Democracy - We had a good run

[Shryke]

And Obama needs to bitch slap his party for being one of the strongest groups of elected democrats in history, yet they're unable to overcome the 40 percent minority of the Republicans.

The Senate gives the GOP an unbelievable amount of power with only 40% in there.

The Senate is where good things go to die.

[Mad Monkey]

But one that's the issues. People, like businesses, often think very short term. "I'm employed, I'm healthy, everything is fine. We don't need any sort of reform".

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from with the rest of your post, but I don't see how democracy is worse at this than, say, authoritarianism. Fascist efficiency is a myth; Mussolini did not make the trains run on time, and there are a hundred African and Latin American states that can tell you that some strongman's fiefdom is nowhere near Switzerland. Democracy has its flaws, but at least it's possible to remedy them.

The only reason we don't is that the Senate provides the shitty little rural states disproportionate representation in our government.

You can't get rid of the Senate either. Smaller states only agreed to the Constitution because they could ensure that their interests would be equally considered with the larger states in at least one part of the government.

[timmet]

You can't get rid of the Senate either. Smaller states only agreed to the Constitution because they could ensure that their interests would be equally considered with the larger states in at least one part of the government.

Heh. Including the two Senators from my shitty little rural state. Less than 500,000 people, and we have the same effective voice in politics as NY or CA. Heeheehee.

Shit.

Has anybody figured out & charted how small the Republican minority in the Senate is, by population represented? Ah, here we go. IF the linked site is accurate, it's 36.5% Republican, 63.5% Democratic. Not all that far off from actual seats, but enuf to pass health care even minus Nelson and what's the fuckhead's name ... oh yeah, Lieberman.

So what's the alternative? Direct democracy? IN a nation where FOXNews is rated "most trusted"? Where the poor and minorities vote far less than the rich and white? Where typically only 40% of people can be bothered to vote at all? Where our marketing industry is so much better than our schools?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Timmet,

You realize there is nothing more difficult to change in US Constitutional Law than the equal representation of States in the US Senate?

[VarysTheSpider]

So what's the alternative? Direct democracy? IN a nation where FOXNews is rated "most trusted"? Where the poor and minorities vote far less than the rich and white? Where typically only 40% of people can be bothered to vote at all? Where our marketing industry is so much better than our schools?

In an ideal world, I think it would be something more like participatory democracy. Not quite sure what that would look like though.

I'm not surprised people are disinterested, ignorant, hardly vote, don't care, when often their stake in politics amounts to little more than choosing between several people, every few years, to do what they say they will do on your behalf if they are truthful, competent and even represent your views in the first place. In fact, it's exactly what I'd expect from a system that grants them too little power, and information is disseminated from those that have it.

[timmet]

Timmet,

You realize there is nothing more difficult to change in US Constitutional Law than the equal representation of States in the US Senate?

Yup. It's a design defect. :ohwell: Goes to Ormond's point that the Founding Fathers (urf, I hate that phrase) either didn't foresee certain developments or they had to hack together the best machine they good out of some pretty awkward parts. Same way the Missouri Compromise made the United States possible ... and guaranteed the Civil War would happen sooner or later.

You could say allowing (proportionally) thirty five people to hold hostage the will of sixty four, when those sixty four won their elected seats fair and square, is idiotic and anti-democratic. Or that any legislation that can't muster at least two minority votes is pretty lousy and shouldn't pass anyhow.

I honestly got nothing here, Scot. :dunce: Possibly the US government is working exactly as designed, right now. Some day we may all look back on this as a perfect era of checks and balances, of loyal opposition based on deeply-held principles, that rejiggered the forces for a Golden Age of representative and federalist democracy.

Or not.

[Jaime L]

Well, my response to this is simply that I don't believe that things have EVER been any better. There never was some utopian time when the majority of "the American people" were well-informed rational intellectuals, and there never will be. I would bet that people as a whole are a lot better informed now than they were 100 or even 50 years ago. And somehow our republic has survived in spite of that.

I would be in favor of reforms in the Senate and other institutions to make them work better. But the idea that because a lot of people have human contradictory beliefs and impulses that democracy can't work at all seems to be way overly pessimistic to me. It sure ain't perfect, but I think it's better than the alternatives.

I can't recall a time in my life where partisanship has been greater. There's been a steady, very visible decline throughout this decade in the ability and willingness of the two parties to work together. Some blame the audacious policies from the Bush Administration for dividing the nations, others blame the gerrymandering of congressional districts that's occurred all over the country that by its very nature generates less centrist candidates. As a result many districts throughout the country have never been bluer and never been redder and this divide is contributing to an inability to even agree what the issues are, let alone communicate and compromise effectively. It's no longer just a difference in philosophy it's a difference in facts. We've never been more biased, at least not in my lifetime. We've never been so resistant to the possibility that we're wrong. And we've never been so staunch in our belief that if facts differ from our preconceived notion, they must be propaganda or outright lies. That piece of common ground we always used to rely on is shrinking like an island slowly getting engulfed by rising waters.

To me, the deterioration in political discourse in this country over the past decade isextremely visible. And as we become more insular in our echo chambers, it only gets nastier. Rush's comment about him rather seeing Obama fail than America succeed is only the most visible symptom of this, but it exists everywhere. Political discourse keeps getting more venomous, and it's not like we're becoming more informed in the process. Even if there's

Beyond that, Ormond, are you telling me you don't feel the difference between this decade and even the last two? I agree it's likely we've always had contradictory beliefs but in today's environment this failing has become absolutely malignant. My point about Democracy no longer working, is of course, half tongue in cheek, but underlying it is a deep concern that system grows less effective every year. I don't see leaders on Capitol Hill with the political backbone to do the right or unpopular thing nor do I see voters prepared to hold them accountable for their many hypocrisies, lies and crippling inertia. The way our system continues to not address all the ticking time bomb issues that exist on the very near horizon (i.e.: The economy, the deficit, Social Security, Healthcare, The Environment) speak to me of a government that's becoming dysfunctional. All the issues that we haven't addressed and continue not to address speak to me as the clearest sign of a potential American decline in our lifetimes. If we collapse (which BTW, was a distinct possibility as recently as a year ago), it's because we've failed our democracy as much as it has failed

[Shryke]

Timmet,

You realize there is nothing more difficult to change in US Constitutional Law than the equal representation of States in the US Senate?

In some ways, I don't see the POINT of the US Senate.

In Canada, it's the Premiers themselves (ie - The Governors) who look out for their Province's (ie - State's) interests. They are, after all, the people who were elected to lead the Province (state).

It seems that Senators are mostly just representing their party in a Chamber that parties need representation in to get anything done.

The only "looking out for their state interests" they do is funnel pork back home.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

This could work out even better than each state as it's own country.

[Guest Raidne]

Why don't you?

See, e.g. the OP.

[Jaime L]

This could work out even better than each state as it's own country.

"The Empty Quarter"

That sonuvabitch!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

In some ways, I don't see the POINT of the US Senate.

In Canada, it's the Premiers themselves (ie - The Governors) who look out for their Province's (ie - State's) interests. They are, after all, the people who were elected to lead the Province (state).

It seems that Senators are mostly just representing their party in a Chamber that parties need representation in to get anything done.

The only "looking out for their state interests" they do is funnel pork back home.

The point of the Senate is to gum up the works. That's why small states like NJ and Maryland insisted upon it . They didn't want to be buried by the masses in Virgina, NY, and Mass. Regarding representing their States don't forget that orginally Senators were elected by the State Legislatures not the people of their home States. This gave the State Governments a more direct voice in National politics. It made the States harder to bypass.

[Guest Raidne]

I don't see the point of the House of Representatives, for what it's worth.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

"The Empty Quarter"

That sonuvabitch!

Noone lives there. If you happen to see anyone there(you won't) or you are there(you aren't) it's an anomoly. Or possibly a glitch in the matrix.

:P

Also, giving States equal say is fucking stupid. States are not people. If you want to give each state 2 senators fine, but make their votes perportional. California's senators get 1 vote a piece, and Wyoming's senators get 0.014725 votes a piece. That's fair.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This could work out even better than each state as it's own country.

I would group them thus:

Group 1:

California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii

Capitol: San Francisco

Group 2:

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado

Capitol: Salt Lake City

Group 3:

Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota

Capitol: Kansas City

Group 4:

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio

Capitol: Chicago

Group 5:

Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine

Capitol: Philidelphia

Group 6:

Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida

Capitol: Atlanta

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TLM,

So letting a few high population States determine what the nation as a whole does is fair?

[The Marquis de Leech]

I don't think US democracy is fundamentally broken: the problem is that a completely intransigent minority in the Senate is simply abusing procedure in an unprecedented manner, and the media is refusing to call them up on it.

[Guest Raidne]

Not having Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas in the same group is unnatural. Also, in keeping with the countries traditions, there should be a New England group and a Mid-Atlantic group. And, you know, population.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Not having Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas in the same group is unnatural. Also, in keeping with the countries traditions, there should be a New England group and a Mid-Atlantic group. And, you know, population.

Perhaps Texas should be split up. West Texas and East Texas are about as different as New Mexico and Arkansas.

[alguien]

Group 4:

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio

Capitol: Chicago

Hmmmm. I'd be living in country #4, the Great Lakes Kingdom. Not bad. I already live in the capital city!

How would you go about dispersing the military?