Occupy Wall Street Movement

[Thorne]

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

Personally, I think the world would be better off if we didn't need governments. But given human nature I know that's a pipe dream. But rule by mob isn't much better than anarchy.

[js207]

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

No, I was just pointing out that your hypothetical situation has already happened on multiple occasions (only with smaller minorities than 45%) with the current indirect democracy, making it a fatally flawed argument against switching to a more direct form. Yes, in theory it might well to share this flaw with the current system ... so what? That doesn't make it any worse.

[Thorne]

That doesn't make it any worse.

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

[js207]

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

It would be better for everyone else, though - which is generally what we should aim for. Better that than the status quo, where they arrange things for their own benefit at our expense - ObamaCare exemption, generous salaries and other benefits of the job...

Term limits would be a big help I think - or actually, a slight modification of the Russian term limit on Presidents: require everyone running for office to be out of public office for the preceding term. No incumbents, they never get too comfortable living on the public purse - so every Senator would have spent at least six of the last twelve years living as a regular member of the public, dealing with the IRS, TSA and all the other fun things just like everyone else.

That said, I haven't seen any ways direct democracy would be any worse: it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

[Thorne]

it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

[js207]

Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

Yes, those elections tend to select for popularity rather than merit - another flaw of the system you're defending/advocating, as it happens...

Of course not everyone thinks it through fully before voting - just look at the catastrophic debt burden of the last few years for proof! I suspect voting on issues rather than candidates would improve that a little, though: easy to vote for party X without thinking, or the candidate with the bigger grin, but yes or no on prop 123?

[Thorne]

easy to vote for party X without thinking, or the candidate with the bigger grin, but yes or no on prop 123?

Don't you think that most people would simply accept the rantings of the few people who have done the research, and are mouthing off, either for or against, on ridiculous grounds rather than rational thought? How many people will still rattle off lies (about Obama's birth certificate, about gay marriage, about abortion, about almost any hot topic) despite those lies having been debunked over and over and over again? Instead of learning for themselves, they latch onto a mouthpiece (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Riley, Al Gore) and spout the same, stupid, misleading garbage.