Either way, the actual mechanism by which politicians are given the authority to carry out their policies is not the same as the mechanism they use to determine which policies might attract such mandate. Effecting change on some issue requires action on the latter. So I think when discussing methods for addressing racism its just a false dichotomy from the outset to frame it as elections vs protests, they're not the same kind of thing. — Isaac
So no, I don't believe that representative politics has a terrible track record. — ssu
Today Governor Cuomo signed police reform measures into law. One of the reforms I've flagged as long overdue (at least since 2014) included on my list (B)https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52981634 A politricksters' "Police Fix"? (w.t.f.) C'mon, sheeple.
Only two (4 & 7) make my list. — 180 Proof
One down, four to go.One measure grants the state attorney general’s office the ability to investigate and potentially prosecute incidents when a person dies in custody or after an encounter with a police officer. — NY Daily News, June 12, 2020
Ok. First you shouldn't be so self centered and fixated just on the US. It's beneficial to look at the issue from a wider perspective to notice similarities and differences.The question I'm interested in is: does representative democracy in the US actually represent the interests of its populace on issues related to systemic racism? — fdrake
Because when you say that "elections don't matter" and representative democracy doesn't do anything at systemic racism, the fact is that you aren't looking at countries were that representative democracy works at least SO MUCH that the majority of the people actually are satisfied with it.What do you think I'm missing by focussing too much on the US when talking about 100 years of failure of democracy to represent a good chunk of the US populace? — fdrake
Which is? — Isaac
Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac
The argument I'm having with ssu (on my end at least) is regarding the historical failure of representative politics - the changing whims of the state - to make US POCs equal, except when their hands are forced or leveraged by popular movement. — fdrake
Elections are a safety valve by which we can change ruinous administrations to others and a way to show that those in power do enjoy support of the majority. If the elections are just an theatrical show, naturally democracy doesn't work. But it can work. Quite surprising to have to say such basics. Just saying. — ssu
Better that reflection than no reflection. If power only changes by violence, in that society everything surely isn't well.You're missing my point. The election (the actual act) is trivial because it does nothing but reflect public opinion (in a perfect democracy) about who should represent us. — Isaac
And that's why democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agenda to a party that drives these agenda forward. Yet how in the US could even theoretically just two parties, one right-wing (and nowdays populist) and a central left leaning party truly do this? They can't. But what they can do is to divide the people as a way for self preservation. If the voters are deeply divided and tribalistic, they simply won't behave so as above. In their hatred or fear of the other side, they will be totally OK with the "flaws" of their side. If they don't support "their cause", they will lose, so who cares about the flaws and disappointing errors. And this is why populism is bad for democracy.but it's the mass of people wanting change which brings about the change, not the election itself. — Isaac
In elections political parties make campaign promises and it's up to the voters activity to check if the parties do hold these promises. The interaction with the political establishment and their voting community is absolutely crucial here.As a means of creating that change, elections are close to useless. — Isaac
This is quite incredible and actually very sad to hear. What on Earth do you think election Campaigns are about? Oh yeah, getting that "Gotcha"-moment from your opponent, making headlines with either a smart or outrageous comments. Which candidate looks good. As if things like the political agenda of the campaign doesn't matter. Who the f*k cares about policy, it's boring!Protests seek to change public opinion, elections seek to record public opinion. Two different things. If all we did was record public opinion, nothing would ever change. — Isaac
The argument I'm having with ssu (on my end at least) is regarding the historical failure of representative politics — fdrake
That makes sense, so you're not really comparing methods of moving public opinion so much as saying that simply having a representative democracy hasn't historically been enough? — Isaac
Why do you think that is? Is it entirely down to political gamesmanship (gerrymandering, vote rigging, electoral colleges...) or do you accept a certain extent to which reflecting public opinion isn't enough, that sometimes public opinion as it stands would not deliver satisfactory results either, there's a need to shift it? — Isaac
Better that reflection than no reflection. If power only changes by violence, in that society everything surely isn't well. — ssu
democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agenda — ssu
What on Earth do you think election Campaigns are about? — ssu
To that extent, elections do not implement public opinion, for which a more interactive mode of democracy, well within our technical capability, would be neccesary. — Kenosha Kid
I'm unsure whether representative democracy as a social model is itself to blame. I think that our current forms of it in the political north are prone to co-option by wealthy private interests. It also looks to me that states are on a much more level playing field with corporations in terms of political power, and we often forget this. Corps are beholden to their shareholders, corps are at least as influential between states as states, and more influential within states than their populace. — fdrake
There should be vents for public opinion that are more easily leveraged into policy than the current blockade between public opinion and policy execution most of us live in.
Our political classes only consult public opinion to the extent it allows them to manage it. And let's be under no illusions here; the corpus of political influence that drives our states' policy advocacy does not come from anything to do with the majority of its people, — fdrake
Whenever those small concessions can be scapegoats, so much the easier; "clap for the NHS" - fund them better, etc. — fdrake
I don't believe a representative democracy will represent any populace adequately when the interests of wealthy international actors are given much more weight by a state than their populace's own interest, or of the interests of humanity as a collective. — fdrake
Do you think elections ought to implement public opinion? I'm not sure they should. Is there no extent to which we'd prefer to be lead by people who take decisions for us, rather than ask us at every turn? — Isaac
Campaigns usually ought to give more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. That is the power of organized movement than a demonstration: if you take large protest the consensus is about that something is wrong. If you start asking what actually people want and what policies would work, you don't have instant consensus.How do election campaigns differ from protests? — Isaac
Right on! If there's NOBODY ELSE than conservatives, what fhe f* is your problem?Let's say you have a 100% committed Conservative population. You could have an election every day, nothing at all would change because the population is still 100% Conservative and so will vote in the same people. — Isaac
democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agend — ssu
If we don't have such a populace, how do we go about getting one? — Isaac
And there should be enough competition in the political sphere that if the ruling parties themselves don't notice that the people are unhappy about something, then another political party would milk that dissatisfaction and make start advance the issues. There's something wrong in a political system where a lot of people are dissatisfied with something and there's absolutely no response from any political party or actor.Democracy isn't just orientated around the election day, you can demand for an elected government to start doing a better job on an issue and make it clear that things aren't good enough. — Judaka
Campaigns usually ought to be more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. — ssu
Right on! If there's NOBODY ELSE than conservatives, what fhe f* is your problem? — ssu
just give somebody dictatorial powers and he will solve it. It never happens like that, it never has. — ssu
And I've stated right from start that with mere elections you don't have a functioning representative democracy. Stalin's Soviet Union had elections too.I'm demonstrating how the mere existence of elections do not bring about change. — Isaac
Has it absolutely?Notwithstanding that, it absolutely is the case that force has been necessary to bring about positive change. — Isaac
If that would be true, I guess those people in that country had it coming and deserve their misery. If you Isaac are right yet all of your companion citizens are wrong and total asses, well, tough luck for you.What you're missing is that sometimes the majority are wrong. In such circumstances, elections (even when completely fair) will just reflect this wrongness. What do we then do about that? — Isaac
A representative democracy is much more than just elections. I think this is basically clear to everyone. — ssu
As if elections don't matter. — ssu
Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac
Elections are a safety valve by which we can change ruinous administrations — ssu
Yet I personally don't believe that anytime the majority is "simply wrong". That view is extremely arrogant and shows the utter hubris of the person saying it. If people are conservative, old-fashioned or even superstitious and reject something that will only later become accepted, I wouldn't judge them to be "wrong" and thus voting "wrongly" — ssu
Wrong.At no point up until your most recent posts did you even mention election campaigns. Which are not the same thing as elections. I — Isaac
Campaigns usually ought to be more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. That is the power of organized movement than a demonstration: if you take large protest the consensus is about that something is wrong. If you start asking what actually people want and what policies would work, you don't have instant consensus. — ssu
In elections political parties make campaign promises and it's up to the voters activity to check if the parties do hold these promises. The interaction with the political establishment and their voting community is absolutely crucial here. — ssu
Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac
So a guy can have his business burn3ed to the ground and you dont care about him either. He didnt do anything to deserve this. Why should anyone take your views seriously when you are so obviously hupocritical? Its almost ridiculous it even has to be stated. — ernestm
Wrong.
On an earlier comment before my last one:... And even before that: — ssu
it's YOU who is forgetting that democracy isn't just elections and campaigns and basic political activity of the populace is an adamant requirement for there to be true democracy. — ssu
Which according to you are utterly trivial.. Elections are a single event within a democracy. — Isaac
That's not what you said earlier, if I've read your posts well. At least now you say that. If you say something is "utterly trivial", sorry for understanding that you mean something is utterly trivial. And on the other hand, then you say...That is not equivalent to a claim that elections are trivial in any context, or that the whole democratic system is entirely pointless — Isaac
So if candidates promise police reform that is utterly trivial?. The actual election is irrelevant to the question at hand, it's plays a trivial part in the question at hand. — Isaac
That's not what you said earlier, if I've read your posts well. — ssu
So if candidates promise police reform that is utterly trivial? — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.