A Failure of Democracy

[phyllo]

Are not Israeli policies very similar to what you espouse for Europeans/Americans?

What is it that I ‘espouse’ for Americans?

Control of America by European descendants?

Restrictions on Muslims and similar immigrants?

Government and religion closely aligned?

American domination of neighboring countries?

But you can correct me if I am mistaken.

[Immanuel Can]

That doesn't really solve the majority problem. It just means that more people are deprived of their REAL choice, and forced to choose between two people or parties they DIDN'T really want in the first place...hardly a solution.

THAT problem is not solvable.

Right. So democracy is never going to be based on a "pure majority," except where there are only two parties and one is a significant winner over the other. And that tells us that the standard is a bit too stringent to work in reality.

Look, I consider democracy (when it is working) to be a form of social negotiation between interests, groups of people who want this or want that.

If it were that, then it would be a procedure in which votes were accorded to "groups of people" with "interests," rather than one vote one person. But it's not that...and it's never been that, anywhere on the planet. Votes are always accorded to individuals, not to interest groups.

And who would be the one to decide which "groups" should be formed, and which "interests" would be legitimate to be considered seriously, and which would be excluded? It sounds like a rather undemocratic procedure, actually...giving groups a stake, but denying that any individuals had any?

Or maybe you mean something different...?

[MikeNovack]

And who would be the one to decide which "groups" should be formed, and which "interests" would be legitimate to be considered seriously, and which would be excluded? It sounds like a rather undemocratic procedure, actually...giving groups a stake, but denying that any individuals had any?

Or maybe you mean something different...?

The groups I am referring to are composed of individuals. Individuals that share an interest constitute a group, whether a formal group or not. Quite commonly individuals DO recognize that that they share an interest, and become a conscious/formal group. But often they do not.

NOBODY (in a democracy) gets to decide what interests are "legitimate" or not. NOBODY.

I am really doubting that you are honestly misunderstanding me.

[Immanuel Can]

And who would be the one to decide which "groups" should be formed, and which "interests" would be legitimate to be considered seriously, and which would be excluded? It sounds like a rather undemocratic procedure, actually...giving groups a stake, but denying that any individuals had any?

Or maybe you mean something different...?

The groups I am referring to are composed of individuals. Individuals that share an interest constitute a group, whether a formal group or not.

But who gets the vote? Is it the individual, or the group?

NOBODY (in a democracy) gets to decide what interests are "legitimate" or not. NOBODY.

Then "group" is entirely irrelevant. It's the individuals who have votes, and they are left free to vote in or out of any "group" they may choose. The result will be entirely determined by what the individuals choose.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Control of America by European descendants?

The real question is what happens in a nation when its core identity is undermined, diluted, altered.

Restrictions on Muslims and similar immigrants?

That is most necessarily an issue worthy of consideration. Not now (in America) but soon.

Government and religion closely aligned?

The question is actually the state of belief in (understanding of) metaphysical principles. The topic of Christianity in America is complex indeed. But interesting and worthwhile.

American domination of neighboring countries?

This is a fact of geo-political nature.

But you can correct me if I am mistaken.

Defining the questions is more relevant than shotgunning answers.

[MikeNovack]

NOBODY (in a democracy) gets to decide what interests are "legitimate" or not. NOBODY.

Then "group" is entirely irrelevant. It's the individuals who have votes, and they are left free to vote in or out of any "group" they may choose. The result will be entirely determined by what the individuals choose.

Yes of course. It is the individual that votes (unconstrained by whatever groupings they consider themselves to be part of) or the representatives of individuals, chosen by them to represent them (usually having announced their positions on this or that).

BUT --- extremely important to how votes will go, is how a question is worded, which questions get grouped together to be voted or down as a package. Important who gets to put themselves forward to be a representative, what choc the individual will have about that. These matters are decided by groups in social negotiation. That process itself may me examined for how democratic or not.

Control of how questions are worded and what questions are combined in a package are close to complete control of how the vote will go. Voting is the last step, not the first.

EXAMPLE -- I am in New England where our towns (township) still decide some matters by direct democracy n town meetings. The annual town meeting of my town in a few weeks. Now MOST of the questions (known as "warrant articles") will have been placed on the agenda by this or that official town body. BUT, any individual citizen or group of citizens can get a warrant article added to the agenda by petition. In theory could be a single individual doing all that work (going door to door convincing citizens to sign the petition, standing at a busy town location asking passers by to do so, etc. But in practice, getting that done will require the combined efforts od at least a small group of individuals. Many of our states also have provision for getting questions on the ballot by petition. Clearly an individual is not going to be able to collect the necessary number of petition signatures all by themselves.

[Impenitent]

unscrupulous vote counters?

unbiased machines will count the ballots

oops, we found a van filled with uncounted ballots

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 667927002/

can't happen again

the second is there for a reason

-Imp

[Impenitent]

...
Defining the questions is more relevant than shotgunning answers.

not if your aim is good

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

NOBODY (in a democracy) gets to decide what interests are "legitimate" or not. NOBODY.

Then "group" is entirely irrelevant. It's the individuals who have votes, and they are left free to vote in or out of any "group" they may choose. The result will be entirely determined by what the individuals choose.

Yes of course. It is the individual that votes

Then the groups are irrelevant. They don't constrain the democratic process in any way. So why mention them at all?

Important who gets to put themselves forward to be a representative,...

I don't think it is, at least for the question of democracy. It might be "important" to the question of the results of the democratic vote, or to the happiness of the democratic constituents going forward, but not to the procedural question of what constitutes a genuine case of "democracy."

So long as there are two distinct parties, and individuals vote, then I think we can fairly characterize the process as "democratic." Democracy is not a utopian mechanism...that is, it is not an idealized, otherworldly, unrealistic and perfectionistic demand, like Socialism is. It accepts and works with less-than-perfect realities, like weak candidates...just so long as there is a meaningful choice offered between at least two different candidates.

[MikeNovack]

So long as there are (at least) two distinct parties,

Yes I added the "at least" -- pardon me if that was not an accidental omission on your part. Later you made clear you were implying no such limitation)

IC, how can you speak of a "party" and at the same time claim not to understand my term "group"

We may be differing on how far down we demand democracy. I might not consider JUST the voters deciding between the candidates of these two parties enough. For example, suppose in both parties the candidate was chosen based on the size of the bribes given to the members of the "candidate selection committee". I would probably class that as not democratic.

[phyllo]

We may be differing on how far down we demand democracy. I might not consider JUST the voters deciding between the candidates of these two parties enough. For example, suppose in both parties the candidate was chosen based on the size of the bribes given to the members of the "candidate selection committee". I would probably class that as not democratic.

Bribery isn't undemocratic.

Promises of tax cuts, job creation programs, benefits in terms of new and improved services. It's paying the voter in order to get the vote.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...
Defining the questions is more relevant than shotgunning answers.

not if your aim is good

-Imp

Then a shotgun is not needed …

[Immanuel Can]

IC, how can you speak of a "party" and at the same time claim not to understand my term "group"

"Party" is a subcategory of "group," i.e. "a group formed for political reasons." But neither of them has a vote. Under democracy, the votes are attached to individuals, not to groups of any kind, including parties.

We may be differing on how far down we demand democracy. I might not consider JUST the voters deciding between the candidates of these two parties enough.

Well, if you allow groups to vote as groups, then we're talking about quite a different political arrangement than simple democracy -- something indirect and collective, not "democratic."

In Israel, last time I checked, I think there were about 8 parties. This creates a system in which every vote results in a minority party ruling, because any party has to form coalitions with the non-majority parties in order to assemble enough votes to rule. This is one advantage of a two-party system: that it brings one closer to pure majoritarianism, even if one doesn't always reach the 51% line. The cost of the two-party system, of course, is that it limits the options one can vote for.

But then again, democracy isn't an idealistic system that promised perfection, either in human beings themselves or in political arrangements: it's a pragamatic one, one that assumes a less-that-perfect scenario and accomodates that.

Which is why it's the "worst system except for every other system," as Churchill is alleged to have pointed out.

[phyllo]

Then a shotgun is not needed …

You don't need a gun at all, if you are only interested in questions.

[MikeNovack]

Well, if you allow groups to vote as groups, then we're talking about quite a different political arrangement than simple democracy -- something indirect and collective, not "democratic."

In Israel, last time I checked, I think there were about 8 parties.

This is one advantage of a two-party system: that it brings one closer to pure majoritarianism, even if one doesn't always reach the 51% line. The

a) YOU are the one talking about groups having a vote (a group might, of course internally decide things by voting)

b) Israel has a heck of a lot more parties than 8. It is natural, when elections are "proportional representation" for parties to fragment down to the size of the threshold. In Israel, that is 3.25%, so you'd expect no more than 30 parties. But no less than twice the threshold, so expect abut 16 partes.

c) Two MAIN parties are the natural result when elections decided "first past the post". So that's what you see in the UK. But you do not have a legislated "two party system". Overall in the UK, more than a dozen parties (some only contest elections regionally) Following the 1924 election nine of these held seats in Parliament. Also note that two main parties does not necessarily mean the same two over time. Thus in US history, the Whigs were displaced by the nascent Republicans (swallowed "whiggish"elements recaptured the party about 50 years later)