I think the lesson we must learn here whether you live in USA or Europe is not to vote for the two party scumbags. These fuckers are bought and paid. If you're a rightwinger try to shake the system a little ffs. And if you're on the left you should know better by now not to vote for these corporatist dipshits. Obama, Holland and their ilk are just keeping up appearances when in reality they're as disgustingly pro-corporate as their rightwing "opponents".
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study
- Thread starter Guerilla
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
But then the other guys will win. That'd be just throwing my vote away. I need my say to be heard.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Same applies to Europe - at least the two countries I have lived in, UK and Finland.
The interesting question was whether there ever was democracy. I am sceptical.
The interesting question was whether there ever was democracy. I am sceptical.
Nydius
Member
Well said. Historically, one needs only look at the contentious 1800 presidential campaign between Adams and Jefferson to see that politics then and politics now are the exact same. This includes using Constitutional power to manipulate the Judicial Branch, which Adams did by appointing John Marshall - a noted Federalist - as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after losing to Jefferson, and by appointing Federal judges at the last possible minute with the express purpose of thwarting Jefferson's legislative agenda.
The only thing I will dispute is the idea that Madison didn't wan't people running. If anything, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay make the argument in the Federalist Papers that anyone with the means should run for office... Of course, people who had the "means" were defined as white, land owning, males.
In case you're being serious: You're still not heard though, are you? You're just happy your team "won" even though that team doesn't give a fuck about you. Politics aren't sports, people need to get that through their thick heads.
If it can't be tested with 100% noise free accuracy, it's not a science!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Shit, does that make sub-atomic particle physics a social science?
Makes it a pseudo-science at best.
Democracy structurally, fundamentally, is inherently mismatched between perception and function.
Percetion "Everyone get's a say" vs reality "few get most of the real say, and the rest have nominal topics dangled in front of them that those few care little about."
Well, things are never black and white, the problem is that nowadays we have less and less democracy thanks to the capitalist system creating super-powerful monstrosities that can literally buy elections. I guess that's one of the main problems with capitalism, it always results in the amassing of vast power and money that can destroy democracy.
Naked Snake
Member
And water is wet.
benjipwns
Banned
Doesn't this presuppose that democracy should be the goal and is good in and of itself?
You're wasting your vote if you just give it to the status quo expecting anything to change.
It does and it should. Even if you don't believe in the right of people to choose their government you can't deny that the further we move from democracy the worse things become for us. This new century has by a disaster for civil rights, income equality, environmental causes and so on. Obviously these motherfuckers don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
benjipwns
Banned
This time it's different. They promised that they changed. And that I can believe in it.
And people who win an election will?
What good does democracy do for the losers?
You know the fun part?
Every single dipshit who manage to make a dent in an election is actually in it for the money, the powertrip and the kickbacks.
Don't vote for the ruling parties? Ok but who will you vote for anyway?
Not voting is really exactly like voting for the party who come on top each and every time.
Voting for the extreme party is even worse than pushing for the usual suspect (seriously these fuckers are for Putin, Bachar Al Assad and pretty much all dictatures, if North Koreah wasn't openly communist they would support that one too).
As true as this is, the problem is the way we think politically is in that binary, two party system. I think going independants is the way to go, but I don't think our public consciousness takes them seriously. Look at Marianne Williamson for example; outside of her faith (though to be fair, it's more that it's 'out there' than it is hurtful or judgmental) she is right on point with what matters, and she's spoken about this for decades. But by her being an independant, I feel too many people will be invested in the way we look at politics that she'll essentially be getting nowhere.
We keep caving to the interests of party affiliation, who no longer have our interests in consideration.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The fact that the public thinks in a binary matter isn't some flaw in their reasoning or evidence of their stupidity, but a product of the electoral system within which they function. By giving your vote to an independent you especially you prefer, you are taking your vote away from a party candidate which you do not especially prefer, but at least preferred to the other party candidate. This is an illogical action: the independent is unlikely to win, given the status quo, and as such you just make it more likely that your 'least-preferred' candidate is elected. To fix this problem, people would have to be relatively certain that if they started voting for independent or minor parties, everyone else would, all at the same time: a collective action problem of prohibitive magnitude. This is why two-party systems tend to be entrenched in democracies that use single-majority-vote systems. At best you can hope for regional variations (i.e., the two candidates in one area are different to those in another, hence why the United Kingdom sustains the Liberal Democrats), but that's a poor solution. It's particularly poor in America, given that while the parliamentary nature of, say, the United Kingdom's executive means that you can still extend some executive power to those outside the main two parties (hence the current coalition), America's presidential system means the executive's power is placed entirely with the winner of a simple majoritarian system, which has little prospect other than to alternate between the same two blocs. If you want to see where the blame for America's political ills lie, before you look to disengagement, lobbying, corporate influence, stupidity, or any other factor; look to the constitution. You will find your problems begin there.
The Librarian
Banned
This is a pretty accurate summation. One of the few in this thread.
Democracy and Capitalism are not compatible.
People who have more money, have a much greater say. It isn't one person, one vote - it is one dollar, one vote.
There are the obvious examples of this. People with great amounts of wealth get to decide what is made, how it is made, who it is sold to etc... These are fundamental political issues. The person working on the shop floor doesn't decide this stuff - the owner of the factory does.
More than this, wealth and power now also pervades into the traditional "democratic" areas. As I say, democracy and capitalism are just not compatible - but traditionally elections were at least seen as full democratic areas, one person, one vote etc... But even this area is becoming less democratic. Capital flight is becoming a huge issue. Look at the vote for Scottish Independence - every other day, the CEO of some large corporation says "If you vote for Independence, we will leave the country, take away jobs etc...". The same thing goes for policies around elections, "whether I invest millions into your country/region depends on how you vote".
I'm not saying here what the better ideal is - democracy or capitalism - i'm just saying that they can't truly co-exist.
People who have more money, have a much greater say. It isn't one person, one vote - it is one dollar, one vote.
There are the obvious examples of this. People with great amounts of wealth get to decide what is made, how it is made, who it is sold to etc... These are fundamental political issues. The person working on the shop floor doesn't decide this stuff - the owner of the factory does.
More than this, wealth and power now also pervades into the traditional "democratic" areas. As I say, democracy and capitalism are just not compatible - but traditionally elections were at least seen as full democratic areas, one person, one vote etc... But even this area is becoming less democratic. Capital flight is becoming a huge issue. Look at the vote for Scottish Independence - every other day, the CEO of some large corporation says "If you vote for Independence, we will leave the country, take away jobs etc...". The same thing goes for policies around elections, "whether I invest millions into your country/region depends on how you vote".
I'm not saying here what the better ideal is - democracy or capitalism - i'm just saying that they can't truly co-exist.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
Voting in general is illogical, unless it's some silly neighborhood election with about 20 people. It makes no difference do you vote for a third party candidate or one of the major parties, whoever is going to win is going to win, and the losing candidate from the major party was just as unlikely to win as the independent you'd like to see elected. So I'd say voting for an independent is still less illogical than voting for one of the big fishes you don't really care about, since at least you get that warm fuzzy feeling of standing up for your convictions. Best is of course to just not vote at all.
Nydius
Member
It was accurate until the end because the Constitution doesn't specifically establish a two party system. Even the 12th Amendment, which gave rise to party-based tickets of President and Vice-President, doesn't specifically create a system with only two parties. Nowhere in the Constitution does it prevent the U.S. from having many smaller parties all running for the same office. The Electoral College was, essentially, designed with that very idea in mind.
During the debates over the Constitution, Hamilton and Madison didn't envision a party system. Running for office was to be something all [white, land-owning] males should aspire to based on the courage of their own convictions. Adams and Washington both railed against the establishment of political parties. Many of the Founders didn't want a party system but thanks to historical familiarity and the ensuing power struggle between two ideologies, the party system was born. To elaborate: The two-party - Whigs and Tories - system from the United Kingdom was familiar to the Founders so it was only natural that elements of that system be adopted, whether consciously or subconsciously, into the design of the new governmental system. The power struggle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the role of centralized government made it easy for the party system to take root.
benjipwns
Banned
You do have a slightly greater chance of helping put a third party over the threshold for ballot status and other things though. So it's not just warm fuzzies, there's a tiny chance at playing a nearly insignificant role in accomplishing nothing.
Or, in the words of the common man -- "no shit". Who needed a study to know this? It's should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
Seems reasonable, Australia is certainly a democratic utopia!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is true in some but not all situations. In any election where the outcome is uncertain, there is some relative chance, even if small, your vote will be a determinant one. At that point, given voting doesn't take much longer than an hour and probably doesn't impose significant costs on you, the pay-offs militate towards voting. Even if the chance my vote was a determinant one was very small, I'm willing to go to the polling booth and queue for fifteen minutes if there's even a statistically minute chance that it means my preferred candidate wins, in much the same way I'd probably queue for fifteen minutes for a free lottery ticket. In uncertain seats, your analysis is for the most part correct - but this is something with which empirical data agrees. People do vote an awful lot less when the election is perceived as safe, and poorly contested elections have noticeably lower turn-outs.
Of course, this is assuming that the only important factor to a candidate is whether they win or not; which is probably not true. When political actors make decisions, one of things they will be considering is the size of their mandate. If they have a crushing 15% lead over nearest candidate at the previous election, they're probably not going to moderate their decisions because even if they lose popularity, they have to lose a lot before they would not win re-election. If they have a 5% mandate, they're going to make decisions much more in line with the consensus opinion in the hopes of re-election. So, to an extent, even in elections where your favoured candidate is somewhat unlikely or overwhelmingly likely to win, there is still an incentive to vote as a means of weakening or strengthening the independence of political actors from their electorate.
benjipwns
Banned
Nah, that'll trigger recounts where entirely new vote totals will be chosen, new ballots found, others disqualified, etc.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, you misunderstand. I'm not saying the American constitution (why do we keep capitalizing it?) at any point openly states "there shalt be two parties" or any such thing. You're quite right that most of the early contributors the constitution actively feared parties, although for a number of different reasons - ironically, some feared parties because they thought parties would empower the common man by allowing him to co-operate with others of his class. I'm saying that the American constitution, even if unintended, is perhaps the constitution most geared towards producing two-party gridlock out of all the constitutions present in "Western liberal democracies". Probably because it was designed at such an early stage, when there were essentially no examples to look to, with the only other constitutional republic prior to that being the short-lived Corsican republic, the founders got it wrong - and quite badly wrong at that. Given that it was already failing its purpose by the 1820s, and given that the general desires of the American populus have changed dramatically since then, it's probably fair to say that the American constitution is one of the worst in the "Western liberal democratic" world. I struggle to think of a system that empowers its voters less, has more incentives to produce the worst kind of politics, or displays more immutability. Although, having said that, do you know what the absolute worst thing about the American constitution is? It's the way it's venerated and fetishized. When people make an argument in the United States political sphere, a huge part of the argument is "well, this is a constitutional right", or "this is what the founders would have wanted". When congressional members display political failings, the complaint is "this is a disgrace towards the constitution". The constitution has become absolutely unchangeable, despite the fact it's the largest poison of the American political system. We live in fetters forged by dead men's hands, but we keep them on of our own accord.
benjipwns
Banned
What you're referring to is 'total democracy' or 'direct democracy'. No democratic society does this. I do however agree with the findings, that the US (along with other western societies) is plutocratic in nature.
By letting people vote every few years the system basically tricks people into thinking they actually have a voice or can make a difference. Not sure what its like in the US but in the UK whether its local elections or parliamentary elections the turnout is usually low which really isnt that surprising.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Democracy and freedom are not synonyms.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ranger Taffles
Member
America? Almost all 'democratic' nations.
This must be done more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
It's more representative than your current system.
I know you have some insecure pressure to inject your academic knowledge of science in almost every OT, but I'd sooner trust the Ivy League professors to have more of an objective idea of what science is and how it can relate to the study of politics, than you. It's like you have a script that sniffs out for "soft sciences" for an opportunity to project your e-dick on the wall.
The Librarian
Banned
Er, that's not what Crab said. Because of the FPTP system the Founders implemented, yes, there will only be two major parties able to compete. It's useless to vote for third party in an FPTP system.
Red Mage
Member
As others have stated, it's a Republic, it's not a Democracy.
If you thought Bush was rock-bottom, then you should brush up on our history more. Check out some of the guys on this list:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/Worst-Presidents-Ever.htm
Two things:
1) Yes, Bush is number 8, but the reasoning behind it could also be said of Obama, who I see as being just as terrible.
2) I'd argue Wilson was worse, because he was a major supporter of forced sterilzation of people with epilipsy and other so-called 'defects' and his cabinet members resegregating the post office, navy, etc. and requiring photographs of every applicant for a federal job. Yep, the Federal government at the time was already unsegregated, although still discriminatory, but Wilson's people set it back even further by resegregating it.
Oh, and he screwed up the system by getting the Senate's election process changed. The Senate was originally elected by the State Legislators, who in turn were elected by their constituents. If you wanted to change your Senator, you changed your local representatives. The idea behind this was that the Senators would work in the interests of their individual states, and thus be less susceptible to large 'donors.' Each state would fight to keep the federal government and every other state from taking too much power from themselves.
Four things:
1) The founders did not fear the loss of democracy, because they didn't trust a democracy.
2) They feared the Republic becoming more and more powerful and selective on it's laws (i.e. the rich and powerful getting off easier for crimes than the poor). This has proven to be a very valid fear.
3) Our problems are not limited to either the "Right" or the current SCOTUS. That's a very limited point of view on the problem.
4) Back on track to what? The country has been moving to marginalize those who are not affluent for at least a century.
That would solve little.
If you thought Bush was rock-bottom, then you should brush up on our history more. Check out some of the guys on this list:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/Worst-Presidents-Ever.htm
Two things:
1) Yes, Bush is number 8, but the reasoning behind it could also be said of Obama, who I see as being just as terrible.
2) I'd argue Wilson was worse, because he was a major supporter of forced sterilzation of people with epilipsy and other so-called 'defects' and his cabinet members resegregating the post office, navy, etc. and requiring photographs of every applicant for a federal job. Yep, the Federal government at the time was already unsegregated, although still discriminatory, but Wilson's people set it back even further by resegregating it.
Oh, and he screwed up the system by getting the Senate's election process changed. The Senate was originally elected by the State Legislators, who in turn were elected by their constituents. If you wanted to change your Senator, you changed your local representatives. The idea behind this was that the Senators would work in the interests of their individual states, and thus be less susceptible to large 'donors.' Each state would fight to keep the federal government and every other state from taking too much power from themselves.
Four things:
1) The founders did not fear the loss of democracy, because they didn't trust a democracy.
2) They feared the Republic becoming more and more powerful and selective on it's laws (i.e. the rich and powerful getting off easier for crimes than the poor). This has proven to be a very valid fear.
3) Our problems are not limited to either the "Right" or the current SCOTUS. That's a very limited point of view on the problem.
4) Back on track to what? The country has been moving to marginalize those who are not affluent for at least a century.
That would solve little.
Omegasquash
Member
I always figured that the more money you have, the more "free" you are. Not saying I liked it or agreed with it as a social system, but that's kind of how it is. Exceptions to my little "rule" exist of course, but by and large, the more money you have, the more you can do with it.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I don't Bolivia
Syph Medwes
Member
Yup. More interesting to me would be other countries being tested under the same constraints and seeing their "level of democracy" relative to the United States.
Excellent post. Couldn't agree more. It's terrifying how the Constitution has been turned into a holy text to compliment the Bible in the minds of so many Americans.
Battersea Power Station
Member
It's not a bad post. I agree with most of it, but he takes for granted the tremendous stability that our constitution's "immutability" provides. It's one of the worst things about our political system, but it's also one of the best.
Yeah, it's easy to focus on the gridlock that has been the current trend. But imagine all the crazy amendments that could've been passed when Reagan or someone was in power IF there wasn't such a high obstacle in the way of changing our system of government.
It's really hard to do anything of significance in our country. That's a bad thing and it's also a great thing.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The United Kingdom has a constitution which is not even slightly entrenched. It can be changed via simple majority vote, and is no higher than (and indeed, considered no different to) statue law. A similar principle applies to New Zealand. I have yet to notice New Zealand or the United Kingdom passing "crazy amendments". In fact, the United Kingdom passed a series of quite sensible devolution methods that ostensibly grant more power to areas like Wales and Scotland, and New Zealand changed its voting system from first-past-the-post to the much more proportional and representative MMP system; both of those marking improvements in the standard of democratic representation.
In developed democracies, constitutions are incredibly hard to change as is - look at the United Kingdom's experience with AV, or the initial New Zealand experience with vote reform. There's a number of reasons: people are inherently somewhat conservative when it comes to changing up the political system, and people are naturally suspicious of the motives of politicians anyway. There's already a strong normative preference against changing constitutions; reinforcing this at an institutional level kills the capacity for system change entirely.
spookyfish
Gold Member
This.
The best way I've heard it put: "Democracy is two wolves and one sheep discussing what's for dinner." Mob rule was never what the founders wanted, which is why the minority parties in the U.S. legislature have procedures they can use to not be irrelevant. The press calls it "gridlock," and both parties have used it quite successfully in the past.
QuicheFontaine
Member
We (the UK) have a "constitution", but not a "Constitution". There's definitely more weight when it's a single document you can refer to vs a load of fiddly statutes.
That said, I agree with you basically. I haven't noticed a problem with stability round here.
Darkangel
Member
This has been pretty obvious for a while. Anyone remember Citigroup's Plutonomy memo?
http://politicalgates.blogspot.ca/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html
zero shift
Banned
Whether or not something is a science depends on if the judge is invested in said field.
Its also how you get jokes like this:
Now watch as someone quotes this image and says "There is some truth to this." and I ask "Where does it divide?" And they'll respond "With "insert my field of study"."
- Status