Are we actually 'democratic' in the West?...

[Scott Mayers]

One thing that all of our Western democracies have is a system that by default always will favor those who OWN over those who don't. In our British rooted countries, this is obvious where we still have a Queen and/or King and royalty to serve under. You might think that the U.S.A. improved upon this by getting rid of the official sovereignty. However, ignoring how the office of President has now been granted more and more power since its inception, the common factor in all our Western 'democracies' is that we have bodies called "Senates" which always require members to be of the 'owner' class. This class of citizen has a sufficient capacity to turn down any bill presented in theirs or other houses.

For this reason, the Eastern democracies (which we misinterpret sometimes as Communisits), label our form of governments "Imperialistic" because the final say in any of our laws requires the acceptance of the private "owner" privileged class, no matter what percentage of the population they represent as a whole. Now if you disagree that we lack the power to the people, imagine if the people's wishes were of a majority by a non-owning class who wished to affect the laws in any way. While we'd be 'free' to speak our minds on this, in actual power, we'd be prevented any wish that the owner class would disagree with regardless. This means that we actually have only an appearance of a democracy designed by the owner class to facilitate a hopeful delusion based on what we think is freedom.

This can be reduced to having two people in some household of which one holds absolute final say on any issue regardless. This person of power might appear 'kind' but it is reasonable that he'd (or she'd) merely be trying to optimize the inevitable situation of having to live with you in need of what you can do that empowers them better. This head of the house might say, "sure, you are allowed to say what you want, but I still get the final say." Of course, such a head of the house would actually benefit better by knowing precisely where you stand rather than you hiding it, like they might opt to do since you're just not worth their effort or they serve you better when you don't provide definitive privilege to know what you are thinking one way or the other.

The extreme on the other end in the East is that they do have better means to allow democratic laws to be passed but they are also imprisoned by the way they tend to default to the lowest common denominator to which they can also become 'undemocratic'. Note that the "dictator of the proletariate" by the Marxist standard does not imply what we think of dictators like those of an extreme capitalistic 'dictator'. There, their "dictator" was intended to merely represent the one who speaks (dictates) akin to a referee or 'speaker of the house'. This isn't always the case as we have seen. But that was the initial intention.

Given these extremes, is one form of democracy better? Is our Western idea of democracy truly "democratic"?

[Dalek Prime]

Let's put it this way. I'd rather give up my individual franchise, for the return of not being required to pay taxes.

[Scott Mayers]

Let's put it this way. I'd rather give up my individual franchise, for the return of not being required to pay taxes.

Without your "individual franchise"(?) how were you surviving without any supports that had to have come from at least someone paying such taxes somewhere?

[Dalek Prime]

Let's put it this way. I'd rather give up my individual franchise, for the return of not being required to pay taxes.

Without your "individual franchise"(?) how were you surviving without any supports that had to have come from at least someone paying such taxes somewhere?

I pay taxes.

So, what are you trying to say, exactly, Scott? That voting in a farcical election once in a blue moon is worth the money?

Btw, the death tax of an ancestor of mine paid the entire Ontario debt back in the turn of the twentieth century. Remember Gooderham and Worts distillers?

[Skip]

Democracy could work among equals. We have never had equality except in rhetoric and wishful legal documents. As long as power and wealth reside in a minority, or a class, true democracy is impossible.
In the western nations, when democratic government was declared, the class structure was already well established. The 'new' nations were founded on feudalism and industrial-age capitalism. Both of these militate (sometimes literally, as when putting down a peasant uprising or miners' strike) against full political participation of all the demos. So does the concentrated control by those same interests of public information and educational facilities.
Ironically, pseudo-democratic forms of government - the ones where a show has been made of elected representation - tend to grow more inclusive, more progressive, more democratic over time, as they attract honest reformers, who are then able to mobilize the masses.

Since this trend would eventually displace the owning and ruling classes, they can't permit even the appearance of democracy to proceed unchecked. Periodically, the whole system has to be suborned, corrupted into disrepute, even sabotaged to complete impotence. Or maybe that's just the serendipitous consequence of their blind self-adulation.

[bobevenson]

You might think that the U.S.A. improved upon this by getting rid of the official sovereignty. However, ignoring how the office of President has now been granted more and more power since its inception, the common factor in all our Western 'democracies' is that we have bodies called "Senates" which always require members to be of the 'owner' class. This class of citizen has a sufficient capacity to turn down any bill presented in theirs or other houses.

Since you obviously know nothing about the U.S. political system, please keep us out of your vapid discourse.

[Dalek Prime]

I despise the life system as a whole. Hence I won't subject further consciousness to it. That's where I start and stop.

Some antinatalists care about existence whilst they are here. So do I. But I'm not going to fret my existence away on systems that can't and won't change. I'll take the joy as best I can, and leave the future to the natalists. They're the ones that want it, after all, so.they can have it.

[Scott Mayers]

Let's put it this way. I'd rather give up my individual franchise, for the return of not being required to pay taxes.

Without your "individual franchise"(?) how were you surviving without any supports that had to have come from at least someone paying such taxes somewhere?

I pay taxes.

So, what are you trying to say, exactly, Scott? That voting in a farcical election once in a blue moon is worth the money?

Btw, the death tax of an ancestor of mine paid the entire Ontario debt back in the turn of the twentieth century. Remember Gooderham and Worts distillers?

I am confused at your statement as I'm uncertain of what your "individual franchise" is implying. Are you asserting a literal franchise ownership such as a McDonald's restaurant? ...OR were you being metaphorically supporting some general participation in the capitalist system? It seems that you were saying you were better off in some situation where you might have been living on the street where you hadn't paid taxes and preferred that to some present responsibility of having to now pay taxes burdened by some responsibility of ownership in some capital requiring you to pay taxes now.

[Dalek Prime]

By franchise, I mean the electoral franchise ie. my single vote at election time. You've never heard it called the franchise before?

[Scott Mayers]

Democracy could work among equals. We have never had equality except in rhetoric and wishful legal documents. As long as power and wealth reside in a minority, or a class, true democracy is impossible.
In the western nations, when democratic government was declared, the class structure was already well established. The 'new' nations were founded on feudalism and industrial-age capitalism. Both of these militate (sometimes literally, as when putting down a peasant uprising or miners' strike) against full political participation of all the demos. So does the concentrated control by those same interests of public information and educational facilities.
Ironically, pseudo-democratic forms of government - the ones where a show has been made of elected representation - tend to grow more inclusive, more progressive, more democratic over time, as they attract honest reformers, who are then able to mobilize the masses.

Since this trend would eventually displace the owning and ruling classes, they can't permit even the appearance of democracy to proceed unchecked. Periodically, the whole system has to be suborned, corrupted into disrepute, even sabotaged to complete impotence. Or maybe that's just the serendipitous consequence of their blind self-adulation.

Yes, I'm convinced that our system (and any one that turns inevitably bad) gets to the point where we are unable to resolve anything within the present condition without complete overthrow. The fact that we have a Senate, for instance which requires members to have regional minimal ownership, biases each and every member of the Senate to be invested personally to conserve their interest. As such, they would not ever allow a passage of any bill that would risk losing that. Since they have the power to veto every bill presented anywhere, if the democratic majority ever proposes laws against 'ownership' privileges, it makes it impossible to actually materialize in practice.

By franchise, I mean the electoral franchise ie. my single vote at election time. You've never heard it called the franchise before?

I believe I have heard it before but couldn't quite remember so had to ask. I believe I follow now. Thank you.

[Scott Mayers]

You might think that the U.S.A. improved upon this by getting rid of the official sovereignty. However, ignoring how the office of President has now been granted more and more power since its inception, the common factor in all our Western 'democracies' is that we have bodies called "Senates" which always require members to be of the 'owner' class. This class of citizen has a sufficient capacity to turn down any bill presented in theirs or other houses.

Since you obviously know nothing about the U.S. political system, please keep us out of your vapid discourse.

I was speaking of all our Western systems. A "Senate" is derived from what used to be a remnant of our 'wise' men from tribal lifestyles. It evolved in the U.S. only slightly different in how they are elected (rather than appointed in our British systems). But both still refer to regional interests which basically suggests the interests of those with ownership rather than democratic interests. The House of Representatives is the part that deals with the democratic people regardless of 'ownership' akin to our House of Commons. The American system has the advantage of its capacity to have Senators elected which adds more realistic democracy but since their function is to represent regional interests which are based upon lands, the ones who own such lands have a stronger interest and power to influence representation by their capital investments in those regional-based interests.

I know much of both of our systems politically, Bob. I used to live in Washington D.C.where politics was always a function of our family's interest back then. My heart is in both the U.S. and Canada. I prefer to think of myself an Earthling without such limits to boundaries and see both advantages and disadvantages of most world governments.

[Skip]

The upper house - peers, senate, whatever it's called - is the least of the problems democratic governance has to overcome.
The upper houses of British colonies are modeled on the House of Lords, which represented the landowners. In India, Australia and Canada, they now represent regional interests; in the US, states. I see nothing wrong with that, since the smaller provinces, territories and states would otherwise be inaudible in the lower house. Whether elected, appointed or hereditary, senate seats are no longer necessarily occupied by landowners or even old money. And, of course, there is a mechanism whereby the senate can be reformed from time to time.

That's not where the corruption is. Corruption is in the political process itself: the cost and funding of campaigns, the drawing of electoral districts, the method of choosing candidates, the systemic disenfranchisement of interest groups, the abuse of media and the fraudulent counting of ballots (especially in recent elections with the US electronic method). And, once a parliament or congress has been convened, corruption is in the back-rooms of government, with lobbyists, back-scratching, secret deals, favours, debt-collection and compromises that have no relation to the representative's mandate from his constituency. When money plays such a prominent role in the legislative machinery, that machinery must, sooner or later, break down.

[bobevenson]

Are we actually democratic in the West? Well, the answer is no according to AEP theory. To be democratic, everybody under the jurisdiction of a government must have a political vote. This means everybody from the criminally insane to babies in utero. However, actually going to the polls and casting a vote is politically archaic at best. Half the people don't bother voting, and with good reason, since their votes won't decide an election. And yet, their political position does count, but the only way it can be brought to bear is to conduct sample audits, much like the A.C. Nielsen Company audits store sales or TV programs.

[Scott Mayers]

The upper house - peers, senate, whatever it's called - is the least of the problems democratic governance has to overcome.
The upper houses of British colonies are modeled on the House of Lords, which represented the landowners. In India, Australia and Canada, they now represent regional interests; in the US, states. I see nothing wrong with that, since the smaller provinces, territories and states would otherwise be inaudible in the lower house. Whether elected, appointed or hereditary, senate seats are no longer necessarily occupied by landowners or even old money. And, of course, there is a mechanism whereby the senate can be reformed from time to time.

That's not where the corruption is. Corruption is in the political process itself: the cost and funding of campaigns, the drawing of electoral districts, the method of choosing candidates, the systemic disenfranchisement of interest groups, the abuse of media and the fraudulent counting of ballots (especially in recent elections with the US electronic method). And, once a parliament or congress has been convened, corruption is in the back-rooms of government, with lobbyists, back-scratching, secret deals, favours, debt-collection and compromises that have no relation to the representative's mandate from his constituency. When money plays such a prominent role in the legislative machinery, that machinery must, sooner or later, break down.

I agree with these too. I understand the argument of the Senate acting in the interest of a minority concern in sparser populations. However, I think these take a secondary role. What I disagree to this is that because it acts as a perfect veto in passing laws as if it represented an equal force to the regular representative houses, the Senate gets too much power to represent the interests of a veto on all bills where they exist.

I read a good book a long time ago (can't remember the name) that investigated all the types of voting. The method the author suggested rather than the first-past-post method was one where each person voting would have to select their best to worst favors by number, eliminate the least favored by all and sliding up the next orders of best to worst favorites until one is left on top. The first past the post is one example of a bad voting system. I think we always have to be dubious of electronic votes unless we could find a perfectly secure system (if possible). Just one idea...

[Skip]

Proportional representation, any of three or four models, is a good idea.
Elected upper house might also be a good idea, with some alteration, and there is no serious impediment to limiting its power.
But giving the lower house unbridled power is not a good idea. For one thing, they're easily swayed by popular ideas and short-term gains, and somebody needs to safeguard the land. For another, the Canadian and British model provides a certain amount of stability, as senators and peers serve for life: free from the shifts of party and PMO. The reason the US Senate blocks legislation is that it also has a partisan agenda.

It may not be such a great idea to pass every crappy piece of legislation that comes out of congress, and it certainly doesn't hurt for grayer heads to nod over it a while and consider the long-term effects. What should be reformed out is the ability of senators to add all kinds of riders and amendments to a bill that have no bearing on its original [stated] intent.

The same moneyed interests that finance and support senate candidacies also effective put the congressmen or parliamentarians in the running. The horrible campaign costs and their financing still puts every elected representative in the pocket of an oil baron, a used car franchise or a sugar conglomerate.
No amount of structural reform will do any good, unless you 1. can get somebody elected to office without either family wealth or indebtedness to a mob of one kind or another 2. educate and inform the electorate. 3. eliminate polling fraud