A fatal flaw of democracy

[Moonlight Graham]

It's much easier for a single powerful person/organization or a small/minority group of people/organizations to do something against the interests of the majority of the population than it is for the majority to 1. realize (or care) that it's even happening to them, and 2. organize themselves together as a large group to stop it from happening.

The kicker is that the majority of a population often doesn't even give a crap if something isn't in their interests, & it's up to a small minority of the public to protest & organize and try to spread the word...often falling on deaf ears, thus the abuse continues by the better-organized and better-funded (ie: more powerful) exploiter. It's hard to "blame the ignorant majority" as a failure of the modern liberal democratic system since it has ALWAYS been this way in large democracies since the system' creation.

------------------

An example is any kind of government abuse of power. It's much easier for a small group, like a government executive branch, to use it's power to do something that's against the best interests of the majority (ie: misuse public tax dollars, or other bad policy) than it is for the majority to 1. stay informed about politics and follow what is happening by their gov, and then realize a certain gov action is bad for them, plus 2. have the majority, or at least a plurality or significant segment, actively protest and use their power (ie: voting) to stop the abuse that's against their interests.

Another example is private sector abuse, like Google spying on your browsing history, emails, cellphone use etc. & making money from that info for advertising or giving it to government etc. It's much easier for Google, as a very well-funded & well-organized organization, to do that and get away with it, than it is for the majority of people in a democracy to 1. realize it's happening, while also realizing it's bad for them, & also 2. organize on a mass scale in order to make it stop, whether through consumer action (consumer spending habits are, in a way, democratic action) or pressuring politicians to enact regulation.

Not to say the democratic majority doesn't act to stop certain things not in their interests all the time, be it VS the gov or business etc., but it's just easier for powerful minorities to exploit the majority than it is for the majority to constantly be vigilant against these smaller, powerful, exploitative actors.

EDIT: So do you agree? If so, is it possible to fix this flaw in democracy? Should it even be fixed?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Freddy]

It's much easier for a single powerful person/organization or a small/minority group of people/organizations to do something against the interests of the majority of the population than it is for the majority to 1. realize (or care) that it's even happening to them, and 2. organize themselves together as a large group to stop it from happening.

The kicker is that the majority of a population often doesn't even give a crap if something isn't in their interests, & it's up to a small minority of the public to protest & organize and try to spread the word...often falling on deaf ears, thus the abuse continues by the better-organized and better-funded (ie: more powerful) exploiter. It's hard to "blame the ignorant majority" as a failure of the modern liberal democratic system since it has ALWAYS been this way in large democracies since the system' creation.

------------------

An example is any kind of government abuse of power. It's much easier for a small group, like a government executive branch, to use it's power to do something that's against the best interests of the majority (ie: misuse public tax dollars, or other bad policy) than it is for the majority to 1. stay informed about politics and follow what is happening by their gov, and then realize a certain gov action is bad for them, plus 2. have the majority, or at least a plurality or significant segment, actively protest and use their power (ie: voting) to stop the abuse that's against their interests.

Another example is private sector abuse, like Google spying on your browsing history, emails, cellphone use etc. & making money from that info for advertising or giving it to government etc. It's much easier for Google, as a very well-funded & well-organized organization, to do that and get away with it, than it is for the majority of people in a democracy to 1. realize it's happening, while also realizing it's bad for them, & also 2. organize on a mass scale in order to make it stop, whether through consumer action (consumer spending habits are, in a way, democratic action) or pressuring politicians to enact regulation.

Not to say the democratic majority doesn't act to stop certain things not in their interests all the time, be it VS the gov or business etc., but it's just easier for powerful minorities to exploit the majority than it is for the majority to constantly be vigilant against these smaller, powerful, exploitative actors.

You are allowed to create none profit organization with sets of goals to supervise the government. Membership fees would be completely tax deductible, and would pay for lawyers to break down what's really going on and alarm membership of any real threats. The tools to protect ourselves are legislated. But they are left un-used. Edited May 29, 2015 by Freddy

[TimG]

It's much easier for a single powerful person/organization or a small/minority group of people/organizations to do something against the interests...

Easier than what? A theocracy? A dictatorship? Whatever its flaws democracy is superior to every other possible form of government. But the most important value in a democracy is free of speech because that allows information to get out and voters can choose to do something about it. The fact that voters don't share your pet concerns is not evidence that the system is failing.

[Moonlight Graham]

Easier than what? A theocracy? A dictatorship? Whatever its flaws democracy is superior to every other possible form of government.

I never said democracy was worse than those forms of government.

Whatever its flaws democracy is superior to every other possible form of government.

That's a completely unknowable statement. Human civilization hasn't tried "every other possible form of government", not even close. We haven't even theorized every possible form yet. A better statement, and maybe what you really meant, was: "whatever its flaws, democracy is superior to every other form of government humanity has tried thus far".

The point of my post wasn't to say "democracy sucks", it was to say "here is this flaw we have". Maybe we can also discuss "is possible to fix this flaw? Even within democracy?". I edited the OP to add some further questions for discussion.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

The point of my post wasn't to say "democracy sucks", it was to say "here is this flaw we have".

"fatal flaw" kinda means "democracy sucks" but I understand the distinction you are making.

Maybe we can also discuss "is possible to fix this flaw? Even within democracy?". I edited the OP to add some further questions for discussion.

I personally think you are making a huge assumption when you say a "minority does something against the interests of the majority". Sounds to me like you are simply complaining that a majority of voters don't share your political positions which is hardly a flaw. It is the nature of the system.

[Moonlight Graham]

"fatal flaw" kinda means "democracy sucks" but I understand the distinction you are making.

It's not perfect, that's for sure. So it's not beyond criticism, at least the systems almost exclusively in use, the Westminster parliamentary model and the US republic-style model.

I personally think you are making a huge assumption when you say a "minority does something against the interests of the majority". Sounds to me like you are simply complaining that a majority of voters don't share your political positions which is hardly a flaw. It is the nature of the system.

Well, you may be right on that. I was kind of just thinking out loud with my OP. But how would you (or I, or anyone) distinguish between what you just claimed and a situation that was actually really occurring under my original scenario?

[TimG]

But how would you (or I, or anyone) distinguish between what you just claimed and a situation that was actually really occurring under my original scenario?

Personally, I focus on protecting free speech. As long as people feel they are free to say what they think and provide the information that they believe supports their views then people have the opportunity to assess them and reject or embrace them. That I why I am so bothered by online "lynch mobs" that seek to punish people for saying unpopular things because these lynch mobs curtail free speech even if I agree that the person being lynched deserves criticism.

[Derek 2.0]

Not to say the democratic majority doesn't act to stop certain things not in their interests all the time, be it VS the gov or business etc., but it's just easier for powerful minorities to exploit the majority than it is for the majority to constantly be vigilant against these smaller, powerful, exploitative actors.

EDIT: So do you agree? If so, is it possible to fix this flaw in democracy? Should it even be fixed?

Though I agree largely with the thrust of what you're saying, said powerful minorities are not always exploiting the majority, but just furthering their own interests, interests that in some instances can indirectly benefit the majority.......hence the minorities gain political power through the indifference of the majority.....

That is how a lobbyist succeeds.......inversely, you don't boil a frog by putting it in hot water

[eyeball]

I'd focus more on penetrating official secrecy.

The flaw with democracy is the same flaw that kills governments and even governing systems - the inability of humans to adequately control the abuse of power and wealth.

When we do it's almost always after the fact and too little too late.

[Hal 9000]

Not all democracies are created equal.

[eyeball]

No, some are definitely more flawed than others.

[jacee]

Ya I think that's a starting point, recognizing that there are different forms of democracy and flaws can be fixed.

Our form of parliamentary democracy is susceptible to control by a powerful minority whose views and purposes may be self-serving and not in the interests of the majority at times.

That can be changed.

I think every democratic 'free enterprise' system constantly struggles to balance those things.

Don't know who said this but I think it's good to remember:

"Freedom/democracy is not something you 'have', but something you fight for every day."

We have better tools to be heard these days. 'Organizing' doesn't mean you have to get people to come to a physical meeting anymore: It means reaching like-minded people electronically. Facebook and Twitter have become forums for social action and reaction to the powerful minorities ... and it's working!

They are paying attention.

.

[Topaz]

Views on this ...if a party has majority, has the Speaker, majority in the Senate, has the support of the GG, in their pocket, so to speak, and kick out any MP that crosses them, is that democracy????

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Facebook and Twitter have become forums for social action and reaction to the powerful minorities ... and it's working!

...and thank you for that, America !

[waldo]

...and thank you for that, America !

(claimed) Americans need to come to the realization that America is not exceptional! For example, the U.S.:

- is worst in inequality among industrialized nations

- spends the most on healthcare than any other country... yet consistently gets the least in return... ranks comparably poor in efficiency and results

- has the highest spending on education yet ranks comparably low in literacy, educational performance, reading skills, math skills, PISA science scores, etc.

- 'for profit' prison industry incarcerates more people than any other country

- has infant mortality rates among the worst in the developed world

- etc., etc., etc.

but gawd bless "Merika's googly"! You're welcome.

[Je suis Omar]

Personally, I focus on protecting free speech. As long as people feel they are free to say what they think and provide the information that they believe supports their views then people have the opportunity to assess them and reject or embrace them. That I why I am so bothered by online "lynch mobs" that seek to punish people for saying unpopular things because these lynch mobs curtail free speech even if I agree that the person being lynched deserves criticism.

I had to look four times, and I still don't believe that it's you, TimG, saying this.

Yup, looked again and it says TimG.

[Je suis Omar]

Not all democracies are created equal.

You have a signature line from Ron Reagan talking about the ignorance of others, Hal.

And you don't even know how ignorant (non pejorative sense) that is.

[Je suis Omar]

Views on this ...if a party has majority, has the Speaker, majority in the Senate, has the support of the GG, in their pocket, so to speak, and kick out any MP that crosses them, is that democracy????

True. Political parties are the antitheses of democracy.

[Spiderfish]

We have better tools to be heard these days. 'Organizing' doesn't mean you have to get people to come to a physical meeting anymore: It means reaching like-minded people electronically. Facebook and Twitter have become forums for social action and reaction to the powerful minorities ... and it's working!

Unfortunately, utilizing these new tools requires us to accept their usage policies and agreements that the organization has put in place. We click the box and agree to have our data mined, we agree to unwanted selective advertising based on our electronic footprint, etc. etc. forcing us in the exact flawed position the OP describes.

There was a time when people resisted giving up personal information to third parties, now we give it up freely and willingly so we can have 1000 friends to talk to.

[Derek 2.0]

I'd focus more on penetrating official secrecy.

The flaw with democracy is the same flaw that kills governments and even governing systems - the inability of humans to adequately control the abuse of power and wealth.

When we do it's almost always after the fact and too little too late.

Is your cited flaw any different than any other form of governance? The Soviet Politburo was chauffeured in handmade Zil limos without a want in the World well the unwashed masses stood in line for hours for bread and toilet paper......

[Derek 2.0]

We have better tools to be heard these days. 'Organizing' doesn't mean you have to get people to come to a physical meeting anymore: It means reaching like-minded people electronically. Facebook and Twitter have become forums for social action and reaction to the powerful minorities ... and it's working!

They are paying attention.

.

Is it working though? "Powerful minorities" also have the use of social media, an allowance that grants them the ability to further their messaging, messages that prior to social media, granted them their cited "political power"........

Another thing good to remember: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"..........

[bush_cheney2004]

America has contributed Twitter and Facebook to democracy....was even used by new NDP MP Deborah Drever to show off her homophobia and lovely sodomy photos....this was Canada's recent contribution to democracy.

[waldo]

America has contributed Twitter and Facebook to democracy....was even used by new NDP MP Deborah Drever to show off her homophobia and lovely sodomy photos....this was Canada's recent contribution to democracy.

how unlike you to attempt to bash Canada with such frivolous, insignificant and localized references. Perhaps each of your regular and ongoing attempts should carry a caveat explaining the particular reaction you're seeking.

[WestCoastRunner]

how unlike you to attempt to bash Canada with such frivolous, insignificant and localized references. Perhaps each of your regular and ongoing attempts should carry a caveat explaining the particular reaction you're seeking.

Good to see you back.

[eyeball]

Is your cited flaw any different than any other form of governance?

Nope, they're all the same once they get to big for their britches.