Anyone for Democracy? (Zombie Coup derail)

[laklak]

Sprouts? Fuck that. No Brussels bureaucrat is gonna tell ME what to eat!!!!

[Svartalf]

Well, I eat them, the sprouts AND the bureaucrats, I have asked rainbow for recipes.

[Joe]

A pure democracy does not exist in any current nation state. All current democracies are flawed, somewhat more than others. IMO, the current USA has more serious flaws than many others, primarily in the way that electoral processes are not in the hands of independent, non-partisan bodies, but are increasingly controlled by politicians who corruptly subvert the way elections are run, voter registration issues and electoral boundaries to blatantly serve to enhance the power of their own parties.

What do you mean by a pure democracy, Jim? We don't appear to be talking about the same thing.

Have a merry Christmas!

What do you consider a pure democracy Joe?
Well one thing is sure the USA does not and never did have anything that resembles democracy in any form. It is a plutocracy with the 1% calling the tune. Your political system is so corrupt at every level it is not true.
The Netherlands has as pure a democracy that can be found at the present moment in time. We have no geographical divisions so no gerrymandering. Every vote is equal and no votes are wasted.

I've already provided the definition, and it's not my opinion but that of political scientists. Jim recently restated it, so you shouldn't have to ask. However, I'm happy to provide it again so you know the correct meaning of the term.

a form of democracy in which the laws and policies are made directly by the citizens rather than by representatives.

So by that definition, is the Netherlands really a pure democracy?

[JimC]

To be fair to Scot, I suspect that he is really saying that, in his opinion, the electoral system of the Netherlands contains fewer flaws than many others...

[Svartalf]

do you know any modern parliamentary democracies that are direct rather than representative democracies?

[Svartalf]

To be fair to Scot, I suspect that he is really saying that, in his opinion, the electoral system of the Netherlands contains fewer flaws than many others...

Given the plutocratic roots of the netherlands, I'd be very surprised if the corruption were below average.

[Joe]

To be fair to Scot, I suspect that he is really saying that, in his opinion, the electoral system of the Netherlands contains fewer flaws than many others...

To be fairer to Scot, I'm giving him the opportunity to understand what he is actually saying about the Netherlands, and as Svarty correctly pointed out, isn't always such a good thing.

[Scot Dutchy]

To be fair to Scot, I suspect that he is really saying that, in his opinion, the electoral system of the Netherlands contains fewer flaws than many others...

Thanks Jim. We dont have true democracy according to his definition. Yet we do have the most democratic system available. Not one vote is wasted. We dont have a threshold. If you can get 1% of the vote you have a seat. You dont have to vote for the party as you can also vote for the individual. All parties receive money from taxes for election costs.

[JimC]

To me, I divide the flaws in democratic voting systems into 3 categories. The first is the way in which elected representatives are chosen - district based, first past the post, preference based, proportional, whatever. Each country has its own version, and I'm prepared to concede that some are fairer than others - perhaps the Netherlands version is indeed one of the better ones.

The second is how the party system, and the associated personality cult of party leaders takes election campaigning away from rational debate on policies into emotive nonsense. Power struggles within parties, and parliamentary debate which degenerates into juvenile name calling are part of this, and responsible for some of the disregard in which politicians are held.

Both of these are not fatal flaws, and can be at least managed. The third set of flaws is corrupt and dangerous. It is where politicians, and the party machines they are owned by, deliberately pervert the process of elections to their own advantage. It is mostly present where independent bodies (such as the Australian Electoral Commission) are no longer in control of all aspects of elections.

Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries is the obvious example. Making rules about who is eligible to vote, which in a statistical sense reduce voting options for certain demographics is another, and finally the ability to actually reject voting results from particular areas on spurious grounds is another. From all accounts, these egregious flaws are increasingly a blot on the democratic landscape of the USA...

[Hermit]

To be fair to Scot, I suspect that he is really saying that, in his opinion, the electoral system of the Netherlands contains fewer flaws than many others...

You're being excessively charitable with your interpretation of what Scot Dutchy means. He has opined that Dutch democracy is true democracy or pure democracy, or expressed similarly worded assertions all over the place for years. He has also written that "The US is not a democracy." or words to that effect numerous times. No surprise, really, considering his black and white thinking, a glaring example of which is this: "Democracy is like pregnancy. You cant be half pregnant..."

[Scot Dutchy]

Do you believe the USA is a democracy in any shape or form? It is not black and white thinking but is simple fact but unless you have any comprehension of simple facts or just being pig headed you can believe it to be otherwise.
Jim stated three simple measures of democracy you have none. You just love to be negative about other people's opinions which of course is a childish approach and not constructive. You have never said what IYHO is pure democracy. You hide behind the opinions others. You are a grammar sniper who takes great joy at blasting other people's mistakes.
There never has been a "pure" democracy. Even the Greeks did not have one as there were rules regarding the exclusion of those able to vote. Proportional Representation is so far the best we can do with the Dutch system of direct PR probably the fairest. We dont have districts or any other geographical divisions so no gerrymandering. A person voting in Maastricht or Groningen as an equal vote. You can vote for a party or individual. All parties can spend the same amount on the election. No big slush funds. We dont have thresholds and have to accept some very unsavoury parties and leaders.
Just what are the advantages of FPTP if any? The most favoured system of the Anglo-Saxon world.
Please prove that USA is a democracy with its Senate and Electoral College never minding the rest of gerrymandering and electoral suppression.

[pErvinalia]

You just love to be negative about other people's opinions

Says the most negative man on the internet.

[Joe]

To me, I divide the flaws in democratic voting systems into 3 categories. The first is the way in which elected representatives are chosen - district based, first past the post, preference based, proportional, whatever. Each country has its own version, and I'm prepared to concede that some are fairer than others - perhaps the Netherlands version is indeed one of the better ones.

The second is how the party system, and the associated personality cult of party leaders takes election campaigning away from rational debate on policies into emotive nonsense. Power struggles within parties, and parliamentary debate which degenerates into juvenile name calling are part of this, and responsible for some of the disregard in which politicians are held.

Both of these are not fatal flaws, and can be at least managed. The third set of flaws is corrupt and dangerous. It is where politicians, and the party machines they are owned by, deliberately pervert the process of elections to their own advantage. It is mostly present where independent bodies (such as the Australian Electoral Commission) are no longer in control of all aspects of elections.

Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries is the obvious example. Making rules about who is eligible to vote, which in a statistical sense reduce voting options for certain demographics is another, and finally the ability to actually reject voting results from particular areas on spurious grounds is another. From all accounts, these egregious flaws are increasingly a blot on the democratic landscape of the USA...

Did you know that the people of Colorado stripped the redistricting power from the state Assembly for both federal and state legislative offices in 2018?

This was done by 2 amendments to the state constitution via the initiative process that set up an independent commission, and passed with 71 percent of the vote. Yeah, Coloradans can amend the constitution, make law, repeal laws, and recall elected officials by binding referendum. We're not the only state that has some form of this either.



That's a fair amount of direct democracy for a stodgy old republic.

I always keep this in mind when I think about this stuff. Our federal government is set up to advantage the elites and dampen popular movements, but it can't completely stymie them. When a critical mass is hit, things can change quickly. Colorado was one of four states that changed how they redistrict between 2010 and 2020. Maybe there's hope.

[laklak]

Once again, Florida leads that way. We allow constitutional amendments, but do NOT allow the rabble to enact laws. To pass, an amendment must receive 60% of the popular vote. This restricts the mob's immediate power, while still allowing the electorate to decide important issues and change the course of the state. The very best democracy is Florida Democracy. We are wise.

Everyone sing! A-Vun and a A-two and a ....Waaaaay down upon the Suwanee River, faaaaar, far awaaaaay.....

[Joe]

Colorado followed that wisdom as well, though we set it at 55% for amendments, and increased restrictions on the petition process. This was done through the initiative process, not by the legislature.

Colorado democracy is high country cool, and our rabble learns from it's mistakes.