Democracy sucks. Why?
1. Because we elect politicians rather than people who actually know what they’re doing. Our political process is designed for the smooth talker, the pretty face who can convince us that if we vote for them, our wildest dreams will come true. The leaders of our country are invariably more concerned about the next election than they are about the country.
2. Because people who are wrong can still vote. Result: W. Need I say more? I think not.
3. Because one president isn’t enough. In this age of mind-blowingly complicated economic problems, energy crises, and intricate geopolitical interactions, Obama isn’t enough. We need at the very least councils of experts (not politicians) to run different aspects of the country, with perhaps an additional executive council to coordinate them.
4. Because the Electoral College makes no sense. Why do we not have direct elections? Imagine where we would be had the Electoral College not been used to catapault W. into the White House in 2000. Again – need I say more? Nope.
What’s the solution?
I have no idea.
8 responses so far ↓
jessej07 // March 12, 2009 at 5:50 pm
While I don’t agree with some of your reasons for saying “democracy sucks” I do agree with you that it certainly does.
32B // March 12, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I love the last two points..esp #3. Surrounding yourself with experts who are knowledgable in what you aren’t is great. I can only look back and dream in reference to #4 though.
Brendan // March 12, 2009 at 10:38 pm
well, id agree “democracy sucked” if we actually had a democracy. we have a “Representative Democracy” which translates to elect you own untrustworthy bureaucrat to elect your dictator for you. so its is more of a Dictator-oligopoly.
Michael L. // March 14, 2009 at 12:20 am
We live in a Republic,, not a Democracy.
Well, you have contradicted yourself,, you say Democracy sucks,, and then you criticize the electoral college,, the one device that protects us from pure Democracy.
The reason for the electoral college is this, it forces presidential candidates to cross the country during a campaign,, instead of just a few large cities. Without the college, a candidate would only have to campaign in, say New York, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago,, because the majority of the US population lives in large cities. A few cities would have the power to shape and enslave,, the entire nation. The electoral college gives balance to the vote. It strengthens the voice of small states. It distributes the power of the vote more evenly throughout the nation,, instead of placing all that power in just a few cities with the highest populations. In a way,, it is similar to the power of given to each state through the Senate. Delaware Senators have just as much power as California Senators. Though the populations are much different, each state has only 2 Senators.
There is a reason people have flocked to this nation. it is called freedom. When there is freedom,, that means people are also free to make bad choices. Liberty means responsibility. That is why some people hate it so.
I appreciate discussion and debate. Want you to know I love a good discussion. Never afraid of differing opinions.
beyondtheflock // March 14, 2009 at 1:59 am
True. My claim was that both democracy and the electoral college are monumentally unsatisfactory. Democracy, because misinformed, ignorant people get just as much say as informed, intelligent people, and the electoral college because it skews elections. Pure democracy wouldn’t be great, but a lot better better than skewered democracy.
You claim that without the electoral college, “A few cities would have the power to shape and enslave.” As it is now, the states of Florida and Ohio essentially have the same power. I live in a staunchly red state, and as a democrat, I essentially have no say in the outcome of an election. Although I live in a major city, I can recall no visits by a major presidential candidate to my area.
More people wanted Gore to be president in the 2000 election. How is the fact of those peoples’ uneven distribution throughout the US justification for giving W. the presidency?
As to freedom… Of course. Freedom is good. No argument there. In fact, I’m not entirely sure how this relates to the argument at hand. As I said, I have no idea what the answer is here, but I agree that it certainly shouldn’t infringe on freedom.
Michael L. // March 14, 2009 at 2:50 am
My last post for the night,,, well,, I disagree with some premises. Bush won the election. It was not given to him. Al gore did win the popular vote, granted. He did not win the electoral vote. Though he tried to steal it. But, Bush did win both popular and electoral in 2004.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap2000.htm
Here is a link, may not work, might have to copy and paste,,, that shows elections of 2000 and 2004. the breakdown is by county. it gives a different perspective,, especially for 2000. Al Gore won the pop. vote,, by winning a few blue islands amid a Sea of red. All Presidents campaign for the electoral vote. If the situation had been reversed, I am sure Al Gore would not have withdrawn his win.
but,, that is another story,,, just quickly,, you seem to be indicating that only “the educated” or “informed” should be allowed to vote. That is an elitist attitude. Rich or poor, educated or not,, all have a say in government in this country. There are lots of other countries where it is not true. there was a time when only property owners or the rich,, or those of royal blood had a say. And then, of course, you can have a king or dictator. But,, that is why America was formed. to flee that kind of thing.
So it is true,, we all can run for office, we all can vote. Though the farmer or mechanic may not know a great deal as they cast their vote,,neither do a lot of college profs, rich elites and celebrity types. Just because one has a title, a degree and a mansion on a hill,, doesn’t mean they have character, compassion or know how to run a nation.
beyondtheflock // March 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Bush did indeed win the 2000 election, though as I have argued, the election system is flawed.
Bush also won the 2004 election, and although we could argue about possible fraud in Ohio, I’ll leave that issue aside.
Your map does not accurately represent the results of the election. Most of the vast swaths of red pictured are areas that have very low population densities, whereas the blue ones are heavily populated. I’d encourage you to take a look at this page. The author takes maps of election results and changes the sizes of areas of the US to represent not their geographical size but their population density. It’s pretty clear from the maps that it was a very close election, and that the large number of red counties on traditional maps is misleading.
Next, you say that I “seem to be indicating that only ‘the educated’ or ‘informed’ should be allowed to vote.” That’s not what I’m saying. Universal suffrage is essential. If anything, I’m only lamenting the fact that the vast majority of people probably aren’t thinking enough about who they’re voting for. As I said, I don’t know how to improve the current system, but setting a minimum IQ for voters probably isn’t it.
Thanks for the excellent comments.
Lord Wagner // January 18, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Monarchy for the win!
On a more serious note, pure forms of any government always suck.
In order to have a government that doesn’t suck, you need to mix a multitude of different forms of government, and balance them out as checks and balances to one another.
Consider Napoleon III’s government, where the Emperor was the executive branch, but there was still a democratically elected legislature, and a separate judiciary.
Or the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) which has 5 branches, the extra two being the Control Branch, which audits the other branches, and the Examination Branch, which ensures that all government members are qualified to do their job.