A fatal flaw of democracy

[Hal 9000]

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.

.

Well, we vote in one person (or party) and are fine to let them make all the big decisions for us - what could go wrong? We don'' have referendums in Canada - not really, and most Canadians are fine with that system. Just refer to the gay marriage thread.

Special interest groups have been calling the shots regarding policy for years - screw the majority, lets appease the minorities.

[Derek 2.0]

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

What are the mechanisms available to reverse this in a Communist or despotic regime versus a Democracy? Said mechanisms would indicate that Democracy isn't really that bad after all.......

[eyeball]

I'd use the same things that are required to bring capitalism to heel - cameras, microphones, validators, auditors, human observers as public process guardians.

I certainly don't see why communism should be written off yet, I'd need to see one operate under a state of total public awareness before coming to that conclusion. As for a capitalist system we haven't seen one of those under total transparency either so it's too early to draw any firm conclusions about it.

I'm fairly certain either system could be made to operate satisfactorily except people in power cock everything up by getting greedy. I'm betting a system that combines the best elements of both will probably prove to be ideal.

Edited May 31, 2015 by eyeball

[Scott Mayers]

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.

I believe that for the use of tax deductions, you require the extra "charitable" status. But it that state, you are NOT allowed to act politically. Thus, while you can start a non-profit for political reasons, you'd have no allowance for deductibles.

[Scott Mayers]

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 agree. At this point we are losing this in the name of "Protecting the Children" or "Preventing Terrorism" or other similar emotionally loaded rhetoric.

[Scott Mayers]

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?

I believe Freddy's idea is good. So is talking about it with sincerity and more depth in places like this.

I'm not sure it can be 'fixed' without a complete restructuring of nearly everything our government is constituted as. I agree with Karl Marx's explanation of social history (from Hegel) that for most political states, regardless of form, that what starts out functional eventually evolves to be 'locked' in such a way that cannot be undone without a complete overthrow of that government. Each government, or any institute,-- no matter how well-intentioned to begin with -- often ends up corrupt. (For an institute example, the Internet is an example in that as time goes on it will eventually lose its virtue of being "free".

I have a problem with the word, "democracy", as this is so inappropriately used and abused. "Communism" -- from the word, "community"-- was and is presumed by the people of those countries that aim for this ideal as "democratic". And they actually have more justice for it considering the involvement that is required of the people. Our "democracy" is only a "representative" type and only upon one day every so many years are we allowed to have any actual power. But since we elect parties and they have evolved to be exclusive and non-accountable to the people, these make our system sincerely less 'democratic' than anything.

There is a reason why the rest of the world considers us as "Imperialist". Canada is even worse in this than the States since our laws require a pass from our Royalty. The Senate too, which originally functioned to serve the aristocratic land-owners apart from the 'commoners', only adds force to this. While we may not be experiencing the worst case possibilities, we really ARE in a type of DICTATORSHIP.

[Freddy]

I believe that for the use of tax deductions, you require the extra "charitable" status. But it that state, you are NOT allowed to act politically. Thus, while you can start a non-profit for political reasons, you'd have no allowance for deductibles.

What if you made it more like a Union?

[Scott Mayers]

What if you made it more like a Union?

What did you have in mind? I'm not sure what you might mean by "Union". I'm guessing you refer to something akin to our labour-type unions?

[Freddy]

What did you have in mind? I'm not sure what you might mean by "Union". I'm guessing you refer to something akin to our labour-type unions?

Yea. A labour union is there to look after and protect your best interests, lobby government, negotiate contracts, and put forward grievances when we feel things are unfair. Do that but instead of protecting us from employer exploitation. This union would protect us from all government branches.

Call it the united citizenship of America.

Citizens United is a group like that isn't it? We can all join and donate financially.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Freddy

[Topaz]

My view it's the voters that hold the power of democracy but what brings it down are the supporters who will not vote for any other party, no matter how bad their party is. When voters decide to have an open mind and not really support certain party no matter what, then that voter becomes free to vote for A party that will do the most good for the generations to come. I have voted Liberal and PC, federally, I will not vote for the Alliance Conservatives, at least, not under Harper. The NDP, does have my attention by what they are trying to do lately, trying to get the Tories to pass a Bill to stop the Banks charging fees for fees and the Tories are agreeing but I doubt it will pass in the senate in time but it does make the Tories look good, just like Chong"s Reform Bill.

[drummindiver]

What if you made it more like a Union?

So pay for nothing except the privilege of paying union dues, the only thing a union can guarantee?

[Freddy]

So pay for nothing except the privilege of paying union dues, the only thing a union can guarantee?

Yes, it's not like lawyers will look after your best interests for free.

[Scott Mayers]

I am not completely read into Communism but, unless I misinterpreted some of their explanations in their works, the idea of their "democracy" begins in interest and work groups (unions). These unions are devised such that the workers within them nominate then elect their work 'leaders'. It is like hiring your boss from among your peers. Then, these elected officials act as representatives of that group in a higher-order class and such groups of group interests nominate another person(s) to represent that larger common interest. This is done all the way up to the formal law making politicians who then create the laws.

This idea seems to be way more "democratic" and intellectually run (since the 'leaders' represent professors of a particular area). Now I could have misinterpreted what I've read and likely adding my own subconscious ideals, but I believe this is what and how the Communistic ideal was intended. Can anyone else here confirm or deny this? Either way, what is/was/maybe the problems in this type of "democracy"?

[Rocky Road]

∞

[Freddy]

I am not completely read into Communism but, unless I misinterpreted some of their explanations in their works, the idea of their "democracy" begins in interest and work groups (unions). These unions are devised such that the workers within them nominate then elect their work 'leaders'. It is like hiring your boss from among your peers. Then, these elected officials act as representatives of that group in a higher-order class and such groups of group interests nominate another person(s) to represent that larger common interest. This is done all the way up to the formal law making politicians who then create the laws.

This idea seems to be way more "democratic" and intellectually run (since the 'leaders' represent professors of a particular area). Now I could have misinterpreted what I've read and likely adding my own subconscious ideals, but I believe this is what and how the Communistic ideal was intended. Can anyone else here confirm or deny this? Either way, what is/was/maybe the problems in this type of "democracy"?

Lost of accountability, as your boss is elected from the workers he will be quickly replaced if he asks for anything like hard work and efficient quality production. You have reversed the power of holding someone accountable and given it to the workers. Workplace quality will rise, but production & quality will fall.

It's best if you can achieve a balance of both.

[eyeball]

I am not completely read into Communism but, unless I misinterpreted some of their explanations in their works, the idea of their "democracy" begins in interest and work groups (unions). These unions are devised such that the workers within them nominate then elect their work 'leaders'. It is like hiring your boss from among your peers. Then, these elected officials act as representatives of that group in a higher-order class and such groups of group interests nominate another person(s) to represent that larger common interest. This is done all the way up to the formal law making politicians who then create the laws.

This idea seems to be way more "democratic" and intellectually run (since the 'leaders' represent professors of a particular area). Now I could have misinterpreted what I've read and likely adding my own subconscious ideals, but I believe this is what and how the Communistic ideal was intended. Can anyone else here confirm or deny this? Either way, what is/was/maybe the problems in this type of "democracy"?

The idea that communists only work in groups doesn't mesh with the reality that communists sometimes also own and fish their own boats. Take Homer Stevens for example.

Everybody knew who Homer was, recalls Bruce Stevens. It opened some doors and closed others. He was a communist and you had to deal with that to some degree. But everything was up front with Homer. What you saw was what you got.

He refused to play down his Communist affiliations, indeed, was proud of them and ran as a Quixotic candidate—he once polled 391 votes to Progressive Conservative Tom Siddon's 29,633 in the riding of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta—in several elections. He paid a price for that honesty. When Homer served as the fishermen's delegate to the advisory committee of what's now the Pacific Salmon Commission, U.S. authorities refused to allow him to cross the border and the commission was asked to hold its future meetings in Canada.

In 1967, during a labour dispute in Prince Rupert, Stevens was prosecuted for criminal contempt of court for refusing to order shoreworkers to unload fish during a strike, as directed by a B.C. Supreme Court injunction.

Instead of following the court's orders, Stevens and UFAWU secretary Steve Stavenes polled union members in a secret ballot, which the court said amounted to gross criminal contempt. The two labour leaders were sentenced to a year in prison and the union was fined $25,000. Union members responded by re-electing both men by acclamation while they were still in jail.

Stevens stepped down as president of the UFAWU in 1977 and, at an age when many people would be thinking of retirement, returned to fishing aboard his gillnetter, the Emma S, named for the beloved Cowichan grandmother who taught him how to spear fish from a dugout canoe and to put up clams.

In any case the problem as I see it with any democratic system of government be it capitalism, communism, environmentalism or any other ism is that no one has come up with an effective means of checking the ability of people and institutions of power and wealth to bend the system to their advantage. I think this fundamental incapacity is so fatal that it will probably prove to be our species Achilles's Heel.

[Moonlight Graham]

I have a problem with the word, "democracy", as this is so inappropriately used and abused. "Communism" -- from the word, "community"-- was and is presumed by the people of those countries that aim for this ideal as "democratic". And they actually have more justice for it considering the involvement that is required of the people. Our "democracy" is only a "representative" type and only upon one day every so many years are we allowed to have any actual power.

This is a good point, possibly a flaw in my OP for this thread. I suppose I'm talking about "representative democracies" and not "democracy" and the entirety of its different possible variants.

[-1=e^ipi]

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

Only those that have been tried.

What issues do you have with technocracy? Possibility of corruption?