zoogs
New member
Last edited by a moderator:
NYT: Is There Too Much Democracy in America or Too Little?
- Thread starter zoogs
- Start date
Danny Bateman
Donor
Interesting article Zoogs. To me it seems written somewhat through the same lens that the populist candidates this election use: Your influence and even ability to vote is being perverted by special interests with corporate influences that don't necessarily have your best interest at heart.
While there's some truth to the statement that too few hold too much power, we've yet to draft a consensus solution for the problem. The article espoused some things that I view as sensible steps in the right direction (automatic voter registration, weekend and/or national voting holiday), but also introduced one really idiotic one: Online voting. I wouldn't touch that with a twenty foot pole at this point.
The point is that we should be having a serious discussion about the ways we can improve the democratic process here.
While there's some truth to the statement that too few hold too much power, we've yet to draft a consensus solution for the problem. The article espoused some things that I view as sensible steps in the right direction (automatic voter registration, weekend and/or national voting holiday), but also introduced one really idiotic one: Online voting. I wouldn't touch that with a twenty foot pole at this point.
The point is that we should be having a serious discussion about the ways we can improve the democratic process here.
Lil' Red
New member
Do you oppose online voting due to the fact that it would be easier to manipulate the results or do you oppose for it other reasons?
zoogs
New member
I would dig the convenience of online voting...one day!
I think the article was written with empathy towards the disenchanted, but not through the same lens quite. Sort of a yes, there is a democracy deficit that is at the root of this anger; it's not people gone mad. On the other hand, it's emphateic also that seeking succor from The Donald isn't the answer. In general dismissing opposition as illegitimate is no way to go about being America -- at least, that's what I took from it.
I think the article was written with empathy towards the disenchanted, but not through the same lens quite. Sort of a yes, there is a democracy deficit that is at the root of this anger; it's not people gone mad. On the other hand, it's emphateic also that seeking succor from The Donald isn't the answer. In general dismissing opposition as illegitimate is no way to go about being America -- at least, that's what I took from it.
84HuskerLaw
New member
The article is perhaps thought provoking but certainly offers no coherent suggestions much less solutions to a long list of apparent deficiences the writer suggest are demonstrated in American democracy. It wanders and it wonders but really doesn't end up saying much. I think one can challenge many basic assumptions which the author of the article seems to just take for granted as 'given' such as that we don't presently have the right amount of democracy in America. Frankly, there is almost no definition of what the term democracy is nor how or why America is or is not 'democratic'.
In general political science terms, America is a a representative Republic and not a democracy as such. Democracy would necessarily include much more direct public voting on issues and laws themselves rather than electing our representatives (Senators and House members) to go to Washington / Lincoln, etc and gather as a legislative body and vote for and against things on our behalf. Basic American government class from high school days and certainly any basic political science of American politics thereafter would present these differences. Sadly, our basic educational system today is a fundamental failure.
The questions posed by the article seems rather to be a way to ask the question of whether or not certain members of our society (the non-voting segment - perhaps about half of the adult population - are not being fairly represented or their interests not being indicated or reflected by the government which results from the system as it is currently operating in America. It happens every election cycle and frequently in the off years in between that commentators and 'leaders' of various groups (political, social and otherwise) make blanket statements about how we have many 'disenfranchised voters' and many people's rights and interests are not be adequately represented or considered in laws and societal rules generally. Yet, every election we have roughly half or less of the voting age adults who bother to take the time to vote. Many claim it is simply too difficult for many to get up and go to the local voting booth and take a ballot into the booth and vote. Voting machines were added but really few more bothered to vote so they added numerous new and simple ways to vote by mail, vote early, vote often, etc. Then it was said that the process of 'registering to vote' was too difficult or somehow costly or something and so many don't vote because they are not able to register. Of course, registeration is even simpler than voting and nearly everywhere it is simpler than getting a driver's license or a travel passport or even a copy of one's own social security card.
Recently, the argument is that we should 'automatically register voters when issuing driver's licenses - aka motor voter - so that we can get more participation. The problem (and I think real intention) of this type of law is to allow fraudulant voting schemes to thrive as once we register millions of 'voters' who have no interest or desire to vote to the roles, then illegal voting in the names of such absentee voters will occur. We already have huge problems with fraudulant tax return filings for goodness sakes: it certainly is nothing to cast votes on behalf of hundreds of thousands of registered voters who don't show up and never will when you vote from afar without the requirement of ID or physically doing anything. There is simply no way to prevent mass voter fraud and thereby completely disenfranchise the voting public with elections that do not represent the true will of the majority. Voting and election integrity is absolutely critical to the survival of any form of democracy or representative republic. There is plenty of voter apathy and disgust as many already believe their votes don't count or are not being counted or are being overridden by fictional votes. This apathy / anger will grow and like a cancer will undermine and break down public respect for the law and outcomes of elections, honest or not.
Too much democracy is a problem, only when we have an ignorant electorate (voters who do not bother to educate themselves and become informed and thoughtful and truly aware of not only the problems but of the solutions (governmental or not). We have a poorly educated population - this is clearly evidenced by the fact that Bernie Sanders (an avowed socialst campaigning on promises to do things which are utterly insane economically) who is getting nearly 50% of the votes of the Democrat party) in a battle royale with Clinton (unquestionably the worst liar and most dishonest candidate for President in 40 years), and one of them will be the nominee of Democrat Party in 2016. On the Republican side, we had a slate of 17 or more candidates (most of who have been demonstrably successful politicians in their respective states, etc and were all capable of being 'average' Presidents by historical standards) and all were easily defeated by 'the outlandish outsider' Donald Trump. While Trump has demonstrated his business acument by accumulating a large amount of wealth in numerous businesses, he has also demonstrated a complete lack of diplimatic skills or simple tact or public speaking skills. He puts forth radical ideas that resonate strongly with a majority of Americans (based on the minority voting for him and polling of others). But he has not record or meaningful resume' of political or social or other skills for our hypothetical 'educated voting base' to decide if he is the leader that want or need.
Too much democracy? Yes (if by that the writer means voters don't know what they are doing because they are not doing what the political wonks and DC insiders and power brokers what them to do) can be a problem if we - as it appears certain this year - to elect either Sanders (a moron basically) or Clinton (a greedy deceitful selfish witch whose only interest is making herself Queen to benefit her) or Trump (we know not what we will get but certainly there is grave concern at a minimum). An ignorant voting population made up of those most politically active has made this Hobson's choice so imagine what kind of cartoon character would be chosen if everybody was voting!).
Too little democracy? Not sure how adding more ignorant voters to the rolls will help us pick better leaders - perhaps someone can explain.
The founding fathers that assembled in Philly to create the Constittion were the most amazing collection of brilliant thinkers on such a matter in all of history. We were so lucy. We need to follow the Constitution as it was intended. Recent deviations away from the boundaries and lines of division of the branches, etc. have allowed this Nation to wander close to the edge of collapse and failure. We need to turn back now.
In general political science terms, America is a a representative Republic and not a democracy as such. Democracy would necessarily include much more direct public voting on issues and laws themselves rather than electing our representatives (Senators and House members) to go to Washington / Lincoln, etc and gather as a legislative body and vote for and against things on our behalf. Basic American government class from high school days and certainly any basic political science of American politics thereafter would present these differences. Sadly, our basic educational system today is a fundamental failure.
The questions posed by the article seems rather to be a way to ask the question of whether or not certain members of our society (the non-voting segment - perhaps about half of the adult population - are not being fairly represented or their interests not being indicated or reflected by the government which results from the system as it is currently operating in America. It happens every election cycle and frequently in the off years in between that commentators and 'leaders' of various groups (political, social and otherwise) make blanket statements about how we have many 'disenfranchised voters' and many people's rights and interests are not be adequately represented or considered in laws and societal rules generally. Yet, every election we have roughly half or less of the voting age adults who bother to take the time to vote. Many claim it is simply too difficult for many to get up and go to the local voting booth and take a ballot into the booth and vote. Voting machines were added but really few more bothered to vote so they added numerous new and simple ways to vote by mail, vote early, vote often, etc. Then it was said that the process of 'registering to vote' was too difficult or somehow costly or something and so many don't vote because they are not able to register. Of course, registeration is even simpler than voting and nearly everywhere it is simpler than getting a driver's license or a travel passport or even a copy of one's own social security card.
Recently, the argument is that we should 'automatically register voters when issuing driver's licenses - aka motor voter - so that we can get more participation. The problem (and I think real intention) of this type of law is to allow fraudulant voting schemes to thrive as once we register millions of 'voters' who have no interest or desire to vote to the roles, then illegal voting in the names of such absentee voters will occur. We already have huge problems with fraudulant tax return filings for goodness sakes: it certainly is nothing to cast votes on behalf of hundreds of thousands of registered voters who don't show up and never will when you vote from afar without the requirement of ID or physically doing anything. There is simply no way to prevent mass voter fraud and thereby completely disenfranchise the voting public with elections that do not represent the true will of the majority. Voting and election integrity is absolutely critical to the survival of any form of democracy or representative republic. There is plenty of voter apathy and disgust as many already believe their votes don't count or are not being counted or are being overridden by fictional votes. This apathy / anger will grow and like a cancer will undermine and break down public respect for the law and outcomes of elections, honest or not.
Too much democracy is a problem, only when we have an ignorant electorate (voters who do not bother to educate themselves and become informed and thoughtful and truly aware of not only the problems but of the solutions (governmental or not). We have a poorly educated population - this is clearly evidenced by the fact that Bernie Sanders (an avowed socialst campaigning on promises to do things which are utterly insane economically) who is getting nearly 50% of the votes of the Democrat party) in a battle royale with Clinton (unquestionably the worst liar and most dishonest candidate for President in 40 years), and one of them will be the nominee of Democrat Party in 2016. On the Republican side, we had a slate of 17 or more candidates (most of who have been demonstrably successful politicians in their respective states, etc and were all capable of being 'average' Presidents by historical standards) and all were easily defeated by 'the outlandish outsider' Donald Trump. While Trump has demonstrated his business acument by accumulating a large amount of wealth in numerous businesses, he has also demonstrated a complete lack of diplimatic skills or simple tact or public speaking skills. He puts forth radical ideas that resonate strongly with a majority of Americans (based on the minority voting for him and polling of others). But he has not record or meaningful resume' of political or social or other skills for our hypothetical 'educated voting base' to decide if he is the leader that want or need.
Too much democracy? Yes (if by that the writer means voters don't know what they are doing because they are not doing what the political wonks and DC insiders and power brokers what them to do) can be a problem if we - as it appears certain this year - to elect either Sanders (a moron basically) or Clinton (a greedy deceitful selfish witch whose only interest is making herself Queen to benefit her) or Trump (we know not what we will get but certainly there is grave concern at a minimum). An ignorant voting population made up of those most politically active has made this Hobson's choice so imagine what kind of cartoon character would be chosen if everybody was voting!).
Too little democracy? Not sure how adding more ignorant voters to the rolls will help us pick better leaders - perhaps someone can explain.
The founding fathers that assembled in Philly to create the Constittion were the most amazing collection of brilliant thinkers on such a matter in all of history. We were so lucy. We need to follow the Constitution as it was intended. Recent deviations away from the boundaries and lines of division of the branches, etc. have allowed this Nation to wander close to the edge of collapse and failure. We need to turn back now.
BigRedBuster
Active member
I completely agree with this.
However, there are WAY more people in this country that don't vote because the honestly don't see a value in it anymore.
What I see as a major part of the solution around this is major change in how our elections actually work. Right now, a voter in Nebraska really doesn't mean squat. That's why a President very seldom if ever comes to Nebraska. We don't even have candidates really come and take our state seriously. Meanwhile, other states are way more important...why? Is someone in Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida or California really more knowledgable on issues and important in voting than Nebraskan's? No. But, they are more important to the candidates to stay in power. (personally, I think this is why Nebraska is so stagnated as staunchly Republican).
Hold Regional primaries where every region will hold the same weight in delegates. Move the general election to popular vote instead of electoral college and shorten the amount of time the entire process takes.
Without major change, my vote sitting here in central Nebraska doesn't mean jack sh#t.
Photo ID laws are disenfranchising only because instead of putting in place ways around the disenfranchisement, it's used as a political ploy by both parties to solidify part of their base.
However, there are WAY more people in this country that don't vote because the honestly don't see a value in it anymore.
What I see as a major part of the solution around this is major change in how our elections actually work. Right now, a voter in Nebraska really doesn't mean squat. That's why a President very seldom if ever comes to Nebraska. We don't even have candidates really come and take our state seriously. Meanwhile, other states are way more important...why? Is someone in Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida or California really more knowledgable on issues and important in voting than Nebraskan's? No. But, they are more important to the candidates to stay in power. (personally, I think this is why Nebraska is so stagnated as staunchly Republican).
Hold Regional primaries where every region will hold the same weight in delegates. Move the general election to popular vote instead of electoral college and shorten the amount of time the entire process takes.
Without major change, my vote sitting here in central Nebraska doesn't mean jack sh#t.
Last edited by a moderator: