USA - A Backsliding Democracy

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 129
#31
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
If we trust 12 people on a jury to make a single decision, and we say the jury system works, then we should have 12 per Congressional district to make their 1 decision for that district.
So over 642 districts, with 12 per district, which would be over 7,704 representatives total per year. How do 12 representatives per district ameliorate the functions of one representative? What happens should one or more representative disagree?

Constitutional amendments, or a new constitution after the USA fails.
And what would be the details of amending and/or ratifying a new Constitution?

It eliminates the current illusion of choice when candidates are selected by the wealthy elite. People can instead choose to have their names put into the lottery for public service.
How is this much different from what happens now? I mean, any naturalized 35+ year-old citizen who's been a resident for at least 14 years can hold a public office. Why do you suppose the "ordinary" citizen doesn't run for public office, as oppose to relinquishing the prospects of the public offices to the manipulation of sycophantic sellouts? Would you have these requirements changed?



#32
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,157
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
I was well aware our democracy was sliding when our government with help from its de facto propaganda wing spent 4 solid years trying to unseat a duly elected president. Then he finally was unseated via democratic means. It’s as if our own government doesn’t trust our own democratic process.
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Why do you suppose the "ordinary" citizen doesn't run for public office

because they are not part of "the big club" as Carlin puts it.
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
What happens should one or more representative disagree?
That's the beauty of the jury system. That district gets a yes vote if all 12 agree, a no vote if all 12 disagree, or no vote if there is no unanimous consent.

That insures only the most affected districts across the country with the most to gain or lose actually direct National policies instead of the highest paid lobbyists. Political parties are not required for this system. Only concerned citizens just like a jury.
Topic's author
#35
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
do you seriously deny that the death of democracy will only be replaced by authoritarianism?
Of course i do.
Then please explain what you believe will actually happen if we were to actually lose our democracy. And in so doing, please explain why every democracy in the world that has slid back has been replaced by authoritarianism. Why is America so different?
Topic's author
#36
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me know when you are ready to discuss why democracies without a constitution to protect the people from the government is bad.
I’m ready to discuss it when you are ready to stop being so evasive and disingenuous.

Are you seriously now against the constitution, or are you just trying to bait me into wasting my breath explaining very basic things to you that you already understand full well and accept?
Topic's author
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
I was well aware our democracy was sliding when our government with help from its de facto propaganda wing spent 4 solid years trying to unseat a duly elected president. Then he finally was unseated via democratic means. It’s as if our own government doesn’t trust our own democratic process.
By “trying to unseat a duly elected president” you mean hold the president accountable for blatant and obvious violations of his oath of office that the founding fathers would have abhorred and literally wrote the constitution to protect against.

But whatever feels good for you to believe.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Can we at least agree Democracy and Authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive?
#39
Envisage
Envisage's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 48
0
0
2
Envisage's avatar
Envisage
0
0
2
-->
@Double_R
I don't understand exactly what you mean by "backsliding democracy".

I am currently interpreting it as:
"Our ability to select our own respresentitives".

If this is an accurate interpretation then US democracy has been backsliding long before Trump took office. Gerrymandering, voter requirements and the first past the post system are both used and worsened by both major policital parties in the US as it stands.

Trump has just taken this a step further by undermining public trust in the voting system(s) that exist.
#40
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,157
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
By “trying to unseat a duly elected president” you mean hold the president accountable for blatant and obvious violations of his oath of office that the founding fathers would have abhorred and literally wrote the constitution to protect against.
That sounds noble and all, but what you call accountability, many would call partisan political axe-grinding. The largely fabricated Steele Dossier and the ensuing actions based upon it are an egregious example of accountability, as the Durham investigation is slowly but surely proving. True accountability is applied equally and without prejudice. That is not what we have been witnessing between the last administration and the current one.

#41
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
For the first time in its history the United States has been listed as a backsliding democracy.
Where is this listing from, Freedom House?
#42
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
because they are not part of "the big club" as Carlin puts it.
I believe there's more to it than that. The concept of self-reliance has withered throughout the decades--century perhaps. I think that there are people who'd rather delegate authority to some nebulous government than to take responsibility themselves. Because that means that they don't have to own up to their fuck-ups, and readily rabble-rouse when politicians fuck up.  This is the reason I don't simply blame manipulation by the elites. The voting populace are supposed to be adults. And in the age of information, where clicking--and not even that--can grant you access to information, not knowing is no longer an excuse.

That's the beauty of the jury system. That district gets a yes vote if all 12 agree, a no vote if all 12 disagree, or no vote if there is no unanimous consent.

That insures only the most affected districts across the country with the most to gain or lose actually direct National policies instead of the highest paid lobbyists. Political parties are not required for this system. Only concerned citizens just like a jury.
So decentralization with community-based policies. So I ask, again, what is the point of democracy? Why not just have concerned citizens participate at their own discretion?

#43
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Then please explain what you believe will actually happen if we were to actually lose our democracy.
It depends on the region, I suppose. If we're talking about inner Chicago, for example, I'd imagine something like "the Purge" would occur. If however, we're talking about Lewiston Idaho, I'd imagine they'd carry on just as they always have.

And in so doing, please explain why every democracy in the world that has slid back has been replaced by authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is sponsored, not an inevitable consequence (information courtesy of every surviving dictator.)

Why is America so different?
There's power in belief. America is the gorgeous figurehead.

Topic's author
#44
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Can we at least agree Democracy and Authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive?
Of course.

Topic's author
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Envisage
I’m talking about the same backsliding you are, just now we have crossed a line where we are recognized among the worlds critical states. It’s kind of like the difference with someone who is sick - meaning they have the sniffles, vs someone who is sick… with cancer.
Topic's author
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
That sounds noble and all, but what you call accountability, many would call partisan political axe-grinding.
I’m sure they would. But I don’t care what they call it, I care what it is. There is no reasonable case to be made that either of his impeachments for example were not warranted, if he were any other president he would have been removed from office. But Trump is graded on a curve, and he’s figured out that all he has to do is disregard the very idea that we should respect our institutions and vilify any individual that stands in his way and he can then get away with anything he wants.

The largely fabricated Steele Dossier and the ensuing actions based upon it are an egregious example of accountability
Why is the political right so obsessed with the Steele Dossier? It was just one of many documents the justice department used as a predicate for their investigations, and it was only taken seriously because it corroborated intelligence were already had.

Topic's author
#47
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
The report is from International IDEA

Why does that really matter though, do you deny that US democracy is in serious trouble?
Topic's author
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Ok, let me try asking like this… what form of government would take power of US democracy falls?
#49
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,157
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
There is no reasonable case to be made that either of his impeachments for example were not warranted, if he were any other president he would have been removed from office.
You aren’t taking into account the Mueller investigation and hearings. Its findings weren’t even used in the subsequent impeachment. It was predicated on an entirely different accusation. That investigation and obsession with it was partisan political axe grinding. It set the tone, if you will, and it was hardly a tone of accountability without prejudice.

And Biden’s highly controversial phone call to the Afghani president prior to the US withdrawal of forces would be grounds for Trump’s third impeachment if Trump had acted identically. It’s about as clear cut a political double-standard  hypothetical I can think of. It appears Obama was correct when he quipped, “I guess orange really is the new black!”

Why is the political right so obsessed with the Steele Dossier? It was just one of many documents the justice department used as a predicate for their investigations, and it was only taken seriously because it corroborated intelligence were already had.
The investigation into how wrong you are is still ongoing.
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
There is no reasonable case to be made that either of his impeachments for example were not warranted,
Only a partisan would talk in absolutes like this.

If I heard a Republican saying the same thing about the Clinton impeachment, that would be pure partisan rhetoric. Undeniably.
#51
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Why does that really matter though, do you deny that US democracy is in serious trouble?
I wouldn't deny that, but I have very different reasons for thinking so than you do. I have two really big concerns, the first is the consolidation of power away from democratically elected leaders and towards individuals and institutions that can't be held to account and often can't be readily named, but who collectively have the power to brute force almost any result they want no matter what the voters say. The second is the rights enshrined in the bill of rights becoming obsolete as time goes on and technology and circumstances change(the best example of this is the right to a "speedy trial" which is completely gone at this point) 

Whereas I don't view Trump's post election behavior as a serious threat at all. I think it's all but disqualifying and severely damages his legacy, but I don't see it as a fundamental threat to American democracy. People will say in polls that they think the election was rigged but their revealed preference shows that they don't seriously believe this....because they still vote! It's just a coping mechanism. Ironically I think that if he had just conceded gracefully he would be a heavy favorite to come back in 2024, instead of a 50/50 bet.
Topic's author
#52
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Whereas I don't view Trump's post election behavior as a serious threat at all. I think it's all but disqualifying and severely damages his legacy, but I don't see it as a fundamental threat to American democracy.
Do you disagree with the statement that in order for a democracy to thrive the people must believe it to be legitimate?
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Do you disagree with the statement that in order for a democracy to thrive the people must believe it to be legitimate?

If this was the case, voting should be mandatory instead of optional to include the people that are sure their vote does not matter.
Topic's author
#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,368
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The usual unserious response I’ve come to expect from you…
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Not at all. Do you really believe people choosing to not vote makes for a strong democracy?

I would really like to hear your detailed position on that.
#56
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Is that to say you think that we should get rid of districts for national elections, automatically register all citizens when they turn 18, and take a hard look at voter restriction laws so that more people can vote, maybe even move to a remote voting or all mail in option?
#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
That doesn't address the problem of the disgruntled absent voter who doesn't believe the system works and refuses to vote.
#58
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Wouldn't all of that be part of making voting mandatory? It certainly reduces the absent voter by making voting more accessible. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. 
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,384
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Making voting more accessible doesn't solve the problem of the persistent absentee voter.

How do you handle a person who sees what the lobbyists are doing in DC and gives up in despair? Is forcing him to vote really the answer?

#60
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,015
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you handle a person who sees what the lobbyists are doing in DC and gives up in despair? Is forcing him to vote really the answer?
I don't know, I didn't propose mandatory voting. You sort of did:

If this was the case, voting should be mandatory instead of optional to include the people that are sure their vote does not matter.
If you're not in favor of making voting as accessible as possible, then I don't know how you'd make voting mandatory. That's all I'm saying. Maybe I misread your mandatory voting post? If you don't like lobbyists, which clearly you don't and clearly we can agree on that, propose a way to eliminate their influence.