What do we want from democracy?

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The Ukraine thread has taken an interesting but off-topic direction lately, so I thought I'd start this one and we might let the Ukraine thread resume course.

I wanted to start by asking a fundamental question: What is democracy for; and following on from that, what do we want from it?

ISTM, and others on here, that 'democracy' as currently experienced in the UK and the US, is a very flawed thing and likely fails to provide some of the fundamentals that a decent democracy should provide, namely: providing a means for the people to have some control and influence over decisions which affect their lives, and the way the country is run, in a way which reflects the (often disparate) interests of the greatest number. (And by 'reflects...interests of the greatest number' I don't mean majority rule, but rather a system that accommodates the interests of as many people as possible, from all parts of the political spectrum.

At the moment, the FPTP system in the UK, and the electoral college system in the US, are most effective at providing the appearance of general suffrage, while actually perpetuating a system where embedded interests and factions continue to prosper largely unmolested by the expressed wishes of the people. In short, the majority of voters either do not vote for the party in power, or the outcome may still fail to produce a result which reflects that majority vote. Both these systems have come perilously close to catastrophic failure, and may yet do so in the forseeable future.

So if we need a new system, what do we need it to do, and what should it look like?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Do we, for example, even need or want a representative democracy system in these days of hyper-connectivity? Does Parliament/Congress still have an essential role? Could we not run plebiscites, citizens juries, etc over the big decisions, rather than electing representatives who may be ill-equipped to marshal the arguments and make the decisions on our behalf, even if their interests align with ours.

Or could plebiscites, etc, be a way for people to be more actively involved and influence a Parliament v2.0, perhaps?

 

[sean99]

Definitely representative democracy. Having lived in a state with "direct democracy" (California with ballot initiatives) it is just as easy to bamboozle / mislead the electorate as it is to bribe an elected representative - perhaps easier.
Apart from that:
- ranked choice voting
- combination of PR and representative (i.e. some elected representatives have constituencies, others are PR based)
- minimization of the power of individuals - this is very important to stop the psychopaths from buggering it all up. Every important decision should require a broad committee. Slow, but less prone to extremes.
- Publicly available records - sunlight being the best antiseptic.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

How about another rule: If your state has the death penalty for murder, the same penalty must also be available for gross misconduct in public office by an elected representative.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Perhaps we can also loop in a discussion about 'what are countries for?' because I think that also feeds into the discussions about toxic nationalism, and whether we need, ever bigger, federalisation towards true globalisation, or might that be a mistake and we need more localisation? And arguably, until we know what countries are for, we might not have a satisfactory answer for what is democracy for, because democracy, at its heart, is about running a country.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Democracy is the worst government possible, except for all the others. An important precept in tempering expectations.

The main idea is how to best promote good government, which is to say one that best promotes good chances for happiness for everyone, and opposed to scarificing people for vanity, or the striving after of air.

 

[Seeker_UK]

At the moment, the FPTP system in the UK, and the electoral college system in the US, are most effective at providing the appearance of general suffrage, while actually perpetuating a system where embedded interests and factions continue to prosper largely unmolested by the expressed wishes of the people. In short, the majority of voters either do not vote for the party in power, or the outcome may still fail to produce a result which reflects that majority vote. Both these systems have come perilously close to catastrophic failure, and may yet do so in the forseeable future.

It is interesting that a Google of articles on FPTP do not mention the preservation of embedded interests as a disadvantage.

https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd02/esd02b

ISTM that FPTP is the system that doesn't have the advantages that deliver the outcomes you want, rather than it being objectively the worst system.

As stated previously, for the simple reason that FPTP means I am more likely to know what I'm voting for before the vote is cast then I'd prefer to stick with it. I will concede, however, that boundaries need to be reviewed so that the bias towards Conservatives wins is addressed.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It is interesting that a Google of articles on FPTP do not mention the preservation of embedded interests as a disadvantage.

https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd02/esd02b

ISTM that FPTP is the system that doesn't have the advantages that deliver the outcomes you want, rather than it being objectively the worst system.

As stated previously, for the simple reason that FPTP means I am more likely to know what I'm voting for before the vote is cast then I'd prefer to stick with it. I will concede, however, that boundaries need to be reviewed so that the bias towards Conservatives wins is addressed.

I want to aim a little higher than that. This is firstly a discussion about what we think might be better. We might move on to talking about how we could help bring changes about, but first we need to think about where we want to get to. Even if you don't think our system is the worst - and I'll happily concede that - it doesn't follow that whittling away at cosmetics will improve what we have in any meaningful sense. So let's be bold.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I want to aim a little higher than that. This is firstly a discussion about what we think might be better. We might move on to talking about how we could help bring changes about, but first we need to think about where we want to get to. Even if you don't think our system is the worst - and I'll happily concede that - it doesn't follow that whittling away at cosmetics will improve what we have. So let's be bold.

Apologies that my opinion doesn't meet the standards set for your thread.

I'll flounce out now, if that's OK.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Apologies that my opinion doesn't meet the standards set for your thread.

I'll flounce out now, if that's OK.

Sure, be my guest. I wasn't being rude or disrespectful, but I don't agree with you and was trying to set out why, hopefully in a positive way and without dominating the thread by lengthy exposition. I've already had the lion's share of airtime so far. It's a discussion, which means I'd hoped people would want to listen to, and take on board, alternative views, and critique of their own views, but if that makes you uncomfortable please don't feel like you need to stick around.

 

[DonQuixote99]

Apologies that my opinion doesn't meet the standards set for your thread.

I'll flounce out now, if that's OK.

If I may, it's of course OK but rather cranky, taking insult where none was offerred. 'Aiming higher' was in reference to aspirations for the discussion subject, not a suggestion that there was any bad quality in your post.

 

[Del monaco]

Democracy seems to go to pot once it gets into the hands of a chosen government that wants to subvert it, as they often do.

 

[Nick_G]

One good way towards proper democracy would be to make it a criminal offence to knowingly lie to or mislead the electorate for self-gain. And I mean with actual consequences like being 'struck off' as an MP. I don't mean the slight massaging of figures either, as that goes with the territory. I'm referring to the huge great bare-faced whoppers that Johnson and his compadres regularly burp up.

In other words, MPs should be held to the same standards that you or I expect in general employment as a bare minimum. In practice, these standards should be even higher as the actions of an MP affect so many people. In any other normal employment Boris & Co would be doing jail time by now.

 

[Tony L]

As stated previously, for the simple reason that FPTP means I am more likely to know what I'm voting for before the vote is cast then I'd prefer to stick with it. I will concede, however, that boundaries need to be reviewed so that the bias towards Conservatives wins is addressed.

PR seems to work well elsewhere. I’d certainly argue the various countries of Scandinavia etc were a far more politically advanced and equitable places to live than Little Tory England. The only place I can bring to mind where PR enables the kind of political extremism we see in the UK or USA under FPTP is Israel, but that needs to be viewed as a country effectively at war. Religious extremism maybe also needs to be factored. Everywhere else PR seems to return a fairly sensible consensus where extremes of either side are balanced-out. Certainly not a radical form of government, but I’ll take that over the grubby little far-right kleptocracy the UK has become.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Democracy is the worst government possible, except for all the others. An important precept in tempering expectations.

The main idea is how to best promote good government, which is to say one that best promotes good chances for happiness for everyone, and opposed to scarificing people for vanity, or the striving after of air.

Yes, I'd agree that we need good government, and this basic requirement is one I could get behind. At the moment, it is played as a zero sum game, in that for some people to prosper, or have improved lives, other people have to have their prospects reduced. So for every working man who benefits from government spending, a corporation or a billionaire has to pay a little more tax. So while the corporations and the billionaires have all the leverage, that reduces the prospects for the little people, because it is played as that zero sum game. Does it need to be so?

 

[Del monaco]

MPs should have a probationary period like teachers do.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Sure, be my guest. I wasn't being rude or disrespectful, but I don't agree with you and was trying to set out why, hopefully in a positive way and without dominating the thread by lengthy exposition. I've already had the lion's share of airtime so far. It's a discussion, which means I'd hoped people would want to listen to, and take on board, alternative views, and critique of their own views, but if that makes you uncomfortable please don't feel like you need to stick around.

Thank you for the explanation, but it really looked like advocacy for FPTP (which is a voting scheme I am happy with) was out of scope and the "groupthink or f**k off" that's creeping into certain threads had started early this time. Apologies for misreading it that way.

 

[Seanm]

PR seems to work well elsewhere. I’d certainly argue the various countries of Scandinavia etc were a far more politically advanced and equitable places to live than Little Tory England. To be honest the only place I can bring to mind where PR enables the kind of political extremism we see in the UK or USA under FPTP is Israel, but that needs to be viewed as a country effectively at war. Religious extremism maybe also needs to be factored. Everywhere else PR seems to return a fairly sensible consensus where extremes of either side are balanced-out. Certainly not a radical form of government, but I’ll take that over the far-right kleptocracy the UK has become.

Lots of other differences there, including much more in the way of workplace democracy and union power. I don’t see any reason to attribute Scandinavia’s more attractive features to PR specifically.

Ireland has PR, and has never had a left wing government. Not exactly free of corruption either.

 

[Seeker_UK]

PR seems to work well elsewhere. I’d certainly argue the various countries of Scandinavia etc were a far more politically advanced and equitable places to live than Little Tory England. The only place I can bring to mind where PR enables the kind of political extremism we see in the UK or USA under FPTP is Israel, but that needs to be viewed as a country effectively at war. Religious extremism maybe also needs to be factored. Everywhere else PR seems to return a fairly sensible consensus where extremes of either side are balanced-out. Certainly not a radical form of government, but I’ll take that over the grubby little far-right kleptocracy the UK has become.

The issue is not that PR generates an extremist Govt but that it allows greater representation of extremist views which could gain popular support from being more public and allowed 'air time'.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Thank you for the explanation, but it really looked like advocacy for FPTP (which is a voting scheme I am happy with) was out of scope and the "groupthink or f**k off" that's creeping into certain threads had started early this time. Apologies for misreading it that way.

Glad you're sticking around and no, if you think the current system is basically OK, I'd like to hear your reasons why and that's a fair viewpoint. It's what we want democracy to do (for us) that interests me. If people think we already have the democracy that does what we need, it's an entirely valid POV, providing you can defend why you think that is the case (I suspect you might be called upon to do so!).