00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

wyattemy just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Solving the democratic crisis

718 Views | 9 Replies

Solving the democratic crisis 2015-04-21 19:31:45


First, a summary of the current problems plaguing the political system (in western, liberal democracies in particular. Any semblance to other countries is purely coincidental).

An unprecedented distrust of politicians and the political system

People across western democracies have been showing decreased levels of confidence in politicians for the last several years, and the number of voices criticizing the current system vastly outnumbers those who show genuine confidence in democracy as a good, viable government of the people rather than as the lesser evil.
Why is this? Is it because of the increased distance between citizens and politicians (see below for further elaboration)? Is the current generation expecting too much/too little from the politicians? Are people just complaining for the sake of complaining? Something else?

A career in politics is increasingly seen as unappealing/a means to an end/a poor way to change your country

Where politics previously had the image of something you entered because you wanted to change your country for the better, now a politician is largely thought of as a career choice or something to be for its own sake.
Is the problem due to the creation of a "new nobility" in the political caste? Is it due to politicians preserving the status quo to keep their seats? What else?

"The working man" is increasingly feeling forgotten by the politicians
What are the results? Do western democracies lose legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens as a result? Could it be solved by somehow increasing the amount of "regular" candidates/increasing the coverage of "regular" candidates? What are the possible alternatives to the current system (insofar as the desired result is more representation of or concern for "the working man")? Anything else?

Just throwing it out there.
Feel free to answer the questions, dispute the statements or discuss as desired.


If one more person tells me China owns the US I swear I'll...

BBS Signature

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-04-21 20:51:39


To many people do not have the time, finances, willingness, aptitude and prerequisite knowlage to make informed and proper political choices and opinions. Its not a cut and dry "oh well it only takes a couple hrs research to become an informed citizen".


BBS Signature

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-04-22 16:38:56


At 4/21/15 07:31 PM, Huddud wrote: First, a summary of the current problems plaguing the political system (in western, liberal democracies in particular. Any semblance to other countries is purely coincidental).

An unprecedented distrust of politicians and the political system

People across western democracies have been showing decreased levels of confidence in politicians for the last several years, and the number of voices criticizing the current system vastly outnumbers those who show genuine confidence in democracy as a good, viable government of the people rather than as the lesser evil.
Why is this? Is it because of the increased distance between citizens and politicians (see below for further elaboration)? Is the current generation expecting too much/too little from the politicians? Are people just complaining for the sake of complaining? Something else?

I wouldn't say it's because of distance. Many of the Eastern European countries that joined the EU joined partly for the opportunity to be a part of EU institutions because they were seen as less corrupt and more professional than their own. In places like Greece or Bulgaria they're probably right.

The issue is more effect, depending on the country change is either really fast or really slow. In the US change is really slow, there are very few cases where someone comes into office and changes everything really fast. Even when a President had control of both Houses there were times where people urged him to use executive orders to execute policy simply because that would be faster. Now imagine a President having control of only one or neither houses? Policy would just go to a standstill. On top of this the power of the judicial system allows people to make legislative change through lawsuits (this is part of the reason the GOP butchered the Public Defense system in the 90's, can't have poor people having their voice heard). On top of this so much power is delegated to the bureaucracy that alot of change can happen from unelected officials, much faster and easier than from elected ones.

Go to a country like France or Britain where public policy is much faster and centralized the issue is elsewhere, you know like the Socialist Party in France passing pro-business legislation hurting workers(how Socialist of them....) to the voting system being set up in a way in the UK so that parties which should have more seats don't get them (like the LIberal Democrats or UKIP). On top of this

A career in politics is increasingly seen as unappealing/a means to an end/a poor way to change your country

Where politics previously had the image of something you entered because you wanted to change your country for the better, now a politician is largely thought of as a career choice or something to be for its own sake.

I'm sort of confused by this. Hasn't politics always been a career choice and wanting to change your country? I can't think of any time that it was not.

Is the problem due to the creation of a "new nobility" in the political caste? Is it due to politicians preserving the status quo to keep their seats? What else?

There has always been a political elite, well everywhere, which dominates politics. It's not anything new.

"The working man" is increasingly feeling forgotten by the politicians
What are the results? Do western democracies lose legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens as a result? Could it be solved by somehow increasing the amount of "regular" candidates/increasing the coverage of "regular" candidates? What are the possible alternatives to the current system (insofar as the desired result is more representation of or concern for "the working man")? Anything else?

I think what it is is that labor issues have largely been thrown aside from the focus of politics. Part of this has been that Labor Unions have been less supportive of Left Wing politics and many of its members are socially conservative, so the traditional groups which support them aren't as strongly behind them because of their attitude towards minorities and women and because Labor Unions have declined in membership.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.

" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-04-24 15:40:14


We could try alternative forms of democracy.

Most countries including USA use First Past The Post which is clearly no longer working. Here are some alternatives.

STV, Alternative Vote, Mixed-Member Proportional

Here are videos explaining how they work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac9070OIMUg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-04-24 16:50:48


I suppose if you do not care about freedom or liberty then we could ditch democracy and replace it with something more stable. Indeed if you look at the way people vote then you can see that most people view safety a lot higher then freedom. The real problem I see is secession. What do you do when your countries leaders retire or die. With hereditary rule the power is transferred to the child of the previous ruler. The problem with this is that you are doomed to eventually get a spoiled pompous idiot in charge that messes everything up with disastrous results. With democracy most voters vote on stupid pointless issues like what the candidate looks like or what religion the candidate follows. Which should not be a surprise because the average voter basis their vote on stupid reasoning, we get stupid incompetent leaders ruling us.

So here is what I propose. We have a system that decides who its new leaders are going to be by a series of competitions. The competitors will compete in a series of mental games. The losers of each round are disqualified from gaining the government position. You repeat this process until there are only two candidates left. The winner of this final round gets the government position. With this process you eliminate all the stupid people and allow only intelligent, brilliant minded individuals to take power.

This system has less freedom but as I already pointed out the average person cares more about safety and stability then freedom and liberty.

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-05-06 10:26:01


At 4/29/15 01:37 PM, Skaren wrote: /Thread

There are a lot of problems with this "The End of History and the Last Man".

First off, he refers to evolution as being one directional as if it has a end goal which it doesn't.

Second, I am not impressed with that chart that showed a incline of democratic forms of government from 1972 to 2005. Countries come and go and every once in while you get a sudden burst of a particular form of government. That's all this chart indicates. Take the time between 1930 and 1960. You see a rapid increase of Communist countries. Using your logic, at the time one could claim that Communism was destined to rule the world. As we now know that is not how it turned out. Most of those countries ended up failing. The Chart is also misleading for it includes countries with little to no power for their elected form of government. Like Iran, Its elected government can be overrode at any time by their religious leader.

Third there are many examples of democracy not working out. Such as in Rwanda or more recently all those revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa.

Forth, he says that while a democratic government may fail, it always comes back to becoming a democracy eventually even if it takes centuries to happen, however this too is a false premise. One could easily say the same thing the other way around. That a country may become a democracy and it may take centuries to happen but eventually it will become more tyrannical due to people wanting more protection from their government, such as what happened with the Weimar Republic. In the end this is way over simplifying the world we live in.

Finally, he tries to compare democracy and freedom as being the same thing but there are plenty of cases of democracy being tyrannical such as in Rwanda.

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-05-06 12:10:47


At 4/21/15 08:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: To many people do not have the time, finances, willingness, aptitude and prerequisite knowlage to make informed and proper political choices and opinions. Its not a cut and dry "oh well it only takes a couple hrs research to become an informed citizen".

If you're going to talk about how so many people are not smart enough to make informed decisions, please at least use proper grammar and spelling.

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-05-06 17:10:23


At 5/6/15 12:15 PM, Skaren wrote:
At 5/6/15 10:26 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:
At 4/29/15 01:37 PM, Skaren wrote: /Thread
There are a lot of problems with this "The End of History and the Last Man".
I don't think that my curt summary of the entirety of another person's argument was meant to be taken as a legitimate demonstration of my personal views/beliefs.

In that case you need to make it clear what your reason for making that link is. If you link something and do not comment on it people will naturally assume that you support this position. When I said "he" I was referring to the author Francis Fukuyama but since you brought it up why don't you tell us what your views/beliefs are on this.

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-05-08 14:18:24


At 5/6/15 06:12 PM, Skaren wrote:
At 5/6/15 05:10 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: In that case you need to make it clear what your reason for making that link is. If you link something and do not comment on it people will naturally assume that you support this position. When I said "he" I
Man,

you are just a ball of anxiety,

please stop,

thanks.

No, not until you answer the fucking question. What are your views/beliefs on this?

Honestly I think the real reason you wont answer is because you really DO believe and agree with what "The End of History and the Last Man" story says. However since I exposed just how incredibly weak the arguments were your now trying back away from it. That's why you keep deflecting the question with retarded statements like "you are just a ball of anxiety."

Response to Solving the democratic crisis 2015-05-08 14:57:34


At 5/6/15 07:11 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: You made my evening a little less crappy with that. There are so many times I have wanted to say that to people, but the response is usually the same: more anxiety. "Oh do you want to know WHY I'm the way I am??"

Yes, questioning something you said, disagreeing with you and any debate on this forum means there's something wrong with someone. A sane person would just what, post like they post in general?

At 5/8/15 02:52 PM, Skaren wrote: Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

nah tho.

Do you know what anxiety means? Anxiety is fear about the future. Someone giving out interrogative statements towards you is not anxiety it's just debate or an attempt for you to clarify what you believe. But it seems you're just a troll.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.

" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature