neocons are in power. Are you not seeing the blatant falseness of this approach? Which party was it that relied on fictional videos maquerading as documentaries to draw up support? Again, not the republicans.

Secondly, 52% voted for Bush, but that doesn't mean 52% support all of Bush's policies. Many Libertarians voted for Bush, but they still find his policies on abortion, homosexual marriage, and religion ridiculous. There are also moderates who sometimes disagree with him as well.
Correct, they don't, however the fact that they can stomach more of the republican party's policies than the dems is telling.

I didn't see this argument as Democrat versus Republican at all, but it certainly seems to be going that way...

The paragraphs were numbered in the order I quoted them, not in the order they appeared in the article.
...Which is why I edited that part out of the thread, because I didn't realize that you created your own order.


Again, look at chicago. You obviously haven't been paying attention.
What do you mean by "Chicago"? The play\movie or the city?


Did you look at the second paragraph I quoted? He was bitching about how kennedy won the debates because of his crafted image on the boob tube. Now, which political party can't gain support over the radio, where you can't see the candidates faces? I'll give you 3 guesses and a tip, it ain't the republicans. Then he goes on and places the idea of physical image as the main reason the neocons are in power. Are you not seeing the blatant falseness of this approach? Which party was it that relied on fictional videos maquerading as documentaries to draw up support? Again, not the republicans.
I wasn't "bitching." I was stating a fact, a fact which was also discussed in my Social Psychology class. If your only only contribution to this thread is going to be, "LIBERALS SUCK! LIBERALS SUCK! LIBERALS SUCK! I LIKE BUSH! I LIKE BUSH! I LIKE BUSH!" then please leave, because that's not what this thread is about.

That said, on to where we differ. My point about confidence, and believe me when I say I read the whole article, is that it is one thing for a Senator to have an opinion to have an opinion. It is an entirely different thing for a Senator to vote based on that opinion. This is a common theme in all parliamentary forms of government and even in republics. Consider the very role of a party "whip". The idea is to keep members in line with platform they don't necessarily agree with for the greater good. I'm worried that because the bipartisan system will continue to exist in all the other branches of government, the parties will begin to exert undue influence over the members of this Senate of the People. Normally this influence can be offset by a politician's confidence that his views represent those of his constituents, but in this case that confidence in one's own ideals because one has, in a way, been vindicated through the election process, does not exist.
I disagree, because a politician must sacrifice his own ideals in order to even become elected in the first place.

In other words, for a politician to have virtually any chance of winning an election, he must either run as a Republican or a Democrat. In order to be selected as a Republican or a Democrat, you have to agree with most or all of the party's ideals.

With randomly-selected individuals, there is the chance that they'd align with a particular party, because they would benefit in that the party they align with could offer to support the individual's bills in the House. However, this chance would be far less, because when the person comes into office, they are by no means required to align with a party. Furthermore, because they are average citizens who have had personal experiences with prejudice, drug-abuse, violence, and poverty, they would be far more in touch with the issues than rich bureaucrats who would sacrifice their principles for political gain. For this reason, although it's possible, they would be less likely to align with a particular party. Being that their terms would also be short, it would also be even further less likely, because the only concievable benefit would be to have a certain party push their policies for a few years.

Correct, they don't, however the fact that they can stomach more of the republican party's policies than the dems is telling.
A 44% approval rating and 1 out every 5 Americans believing there was vote fraud is far more telling than a controversial election that happened a year ago. Also, I'm curious: How do you feel about President Bush siding with the Democrats on immigration?

I didn't see this argument as Democrat versus Republican at all, but it certainly seems to be going that way...
What's ironic is that in the past, Conservatives advocated anything that would limit the government's power, because they saw the liberal-dominated government as too powerful and imposing. Now that our government is dominated by conservatives and with a Republican President, there are many liberals supporting smaller government and direct democracy, with Neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol, writing, "Neocons do not feel... ...alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."

Simply put, if it was 1974 right now, Ravenshrike would be agreeing with me and it would be a liberal here ranting at me.

I disagree, because a politician must sacrifice his own ideals in order to even become elected in the first place.

In other words, for a politician to have virtually any chance of winning an election, he must either run as a Republican or a Democrat. In order to be selected as a Republican or a Democrat, you have to agree with most or all of the party's ideals.

With randomly-selected individuals, there is the chance that they'd align with a particular party, because they would benefit in that the party they align with could offer to support the individual's bills in the House. However, this chance would be far less, because when the person comes into office, they are by no means required to align with a party. Furthermore, because they are average citizens who have had personal experiences with prejudice, drug-abuse, violence, and poverty, they would be far more in touch with the issues than rich bureaucrats who would sacrifice their principles for political gain. For this reason, although it's possible, they would be less likely to align with a particular party. Being that their terms would also be short, it would also be even further less likely, because the only concievable benefit would be to have a certain party push their policies for a few years.

That makes sense. I agree with you that this system, if feasible, would be a good idea for America. I think the confusion before arose because I didn't realize the degree to which American politicians must go to win an election. In Canada strong candidates are typically recruited by one of the four parties rather than having to go the parties and ask to be accepted, which means they get to retain more independence in the long run, with many independents serving in the government at any given time. I imagine the American system is much different?

That makes sense. I agree with you that this system, if feasible, would be a good idea for America. I think the confusion before arose because I didn't realize the degree to which American politicians must go to win an election. In Canada strong candidates are typically recruited by one of the four parties rather than having to go the parties and ask to be accepted, which means they get to retain more independence in the long run, with many independents serving in the government at any given time. I imagine the American system is much different?
It's not that our system is different, but our society is different.

In America, there are two main parties: Democrat and Republican. 90% of our politicians do not have to campaign to keep their jobs, because nobody worthy enough ever even bothers to challenge them. I base that claim on a CNN analyst who said that out of all the political elections coming up soon (435 seats), there's only going to be, at most, about 30 real political campaigns. According to "America: The Book," 99% of American politicians are just re-elected.

Furthermore, recently, there was a study on how much it costs to do the average political campaign. For the lower house, it ranges from a few hundred thousand up to a million or more. In the upper house, it's in the millions.

Typically, out of 435 members of Congress, we usually only have at most three or four that are independent. The rest are either Republicans or Democrats. So, although you aren't required to identify with one of the major parties, in order to get help with fundraising and have any chance of winning, it's best that you join the Democrats or the Republicans.

EDIT:
Our electoral systems are for the most part the same. According to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), electoral systems which are designed like Britain, America, and Canada may go through periods where there are three parties, but inevitably end with a 2-party system. America, for example, was once a country with three major parties... But, over time, that changed. It's probably going to eventually happen to Canada and Britain as well.

I like the idea of a "senate of the people" but instead of picking them at birth and telling them early in life, couldn't you just set it up like jury duty, where people are chosen randomly to serve for a short amount of time?

Yeah, well, uh... good luck with that.

I like the idea of a "senate of the people" but instead of picking them at birth and telling them early in life, couldn't you just set it up like jury duty, where people are chosen randomly to serve for a short amount of time?
Actually, you know. That probably is a better idea... And they wouldn't necessarily have to be young, either, just as long as they're young enough to go to college.

In America, there are two main parties: Democrat and Republican. 90% of our politicians do not have to campaign to keep their jobs, because nobody worthy enough ever even bothers to challenge them. I base that claim on a CNN analyst who said that out of all the political elections coming up soon (435 seats), there's only going to be, at most, about 30 real political campaigns. According to "America: The Book," 99% of American politicians are just re-elected.
You certainly aren't wrong about that. Check this (http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3203239) out.

EDIT:
Our electoral systems are for the most part the same. According to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), electoral systems which are designed like Britain, America, and Canada may go through periods where there are three parties, but inevitably end with a 2-party system. America, for example, was once a country with three major parties... But, over time, that changed. It's probably going to eventually happen to Canada and Britain as well.

Well, despite the fact that Canada is stated as an example of the law not working as planned in the article, it is an interesting read.

You certainly aren't wrong about that. Check this (http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3203239) out.
I know. Our system of voting is a disgrace. That's why I'm saying there needs to be some amount of direct democracy.

Consider this quote:
On top of this, Democrats face a pro-Republican bias in congressional voting. The Democratic base lies in big cities. There, they pile up huge majorities. Republicans are more evenly spread out in suburbs, small towns and the countryside. According to Gary Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego, every district in which the presidential candidate piled up 80% or more of the vote in 2000 was Democratic. Almost twice as many of those districts where the candidate won with less than 60% of the vote were Republican ones.
That's called gerrymandering. Now Conservatives might say, "WHO CARES IF THEY'RE GERRYMANDERING?!" but I doubt any Conservative would like it if the opposite were true, and Democrats got an unequal amount of votes just because of the way that the lines were drawn.

Personally, I also favor a plurality system instead of a majority. Members of the House should recieve one seat every time they reach a certain percentage of plurality (IE: 5%). I also favor the British form of voting for the executive branch, where you vote for the party rather than the individual, and each party actually has a written manifesto rather than making up bullshit as they go along.

I am completely for throwing some Athenian democracy into the US government. Choosing Senators through lot will provide a better representation of the beliefs of the people of America, both the minority and the majority, than having Senators elected. Sure, even the politicans selected through lot are corruptable, but the chances of corruption are smaller this way. They don't have a political party on their backs forcing them to drop their beliefs and being payed by corporations and receiving help getting into power in exchange for supporting legislation that favors their interests will no longer be problems. In my opinion, it's a great idea.

I think there should be a certain age at which people are allowed to choose to enter their names in the lot. It certainly wouldn't be right or sensible to force people into serving in the "Senate of the People."

I also favor the British form of voting for the executive branch, where you vote for the party rather than the individual, and each party actually has a written manifesto rather than making up bullshit as they go along.

I'm for that.

What do you mean by "Chicago"? The play\movie or the city?

Did you forget about Chicago, Illinois?

Did you forget about Chicago, Illinois?
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

God.

"Chicago.. Chicago... Chicago."

WTF do you mean?

And I didn't forget about Chicago, Illinois. Notice, I said: "The play\movie or the city?"

Now, please. Tell me. Why the hell is the city of Chicago relevant to direct democracy?!?! :confused:

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

God.

"Chicago.. Chicago... Chicago."

WTF do you mean?

And I didn't forget about Chicago, Illinois. Notice, I said: "The play\movie or the city?"

Now, please. Tell me. Why the hell is the city of Chicago relevant to direct democracy?!?! :confused:

Doesn't take a genius to figure out he means Chicago Illinois. Even I got that. Why didn't you pick up on the fact that he ment the city?

Actually I see a far more rational solution than that. Utilizing new computer network/net technology.

If interfaces were created well enough that people could get as much information from politicans without resorting to having to watch a lot of political ads as they vote, then already you are pulling the plug on the main engine of parties. The ability to raise a lot of money for voting awareness.

Its something I want to do one day myself. Removing TV ad power is probably the best first step. The way to do that is to have the last final glimpses of the politicans at the very appealing voting booth with information on their voting record or corruption problems and etc.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out he means Chicago Illinois. Even I got that. Why didn't you pick up on the fact that he ment the city?

The picture (http://oddworks.com/picz/asshat.jpg) I posted seems to have been spam so it has been removed. I'll try to remember in the future not to share a laugh in image form if i can restrain myself. I wholeheartedly apologize. :fluffle:

Its something I want to do one day myself. Removing TV ad power is probably the best first step. The way to do that is to have the last final glimpses of the politicans at the very appealing voting booth with information on their voting record or corruption problems and etc.

Whe decides what information goes down on these interfaces at the voting booth? That's the tough one. Anyone given the task of establishing profiles for the leaders will inevitably be biased.

@Shrub: Seeing as the House of Representatives is already the one that suffers from a lack of fresh faces, why not replace it and keep the Senate?

Actually I see a far more rational solution than that. Utilizing new computer network/net technology.

If interfaces were created well enough that people could get as much information from politicans without resorting to having to watch a lot of political ads as they vote, then already you are pulling the plug on the main engine of parties. The ability to raise a lot of money for voting awareness.

Its something I want to do one day myself. Removing TV ad power is probably the best first step. The way to do that is to have the last final glimpses of the politicans at the very appealing voting booth with information on their voting record or corruption problems and etc.


I've thought of something so very similar. Using biomectrics we could keep out voting fraud and there would be no secret voting. It would all be public record so manual recounts could be done and people could always check in to make sure their vote was registered correctly if at all. People could vote from home, work the library or public polling places (perhaps from even out of the country).

There could be message boards where people (noone could be anonymous) post questions and concerns. These posts with questions and concerns could be checked by others so you could see how many people were also concerned about this or that, plus you could see who is concerned about these things as that would be immediately viewable as well.Perhaps you could get together with those that voiced the same concerns to lobby together on certain issues and it would show accurate demographics.

Make advertising on tv either illegal or have one specific govt channel with rules set up for who can advertise their campaign for how long and whatnot.

The whole of the American people could voice their opinion and vote on every law being passed and help guide certain laws. What to spend on what programs, whether we shoudl go to war with someone, who to confirm for judge or whatever.

I could go on and on. Of course every system has flaws and ways to cheat so before you say this system is flawed, consider the fact that the current one is too and my idea is just an idea and could of course use work. Put the power back in the hands of the people.

http://oddworks.com/picz/asshat.jpg

Enough with the multiple postings of picture links. That's considered spamming.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Enough with the multiple postings of picture links. That's considered spamming.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

when did I do multiple posting of picture links?

I post a pic every now and then. So what. I'd also like to see exactly where this rule is anyway so I can make sure not to go over my alloted amount.

Someone wants to rock the boat it would appear...

Doesn't take a genius to figure out he means Chicago Illinois. Even I got that. Why didn't you pick up on the fact that he ment the city?
Because, my ignorant friend, the play\movie "Chicago," to some extent, deals with hegemony. The plot is about a female murderer who tries to get acquitted by manipulating the media. Only because she's white, famous, and attractive would this be possible.

Of course, that might not be obvious to everyone. But it's true, that Chicago is not merely a city, which is why I asked. Furthermore, I'd like to know, really--why is it obviously Chicago, Illinois?

How the hell does Chicago, Illinois have anything to do with hegemony? Are the Chicagoans taking over the United States? Do the Chicagoans dominate our government? Is there some kind of pro-Chicago bias in our society? If not, then I haven't got the faintest flying fucking idea what you're talking about, or why you believe he meant Chicago, as a city, when so far, there have been no links to hegemony. So, it would be irrational to automatically assume that, especially since, "Chicago's links the hegemony," (if they exist) aren't common sense.

An availability heuristic arising from narrowminded ignorance != Intelligence.

Actually I see a far more rational solution than that. Utilizing new computer network/net technology.

If interfaces were created well enough that people could get as much information from politicans without resorting to having to watch a lot of political ads as they vote, then already you are pulling the plug on the main engine of parties. The ability to raise a lot of money for voting awareness.

Its something I want to do one day myself. Removing TV ad power is probably the best first step. The way to do that is to have the last final glimpses of the politicans at the very appealing voting booth with information on their voting record or corruption problems and etc.
People are lazy and ignorant. You could theoretically implement some kind of device that sends information into to the person's brain, but the potential for abusing such technology far outweighs the benefits.

I post a pic every now and then. So what. I'd also like to see exactly where this rule is anyway so I can make sure not to go over my alloted amount.
Take your whining and crying to the moderation forum where it belongs.

Of course, that might not be obvious to everyone. But it's true, that Chicago is not merely a city, which is why I asked. Furthermore, I'd like to know, really--why is it obviously Chicago?
I'd suspect that the father/son team of Daley and Daley have something to do with it.

I'd suspect that the father/son team of Daley and Daley have something to do with it.
But how is that supposed to be "obvious"? According to Wikipedia, there are a number of families that control various cities and aspects of the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine

The Daley's were just two mayors, not even governors. For the individuals that insulted me: I'm sorry for not being aware of every tiny, poorly-thought out conservative conspiracy theory. And for actually being able to name one play that isn't standard high-school curriculum.

Because, my ignorant friend, the play\movie "Chicago," to some extent, deals with hegemony. The plot is about a female murderer who tries to get acquitted by manipulating the media. Only because she's white, famous, and attractive would this be possible.

Of course, that might not be obvious to everyone. But it's true, that Chicago is not merely a city, which is why I asked. Furthermore, I'd like to know, really--why is it obviously Chicago, Illinois?

How the hell does Chicago, Illinois have anything to do with hegemony? Are the Chicagoans taking over the United States? Do the Chicagoans dominate our government? Is there some kind of pro-Chicago bias in our society? If not, then I haven't got the faintest flying fucking idea what you're talking about, or why you believe he meant Chicago, as a city, when so far, there have been no links to hegemony. So, it would be irrational to automatically assume that, especially since, "Chicago's links the hegemony," (if they exist) aren't common sense.

An availability heuristic arising from narrowminded ignorance != Intelligence.


People are lazy and ignorant. You could theoretically implement some kind of device that sends information into to the person's brain, but the potential for abusing such technology far outweighs the benefits.


Take your whining and crying to the moderation forum where it belongs.


Wow you are a bit angry at me for some reason. Why would that be? I posted that picture (which I now edited out and apologized for spamming) to illustrate that I felt that Corniliu was being an asshat to you for no good reason and I thought I would do it in a humorous way. Euro told me it was spam in this thread so I was asking in this thread where the rule was. I apologize for doing so if it really angers you that much. you are flaming corniliu at the present moment by calling him ignorant though. But you know what? not gunna take that to moderation cuz I have the consideration to talk to the person about my issues with them or theirs with me instead of running and "crying" to someone else.

Wow you are a bit angry at me for some reason. Why would that be? I posted that picture (which I now edited out and apologized for spamming) to illustrate that I felt that Corniliu was being an asshat to you for no good reason and I thought I would do it in a humorous way.
...

Wow, I feel stupid now. :(

...

Wow, I feel stupid now. :(

no biggie

So were you angry because you thought that I was calling you an asshat? I quoted Corniliu. I guess it could be taken in a way that I was supporting Corn and calling you an asshat (sorry I like saying asshat) but that wasn't the case. I guess I shouldn't flame at all.

no biggie

So were you angry because you thought that I was calling you an asshat? I quoted Corniliu. I guess it could be taken in a way that I was supporting Corn and calling you an asshat (sorry I like saying asshat) but that wasn't the case. I guess I shouldn't flame at all.
...Yeah...

But how is that supposed to be "obvious"? According to Wikipedia, there are a number of families that control various cities and aspects of the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine

The Daley's were just two mayors, not even governors. For the individuals that insulted me: I'm sorry for not being aware of every tiny, poorly-thought out conservative conspiracy theory. And for actually being able to name one play that isn't standard high-school curriculum.
It's not so much that they were a father-son duo, as the corruption charges leveled against them. You know the joke about "divining the vote of the recently deceased" and such. Or voting "how they would have voted were they alive." Stuff from a long time ago that was irrelevant. Jack Kennedy was a pretty good President on some respects anyways. I'm not complaining. I'm just being an info source here.

when did I do multiple posting of picture links?


I was informed that you had made two posts (not necesarily in the same thread) that were purely 1 link, and nothing else.



~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

I was informed that you had made two posts (not necesarily in the same thread) that were purely 1 link, and nothing else.



~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~


Oh ok, actually I did change a picture because I thought one might be too inflammatory and the other one I felt was funnier but after your warning I just edited it out altogether and apologized.

I was informed that you had made two posts (not necesarily in the same thread) that were purely 1 link, and nothing else.
No you weren't. I said that he edited it.

Personally I think it would be very much of an improvement to a regular republic, certainly the way things are in America now. It wouldn't be perfect, but then again, which system is? I think it would be an improvement because the people would be represented in a much better way. The problems I see in this system are the following:

-People are chosen to be in the senate through a scientifical process, this is a good way of chosing people, only I fear it is too easy for the scientists or politicians who run these tests to pick people from environments that are most likely to support their ideas.

-This system would require many people to make it work properly, and there is even more controlling, this would probably lead to decisions that are better for the country, but they would take more time.

-The fact that people would be supported for being in the senate would probably lead to people accepting to do so, whether they care about politics or not.

Apart from that It's a good idea, the argument that these people could be corrupt or would be scared of thinking for themselves is ridiculous; there would be so many people that they would ALL have to be corrupt or indifferent.

Well, if I read what was written the Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (and it's true, which I do not assert) right, a government selected randomly from the population of citizens would work wonderfully (provided we possessed some magic way to keep people from being corrupt). Of course, according to him it wouldn't pay to select people for intelligence or something, but to select people for their diversity.

Ok, Personally, our democracy won't fail. If it survived wars, surprise attacks, terrorist attacks, AND a civil war, I think we'll be around for a very very long time.

Will it fail? No because the people themselves won't let it fail.

Every democracy fails at some point.

What goes up must come down and all that.

The question is not one of if, but one of when.