Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:24 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 4:21 pm
There are only representative democracies, of course. There are no direct democracies (I'm assuming you know the difference between those two technical terms.) But the former is preferable to practically any alternative, and direct democracy is only practical for small polities...it's too unwieldy for the operations of a nation state.

Democracies are only ever relatively democratic, it's true: but there are certainly polities that are not democratic at all.

Yes, and in the extreme. And it even interferes with the personal affairs of private business and private life. It's a very totalitarian body.

Not if the EU will not let it.
In what country?

Yes, you're intuiting correctly.

But here's the problem in the US: how to give a voice to regions that are less populous than major centers are.

For example, if Montana wants to be in the union, it has a population of about 1.1 million. By contrast, California alone has a population of 38.97 million. In any situation in which votes are counted strictly democratically, Montana would literally never win a vote against Cali. Cali would have total effective say over Montana.

So Cali is short of water (this is true, of course: it's a desert in many places). It decides it wants to divert and draw water from Montana's watershed. To do this, suppose it wants to build dams and reservoirs in Montana and Idaho, profoundly changing the local water table and potentially causing environmental disasters upstream: what power does Montana have to prevent its water being taken by Cali?

So then, what's the incentive for the people of Montana want to stay in the Union?

This is just an example, of course. But it explains the rationale for representative or (small "r") republican democracy. It's never enough to equalize Montana with Cali -- nothing close, in fact -- but with the representatives present in other states, it becomes possible for Montana to say "no" to Cali, if that's what Montana needs to do. Otherwise, Montana's just a slave state, effectively, one that simply has to accept whatever Cali dictates.

Are you unaware that the Senate operates on the principle of 1 state 1 vote?

The Senate is not the primary law-making body. The House is. But you do raise a further issue, and that is the division of powers. However, again, you don't have direct democracy. You live in a republic. Did you not realize that?

How else would you envision a more democratic America?

Direct democracy, or representative democracy? Maybe you might want to look up those terms, so we can continue to discuss this cogently.

An "America" could not work on a direct democracy. And in surprising ways, it would turn out to be tyrannical, especially to regions and minority individuals. So would direct democracy be "more democratic"? In a pure sense, we might say yes: but it would also be more unmanageable and more tyrannical to small groups, and those things are not what we would want to associate with being "more democratic," would we?

So it's bound to be a balancing act, in which the problem is how to represent the interests of smaller constituencies and minorities over and against the masses. That's not an easy problem to solve, and I suspect there's no absolutely perfect solution. It's going to end up being some democracy arrangment that's not ideal, not perfect, but whatever the best balance we can contrive is. And "best" will be defined as "most able to serve the interests of preserving individual liberties and rights," not "whatever serves an ideal that is "more democratic" in theory, but more tyrannical in practice.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:24 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:11 pm

Are you unaware that the Senate operates on the principle of 1 state 1 vote?

The Senate is not the primary law-making body. The House is. But you do raise a further issue, and that is the division of powers. However, again, you don't have direct democracy. You live in a republic. Did you not realize that?

How else would you envision a more democratic America?

Direct democracy, or representative democracy? Maybe you might want to look up those terms, so we can continue to discuss this cogently.

An "America" could not work on a direct democracy. And in surprising ways, it would turn out to be tyrannical, especially to regions and minority individuals. So would direct democracy be "more democratic"? In a pure sense, we might say yes: but it would also be more unmanageable and more tyrannical to small groups, and those things are not what we would want to associate with being "more democratic," would we?

So it's bound to be a balancing act, in which the problem is how to represent the interests of smaller constituencies and minorities over and against the masses. That's not an easy problem to solve, and I suspect there's no absolutely perfect solution. It's going to end up being some democracy arrangment that's not ideal, not perfect, but whatever the best balance we can contrive is. And "best" will be defined as "most able to serve the interests of preserving individual liberties and rights," not "whatever serves an ideal that is "more democratic" in theory, but more tyrannical in practice.

How do you figure the House is more "primary" than the Senate? Bills can originate in either branch and both branches have to vote on them. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Gary:
which branch of America's Congress is more influential, the House of Representatives or the Senate?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The influence of the House of Representatives and the Senate varies depending on the context, as both branches of Congress have unique powers and responsibilities. Here’s a breakdown to compare their influence:

House of Representatives

Representation and Size: The House has 435 members, with representation based on population. This means it often reflects the more immediate and diverse concerns of constituents.
Control Over Spending: The House holds the "power of the purse," meaning all revenue-raising (taxation) bills must originate there.
Impeachment Authority: The House has the sole power to impeach federal officials, though the Senate handles the trial.

Senate

Exclusive Powers: The Senate is often considered more influential in areas like foreign policy because it confirms treaties (by a two-thirds vote) and approves presidential appointments (like federal judges, Cabinet members, and ambassadors).
Equal Representation: Each state gets two senators, making the Senate more balanced geographically and less influenced by population disparities.
Role in Impeachment: The Senate tries impeachment cases and can convict and remove officials with a two-thirds majority.

Why the Senate Might Be Seen as More Influential

Smaller Size: With only 100 members, individual senators wield more power compared to individual House members.
Longer Terms: Senators serve six-year terms (compared to the House’s two-year terms), allowing them to take a longer-term perspective on issues.
Key Approvals: The Senate’s role in confirming judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, gives it lasting influence over the judiciary.

Why the House Might Be Seen as More Influential

Closer to the People: The House is designed to reflect public opinion more closely, as its members are elected every two years.
Budgetary Power: Its control over federal spending is crucial.

Conclusion
Neither branch is inherently "more influential" overall—it depends on the specific issue. For example, the Senate is often seen as more influential in shaping foreign policy and confirming appointments, while the House plays a dominant role in financial and budgetary matters. Together, they balance each other as part of the U.S. system of checks and balances.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:35 pm Maybe this will help?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:41 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:35 pm Maybe this will help?

I used an approved government source. This is the government's own self-understanding, not some product of ChatGPT.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:41 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:35 pm Maybe this will help?

I used an approved government source. This is the government's own self-understanding, not some product of ChatGPT.

Ugh. I give up.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:41 pm
I used an approved government source. This is the government's own self-understanding, not some product of ChatGPT.

Ugh. I give up.

Why? I answered your question correctly, and I've given you full respect for it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:58 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:42 pm Ugh. I give up.

Why? I answered your question correctly, and I've given you full respect for it.

No. You gave me a blurb from an authoritative website that doesn't say what you imply it says. It doesn't say that the House is more influential in the sense that it is more powerful.

The House is not considered "primary" over the Senate.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 5:58 pm
Why? I answered your question correctly, and I've given you full respect for it.

No. You gave me a blurb from an authoritative website that doesn't say what you imply it says. It doesn't say that the House is more influential in the sense that it is more powerful.

You'll have to show me where I used the words "influential" and "powerful."

The House is not considered "primary" over the Senate.

You asked me in what sense I used the word "primary." I showed you that in relation to direct democracy, it was more "primary" than the Senate: and the official source backed me on that.

What's your issue?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:24 pm

No. You gave me a blurb from an authoritative website that doesn't say what you imply it says. It doesn't say that the House is more influential in the sense that it is more powerful.

You'll have to show me where I used the words "influential" and "powerful."

The House is not considered "primary" over the Senate.

You asked me in what sense I used the word "primary." I showed you that in relation to direct democracy, it was more "primary" than the Senate: and the official source backed me on that.

What's your issue?

It doesn't say "primary" it says "closer to the people".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:50 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:28 pm
You'll have to show me where I used the words "influential" and "powerful."

You asked me in what sense I used the word "primary." I showed you that in relation to direct democracy, it was more "primary" than the Senate: and the official source backed me on that.

What's your issue?

It doesn't say "primary" it says "closer to the people".

Is that not more directly democratic than being farther away from the people?

C'mon, Gary. You're being a bit perverse about this.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:50 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 6:33 pm

It doesn't say "primary" it says "closer to the people".

Is that not more directly democratic than being farther away from the people?

C'mon, Gary. You're being a bit perverse about this.

What exactly are you arguing, IC? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. That's entirely possible. I thought you meant that the US has a problem because Montana doesn't get fair representation over California. Is that not what you are arguing?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 4:03 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 10:08 am Having a vote doesn't mean you get to run the shop.

Bob doesn't actually have a vote. The commissioners are all appointees, and then only answer to the EU itself...

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 4:03 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 10:08 am Having a vote doesn't mean you get to run the shop.

Bob doesn't actually have a vote. The commissioners are all appointees, and then only answer to the EU itself...

So you agree that EU commissioners are not unaccountable.

Who do you think elects the EU?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:15 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:26 pmSo you agree that EU commissioners are not unaccountable.

Of course. And you know now why.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:15 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 1:26 pmWho do you think elects the EU?

Not Bob, and not even the English people. England itself only elects one rep, who is then not himself on the Commission, and cannot himself control the Commission. He can appoint a person to the Commission, but then loses any ability to rein that person and his fellow commissioners in. The Commission serves at the pleasure of the EU, not of the English, and not of Bob.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 10:08 am At a general election, Bob has the opportunity to vote for a candidate for member of parliament for his constituency. His preferred candidate may or may not win. Even if his choice of candidate does win, the party he or she is a member of may not win a majority and Bob ends up with a ruling party he did not want. Like it or not, Bob has been part of a democratic process that has elected a Prime Minister who, when the UK was in the EU, would have sat on the European Council, along with the elected heads of the other member states. Those democratically elected heads of state then get to nominate commissioners to head the various departments, much as the Prime Minister appoints his or her Cabinet with the voting public having no say in the matter. In the case of the EU, once upon a time, Bob could have voted for an MEP for his constituency and the nominated commissioners are then subject to the approval of the duly elected European Parliament. Having a vote doesn't mean you get to run the shop.