Is this undemocratic? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Democracy is government by the governed. There are lots of different ways this can be configured and still fall within the meaning of the word.

there is a written constitution, that takes precedence over the laws that can be created by the people's representatives — Down The Rabbit Hole

No. A law is good until and unless successfully challenged in the courts. If the people want a law contra the constitution, they can start the process to amend the constitution. Not easy but doable, as prohibition and the subsequent repeal of prohibition demonstrate.

Is this undemocratic? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Of course. But what country were you supposing is a democracy?

Democracy is government by the governed. There are lots of different ways this can be configured and still fall within the meaning of the word. — T Clark

Yes, I didn't mean completely undemocratic. Clearly the people's will is restricted by a constitution.

Clearly the people's will is restricted by a constitution. — Down The Rabbit Hole

No. The Constitution is the people's will. It may constrain and restrict some people. But the people can change it, although not easily.

No. The Constitution is the people's will. It may constrain and restrict some people. But the people can change it, although not easily. — tim wood

I doesn't seem right to call it the people's will when the people can rarely control it.

Of course. But what country were you supposing is a democracy? — tim wood

Direct democracy would be as pure as you could get, but failing this a parliament where your elected representatives can act on the people's behalf, without restriction.

No. A law is good until and unless successfully challenged in the courts. If the people want a law contra the constitution, they can start the process to amend the constitution. Not easy but doable, as prohibition and the subsequent repeal of prohibition demonstrate. — tim wood

Interesting. So would people be expected to follow the law even if it violated constitutional rights? And would they be protected from being liable for damages as a result?

Direct democracy would be as pure as you could get, — Down The Rabbit Hole

Direct democracy would be a disaster. In New England we have a tradition of Town Meetings, which act as the legislature for towns. They meet once or twice a year. It's a very clunky system, although it works ok on a small scale. Are you suggesting that people would vote on federal and state legislation from their homes? Or are you only talking about the presidential elections?

Good government requires quite a bit of friction to slow things down. In the US, that has gotten out of hand, but the principle is sound. The direct democracy option would just move the chaos that's found on the internet even deeper into our political system.

Interesting. So would people be expected to follow the law even if it violated constitutional rights? And would they be protected from being liable for damages as a result? — Down The Rabbit Hole

The race and abortion issues in the US are a pocket history of this process. Conservative states for decades have been passing laws on race, voting, and restricting abortion struck down as unconstitutional. Trouble is, in most cases you first need someone to break the law, they convicted, and then up through the federal appeals courts. And yes, people are expected to obey the law, subject to usual penalties, because it is the law until thrown out.

Jurgen Habermas views constitutions as transformational documents aimed at addressing and redressing the most significant defects and deficiencies in the society that frames it. So constitutions can also be seen as the foundation and basis of laws. Constitutions are one way that democracy evolves under certain circumstances.....

Direct democracy would be a disaster. In New England we have a tradition of Town Meetings, which act as the legislature for towns. They meet once or twice a year. It's a very clunky system, although it works ok on a small scale. Are you suggesting that people would vote on federal and state legislation from their homes? Or are you only talking about the presidential elections?

Good government requires quite a bit of friction to slow things down. In the US, that has gotten out of hand, but the principle is sound. The direct democracy option would just move the chaos that's found on the internet even deeper into our political system. — T Clark

I had directly voting for legislation in mind, but directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes?

I don't know anything about election of lawmakers on the other side of the pond, but here in the UK we risk wasting our vote on our party of choice when our vote has much more power when made for the main parties, due to the First Past The Post system. Whereas in a Proportional Representation system all votes would have equal power.

The primary argument against direct democracy in the creation of law is that the law would be changing with the wind, and this would be unsustainable. I'm sure this could be fixed by, for example, limiting the amount of times a question is directly put to the electorate. Anyway, I'm not opposed to giving up some democracy in the interests of a system that works smoothly or protection for minorities.

The race and abortion issues in the US are a pocket history of this process. Conservative states for decades have been passing laws on race, voting, and restricting abortion struck down as unconstitutional. Trouble is, in most cases you first need someone to break the law, they convicted, and then up through the federal appeals courts. And yes, people are expected to obey the law, subject to usual penalties, because it is the law until thrown out. — tim wood

It was only the other day I heard about the Texas Heartbeat Act. Looks like legal challenges are pending, but apparently the Supreme Court is more pro-life following Trump becoming president.

What is wrong in having safety valves?

Having things to be little harder to change than just getting a simply majority (50%) is a good thing. Having written constitutions are good, but then again if you have a solid institutions in your democracy, it isn't so crucial.

On the other hand, you can have the all the legal trappings of a democracy, a Constitution, elections and a legal system, but if they aren't upheld, nothing matters.

Take the example of Liberia. It declared it's independence in 1847 and had basically 1-to-1 the Constitution of the US. But in reality power was with the small minority of those who were descendants of those freed slaves. And the democracy in the country was questionable. Then just one day in 1980 seventeen non-commissioned officers lead by a sergeant major walked to the Presidential Residence and shot the President and took power. Then he later staged fraudulent elections and was for ten years a dictator, which afterward lead to one of the nastiest civil wars Africa has seen with things like cannibalism and roaming child soldiers and overall anarchy.

Yes, a constitution is undemocratic. It is not written "by the people".

It is necessary, because as history has proven, it is entirely possible for majorities to democratically come to actions which are contrary to what we have come to see as unalienable human rights.

The minority must have some protection from "the tyranny of the majority", especially when that majority behaves in malevolent ways. Never forget that the national-socialist party in 1930's Germany was democratically elected.

Methinks democracy, the one with fixed terms in power, is simply micro-tyranny, micro-tryanny being short-lived despotism (à la Trumpism). The constitution then is a document whose sole purpose is to reduce the length of time a dictator calls the shots, rules the roost.

It's kinda like firewalking. Minimize the duration of contact to a few brief seconds and you emerge safely on the other side (democracy) but stay in contact with the flames for more than that and you get 3rd degree burns (totalitarianism).

A written constitution vs an unwritten constitution. What's difference between a rule book that can be amended as when it's appropriate and no rule book at all. None!

I agree. The UK government's new police bill would make protest that causes "serious annoyance" illegal. I'm sure the US First Amendment wouldn't stand for that.

I had directly voting for legislation in mind, — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, that would be a disaster. How would laws be developed? Who would write them? Initiative petition or referendum? If it was run like Massachusetts, a petition by fewer than 3 million people would put a law on the ballot. What about all the daily, tedious, keep the machinery running laws? Who would deal with those? Bad, bad, bad idea.

directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes? — Down The Rabbit Hole

That doesn't make it undemocratic, no matter what the Democratic cry babies would have you believe. I'm a registered Democrat by the way. Democracy doesn't have to be perfect majority rules. The electoral college is a clunky piece of machinery. I'm on the fence whether it should be abandoned or not. One thing it would do, for better or worse, is force almost all campaigning into just a few states. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not.

The primary argument against direct democracy in the creation of law is that the law would be changing with the wind, and this would be unsustainable. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, it would be.

I'm not opposed to giving up some democracy in the interests of a system that works smoothly or protection for minorities. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, a system that is not pure majority rule is not necessarily undemocratic. If you think majority rule will help protect minorities, you are way off. We could outlaw Islam with nothing to stop us. Did I mention it was a bad, bad, bad idea.

But what country were you supposing is a democracy? — tim wood

Exactly! Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens)). Whether or not a country has a "written constitution" isn't determinative either way (e.g. Russia has a "written constitution", Israel, like Britain, operates with an "unwritten constitution" – both claim to be democratic). Scandanavian / Nordic countries seem to come closest to substantive democracies, but maybe that's only the "grass is greener" effect. Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic.


When asked what kind of national government was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin replied "A republic, if you can keep it." Consensus among legal historians and political scientists is that the USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens))....Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic. — 180 Proof

Procedural v. substantive is imo well considered. I think on closer look it changes from an either-or to a matter of degree, and that not-so-simple. I think the US has shown that it can be a substantive democracy in your sense (as I understand it), a number of amendments as examples.

At the same time I suspect you're correct as to now. The coming abortion cases bellwether or tocsin. I like to think that much of the Red in the US is surface only and true-blue bedrock underneath - I like to think.

:up:

Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's not just the Bill of Rights that limits the power of the majority, but it's the entire structure of the document itself, particularly with the upper and lower houses, the division of votes by state and district, the executive powers and limitations, and the role of the courts. The document is designed to limit government power generally, which is why traditionalists typically argue ideologically in favor of limited government in all regard.

The US system does place ultimate authority in the voter, so that does make it democratic, but the control of the masses is fairly tight.

I had directly voting for legislation in mind — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, that would be a disaster. How would laws be developed? Who would write them? Initiative petition or referendum? If it was run like Massachusetts, a petition by fewer than 3 million people would put a law on the ballot. What about all the daily, tedious, keep the machinery running laws? Who would deal with those? Bad, bad, bad idea. — T Clark

The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically. The same question is not to be put before the electorate again within x years unless the legislature votes that it should be, or in the alternative upon a supermajority of the electorate.

directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes? — Down The Rabbit Hole

That doesn't make it undemocratic, no matter what the Democratic cry babies would have you believe. I'm a registered Democrat by the way. Democracy doesn't have to be perfect majority rules. The electoral college is a clunky piece of machinery. I'm on the fence whether it should be abandoned or not. One thing it would do, for better or worse, is force almost all campaigning into just a few states. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not. — T Clark

Whether there is good reason to have the electoral college voting system is another question. It is clearly undemocratic to appoint a president when the majority voted for his opponent.

Again, a system that is not pure majority rule is not necessarily undemocratic. If you think majority rule will help protect minorities, you are way off. We could outlaw Islam with nothing to stop us. Did I mention it was a bad, bad, bad idea. — T Clark

It's a matter of degree of democracy. The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. However, I'm no cheerleader for democracy. I think it is detrimental to the rights of minorities, and the US constitution helps protect these minority rights from the mob.

Yes, another question, apart from the sustainability of direct democracy, is if the people would make better laws than those they elect. It may be that the people, voting anonymously and without accountability, would be more likely to make risky, dangerous and vicious decisions.

Exactly! Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens)). Whether or not a country has a "written constitution" isn't determinative either way (e.g. Russia has a "written constitution", Israel, like Britain, operates with an "unwritten constitution" – both claim to be democratic). Scandanavian / Nordic countries seem to come closest to substantive democracies, but maybe that's only the "grass is greener" effect. Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic. — 180 Proof

If we forget about the fact that the monarch has to sign off for a bill to become a law (called Royal Assent) :grimace: the UK parliament is supreme. "Parliament is supreme" is a common phrase in legal books and judgements, and law passed in parliament takes precedence over judgments of the courts, and the wishes of the government.

When asked what kind of national government was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin replied "A republic, if you can keep it." Consensus among legal historians and political scientists is that the USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. — 180 Proof

I've tried to stay away from US politics as I have enough trouble staying up to date on UK politics, but it's too interesting (and entertaining too). Maybe there is some "grass is greener" effect, but I do wish we had a US style constitution to protect our minorities.

-"Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular? "
-No, if we mean the same thing with the word democracy.
A constitution is "a set of rules" that protect peoples rights. Democracy is essentially a right which is "protected" by the constitution....but ignored by the undemocratic political systems.

Laws are our primitive made up solution to deal with problems(created by older "solutions") that we don't currently have a technological solution.

Laws are our primitive made up solution to deal with problems(created by older "solutions") that we don't currently have a technological solution. — Nickolasgaspar

Would you care to make sense of this? Because as it is, I cannot find any.

The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically. The same question is not to be put before the electorate again within x years unless the legislature votes that it should be, or in the alternative upon a supermajority of the electorate. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I say it would be a disaster. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

Whether there is good reason to have the electoral college voting system is another question. It is clearly undemocratic to appoint a president when the majority voted for his opponent. — Down The Rabbit Hole

As I noted, that fact that a system is not strictly majority rule does not mean it is not democratic.

The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I disagree.

I'm no cheerleader for democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am.

parliament — Down The Rabbit Hole

Senate in USA.

These bodies seem to be relics of the past. Back when democracy was born (508 BC, Cleisthenes) the population of Athens was small, plus only a certain section of the citizenry were enfranchised. In a sense every person had a say in government.

When democracy returned to the political scene - after our experiment with monarchy apparently failed - there were just too many people and to get every person involved in all decisions of a country was nigh impossible. Hence, parliaments and senates were created (representative/indirect democracy) to overcome that obstacle to rule by the people - a one time general election was affordable & doable but putting all national issues to vote by all the people, referendum-like, was not.

Much has changed since then. This is the electronic age, everyone has a cellphone these days. We need to return to the original, direct democracy. It's feasible now - I've seen people vote for their favorite American Idol using nothing but their cellphone's messaging app. Indirect/representative democracy's days are over, it was simply an interim measure that had to be adopted because of practical limitations (no easy way all the people could vote on issues back before we had cellphones).

Who does a constitution serve? The people - protects their freedom and enables their pursuit of happiness. Once direct democracy is reestablished. the constitution becomes more of burden - extra time & energy will be needed for the steps a country has to make/take in order for their votes to do what they're supposed to do viz. steer the nation towards the achievement of wholesome goals.

Sure. Laws are "rules" designed to inform people of "unaccepted" behavior and communicate the implications for those who "decide" to ignore them.
So in every aspect of our lives we have rules that we need to follow (either in the form of laws, policies or directions).
Now if we look how private sectors work we see that companies "force" specific rules and limit the fluctuations in human behavior by technology.
i.e. In Airline industry we have been reducing the rules people need to "obey" by removing the "freedom" to cut corners or make an honest mistake. We do that by installing
In Northern Europe's countries our "technologies" in social organization have been reducing unwanted behavior (steeling, scamming etc) for years!
Our "rules" ask people to be polite enough to follow them. Those in distress or speculators or powerful enough will always ignore in the absence of a technological "guard".

-"The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically."
-Politics is a 2300 years old philosophical solution that we insist on using to address advanced problems of modern societies. Its like having dentists still using chisels and hammers...
Social organization of populations and their economies are Technical problems and they need technical solutions...not "philosophical".
In order to design those technical solutions we first need to understand the real problems set clear goals , record and manage our resources and more crucially understanding human behavior and psychology.
The execution of this task is NOT a Philosophical affair but a Scientific one!
ITs sad to see people unable to grasp this dissonance in our modern societies.
We use science to solve every single problem...but for a weird reason....philosophy is the tool for organizing complex organisms in an fluctuating open economical system (our environment)????
Einstein said something on stupidity and repeatability....

-"When democracy returned to the political scene - after our experiment with monarchy apparently failed - there were just too many people and to get every person involved in all decisions of a country was nigh impossible. "
-You are partly right. First of all democracy never returned after the fall of Athens city state. Electing representatives is not what democracy was or what it represents. Secondly monarchy came before democracy and BOTH FAILED.
But you are right we are to many people(and ignorant) for a democratic system to be applied and to function.
My objection is why are we so in to democracy when our most successful tool to solve problems (science) is far from a democratic process! We don't allow people without objective evidence to have a "word" in our epistemology.
So we don't really need democracy or any other political(or economical system) to solve the problems in organizing functioning societies!
We only need Philosophy (Ethics) to define the goals a human society should serve (constitution) and scientific type of methodologies to design our solutions!
A scientific "dictatorship" should be all we need AS LONG as our "constitution" is based on moral foundations serving current and future human populations!
That is not difficult...I think the American constitution is almost there!
With a scientific "dictatorship" we will remove fallible,corruptible and biased humans from decision making positions and we will leave the data (like in science) to point to the best available solution based on our current facts and strive systematically and objectively towards those goals.

Again I find it silly to see people trapped in a "philosophical box" of politics and economics and not figuring out why those "tools" don't work. Those are 2000 years old tools designed on Philosophical ideologies...not Solutions designed on true knowledge and they are not applied in their full potential due to personal interests(politics).
Humanity's problems are Technical....not philosophical.
We know what we have to provide to a population in order to affect their behavior for the better and what do for not destroying the ecosystem and depleting our resources.
Human behavior is affected by its environment. Change the environment and you change behavior. Change the environment in a way that promotes positive behavior and you don't need "philosophical" excuses on why capitalism or communism or socialism or democracy are "good for us" while some people are victims of the systems and other more lucky become victims of the former's revengeful behavior.