My plan to save American democracy

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Democracy doesn't work all that well because people are inherently selfish and shortsighted. That will never change, ever.

Actually we can.


If we eliminate aging and everyone can live a few centuries our shortsightedness would be a span of several decades if not a century instead of 1-3 years.

[Agathon]

The only thing close to a solution I have seen is a compulsory day off on election day where every voter must attend (a randomly generated) caucus, where the election issues are discussed in 3 hour sessions before and after lunch. After that, everyone votes.

But democracy just doesn't work very well except under certain circumstances. The fact that people think it is the best system is probably due to poverty of imagination.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Democracy doesn't work all that well because people are inherently selfish and shortsighted. That will never change, ever.

This is wrong. People are quite capable of making informed and unselfish decisions. Democratic theory collapses entirely if they are not able to, because each election becomes a gigantic prisoner's dilemma (everyone votes in their own self interest and everyone ends up worse off for it).

However, there are some people who are incapable of making informed and unselfish decisions. The people whom psychologists call "social dominators" are incapable of making unselfish decisions, since they are essentially amoral and incapable of seeing things from another's point of view. The people psychologists call "authoritarians" are incapable of making a rational decision, since they will most often do just what their selected authority tells them to do.

You'll find that democracy works fairly well if you prevent these two groups of people from voting. In essence, it would mean the end of the current Republican party and its replacement by Eisenhower Republicans/fiscally conservative Democrats and the splitting of the Democratic party into liberal and progressive wings, the liberal wing then being the swing voters.

In essence, the problem with democracy is that "conservatives" vote. In fact, if we really believed in democracy as a means of governance, we would find a way of preventing them from voting.

[Zevico]

(1) This doesn't have to be government-based project. It can simply be philanthropy-based.
Nor does it need to start off on a nation-wide basis. It can be trialled on a local, city-wide or state-wide basis first, to see how successful and popular it is.
(2) Vesayen, you need to consider your words more carefully. This is not a partisan issue. Everyone can get behind this, as this project will present issues as they are viewed by both Democrats, Republicans and possibly other third parties.
(3) This is not about elitism. It is about giving the public easy access to accurate information on political issues that directly affect them.
(4) Did I mention compulsory voting and the preferential voting system yet? Both are bi-partisan issues key to the strengthening of democratic governance in the United States.
(5) There is a fully functioning democracy in the United States. Democracy is not only about election turnout numbers. It is also about freedom of speech and worship, among other things. The latter two elements America has in spades.
The fact that you are engaging in free discussion over the issues facing your country and trying to do something about them is proof that you participate in the democratic government of your country, even if you don't vote. Those who take up the duties of citizenship in a democratic state define it and give it life. Many Americans already do so and practically all Americans have an opportunity to do so by going to the library.
Most people who don't actively participate still accept the system by respecting other's opinions and choices.
The democratic system itself, of course, benefits both those who participate in it and to a lesser extent those who do not, by granting both the right to live more or less as they choose, without interference or threat from the government.

In essence, the problem with democracy is that "conservatives" vote. In fact, if we really believed in democracy as a means of governance, we would find a way of preventing them from voting.

Do explain.
Someone needs to put this in

[trev]

If you think democracy is bad in America, by any measure it is far worse in any other country. The number of people who are affiliated with or members of a political party is far far less. In USA maybe 20% identify with a party ( my figure may be wrong), in Australia, more likely to be 0.2%, 1/100th of your figure and I guess this would be similar for many other Western democracies. So for all America's faults, the very low participation rate in other democracies is a far more worrying feature.

[Zevico]

in Australia, more likely to be 0.2%, 1/100th of your figure and I guess this would be similar for many other Western democracies. So for all America's faults, the very low participation rate in other democracies is a far more worrying feature.

Could you develop your point? I'm not sure that active participation in party politics by a large proportion of the population is necessary so long as the political parties attempt to represent the people voting for them and accede to their wishes. Of course such will never be the case 100% (god knows--find me a liberal who supported Brendan Nelson's acts of political idiocy).

[dannubis]

Well, in Belgium we have a legal obligation to vote. Not a bad system in my opinion.

Regarding all the talk above on excluding certain population groups: are you serious ?

I know it is mindbogling how people still can vote republican, but it is their right to do so. That is the very basic of the system. It is up to the more "progressive" people to make them see the other option.

And if they really are intelectually incapable of understanding what progressive means, maybe indeed the US has slipped to a level where redneck idiocy is the norm rather than the exception.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Zevico
(4) Did I mention compulsory voting and the preferential voting system yet? Both are bi-partisan issues key to the strengthening of democratic governance in the United States.

I'm not a big fan of compulosory voting. Making somebody who has no clue of what's going on vote only weakens the system. The biggest problem we have right now is people voting for candidates/parties for the wrong reasons. I'm a BIG FAN of an informed electorit.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Zevico

Do explain.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are political words, and so don't have a precise empirical meaning. It has been discovered that what we commonly call liberalism and conservatism is really a measure of how authoritarian people are (in the psychological sense that they possess the authoritarian personality trait, which can be measured). Authoritarians have a lot of problems with things like reason and fairness.

Numerous surveys have been done of elected US representatives. The results are amusing. The Democrats (except for a few dixiecrats) are all to one side and the Republicans are all on the other with the only overlap being the few remaining dixiecrats. The scale is the authoritarian personality scale. The Republicans are almost, to a man, more authoritarian than the Democrats, and the more liberal democrats (like the ones in the North East) are the least authoritarian. Basically, if you mapped out US politicians by state from most liberal to most conservative, you'd get the same result.

The problem is that everyone (including themselves) is better off if authoritarians have no role in organizing our society.

The guy who invented the scale got two groups of people (one high authoritarian and one low) to play this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_change_game

The lows (read mostly liberals) did a reasonably good if not perfect job. The high authoritarians started a nuclear war that destroyed the earth. Then when the game was restarted just created a horrible world. It's only a game, but you have to wonder. Well, you don't really. It's not like this isn't true of our own world.

[Kidlicious]

Let's infiltrate the Christian Right and work the idea that voting is a sin into their dogma.

[Zevico]

Those are generalisations I am unwilling to accept without actual evidence.
I would be interested in how you would differentiate between authoritarian and non-authoritarian people on a broad societal level. It sounds to me like an impossibility. Such generalisations are unlikely to hold for all people. It would hardly be fair to discriminate against 'innocent' non-authoritarians who subscribe to 'conservative' views.

[ramseya]

Agathon:

Please, for god's sake, don't tell me you actually believe that crap? That Robert Altemeyer is hardly an unbiased researcher. His publications:

* Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism, 1988 (ISBN 978-1555420970)
* The Authoritarian Specter, 1997, which examines the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 (ISBN 0-674-05305-2)
* Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion, 1997 (ISBN 978-1573921473)
* Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers, 2006 (ISBN 978-1591024132).
* The Authoritarians, 2006 (available online at theauthoritarians.com )

Every one of those publications screams intense bias (except maybe Amazing Conversions).

Looking at the wikipedia article on his concept of "Right-wing Authoritarianism", Republicans are described as if they were Nazis, the article saying that they "say they value freedom but actually want to undermine the Bill of Rights, do not value equality very highly, and oppose measures to increase equality."

Quoting the wikipedia article on authoritarian personality:

Alfred Adler provided another perspective, linking the "will to power over others" as a central neurotic trait, usually emerging as aggressive over-compensation for felt and dreaded feelings of inferiority and insignificance. The authoritarian need to maintain control and prove superiority over others is rooted in a world view populated by enemies, empty of equality, empathy, and mutual benefit.

If you want a psychological motivation behind different political beliefs, I highly doubt Republicans are the ones with dreaded feelings of inferiority. My suspicion is quite the opposite; that Republicans were the ones who tended to be always successful in their youth; some so because they were born with silver spoons, others weren't but had certain advantages which made things easier for them, anything from being intelligent to athletic to physically attractive to even White... Hear me out...

This experience of ease could develop a problem; an assumption that, "If I did it, why can't anyone else?" ie- if I went to college, why can't anyone else? If I got a good job and can make ends meet, why can't anyone else? If I resisted pre-marital sex, why can't anyone else? (alright that last one may be kind of rare, but it applies to a certain Republican-voting demographic)

The point is, the ease and the fact that so many people have had harder or worse lives and are on welfare, say they experience racism, etc. (racism is a great example for this) causes a dilemma in which this individual can either explain the disparity by believing himself or herself to be superior (I'm sure you can see the authoritarian result of this line of thinking, especially in a welfare, race relations, etc. context) or at least possessing a stronger work ethic (the classic conservative mantra of "pick yourself up by your bootstraps") and a failure to relate to those in need (which can seem like a lack of empathy, a lack of 'relatedness', or even a selfish anti-equality stance).

There, the exact opposite (superiority instead of inferiority) leads to Conservatism and Authoritarianism.

[Vesayen]

Zevico, glad to see one poster likes my idea .

(1) This doesn't have to be government-based project. It can simply be philanthropy-based.
Nor does it need to start off on a nation-wide basis. It can be trialled on a local, city-wide or state-wide basis first, to see how successful and popular it is.

I agree on both points. It could not possibly work as a government based project, whichever political entity in power would slant it to their own ideology. Either one ultra rich person, or some group. I think it would work well on a trial basis in a state which is already more informed on average. Not all states are equal in this regard, some are much more politically active and informed than others, start there.

(2) Vesayen, you need to consider your words more carefully. This is not a partisan issue. Everyone can get behind this, as this project will present issues as they are viewed by both Democrats, Republicans and possibly other third parties.

I agree. I am not sure what I said that would make anyone think it is a partisan issue. It is not. There are valid points to Republican ideology and to Democratic ideology. However the 2 big political parties have stopped being about specific ideology, if they ever were, they should be about issues and ideas about how to run the country. Now they are really about personality and persona.

If you think democracy is bad in America, by any measure it is far worse in any other country. The number of people who are affiliated with or members of a political party is far far less. In USA maybe 20% identify with a party ( my figure may be wrong), in Australia, more likely to be 0.2%, 1/100th of your figure and I guess this would be similar for many other Western democracies. So for all America's faults, the very low participation rate in other democracies is a far more worrying feature.

I do not care about the rest of the world, I am not satisfied with how things are in America now. I also mirror the sentiment above, how is membership in a political party a sign of a healthy democracy? Perhaps in some places but America it might be a sign of cancer.

[Heraclitus]

I think the PRC has a high per capita party membership.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ramseya
There, the exact opposite (superiority instead of inferiority) leads to Conservatism and Authoritarianism.

The constant refrains from conservatives about "elites" and complaints about "ivy league education" greatly undermine this idea. So does the fact that more college educated individuals vote Democrat than Republican.
I would use the idea of "order" to speak about conservatives. I think most conservatives think in terms of rules and hierarchies, which they see as central to the universe. They expect people to work within and respect these guiding principles. This is why they are mistrustful of things that are very different, or radically new. They also do not approve of any movements they see undermining or weakening those rules and hierarchies they view as critical to the successful running of the universe. To me this explains a variety of things: The importance placed on organized religion or nationalism, both of which create specific moral and group hierarchies and set guidelines for group behavior. The importance placed on "responsibility" as a value (keeping within the rules). General support of the rural or small town life; small groups in which everyone knows each other and hierarchies form and solidify, creating established rules of behavior for all members. Support of charity; helping those who are in need, given that you would expect reciprocity from others in your structured hierarchical world.

People might point to the apparent conservative support for Free markets or the idea that big government is bad as counter-arguments, but I think these two ideas fall squarely in this order seeking psychology. After all, the Free Market is another form of ideology which creates order - the market eventually finds its way and fixes things and everyone is better off for it - good action is rewarded, bad action punished. There is a form of "virtue" in it - the best (those that can create order, or should be on top of the hierarchy) benefit, those who are suspect, outsiders, dangers, are punished. As for dislike of government, conservatives only dislike "big government", which can be seen as a usurper of established hierarchies and social norms. As the last eight years of Republican rule show, conservatives will support government and use it extensively as long as they view it supporting their quest for order.

Liberals are of course the other side. They see the world as inherently disordered and changing. They believe in the ability of groups to transform it (hence the belief that education or community activism have effects). They are more likely to believe in chance events, and thus seek ways to mitigate the effects of randomness against them and others. They distrust claims of order as attempts by individuals to manipulate the world to their own benefit at the possible cost of others. They are more tolerant of change and difference because they expect it more. They are more likely to be out for themselves in the sense that they have to minimize their own exposure to randomness, and thus less likely to believe in the kindness of strangers (thus why liberals give less to charity). They distrust the Free Market because they see it as the height of chaos, in which each selfish entity would happily destroy all others for its own gain regardless of consequence. They support government activism because they believe that collective rational action is the only way to mitigate the effects of an uncaring universe. Many liberals might be religious, but they are less likely to accept the hierarchical ideas within religion, and see it as more of a way to mitigate the chaos while in this plane than as a message that the universal order applies to this real as much as the next.