Who regrets the dismissal of democracy in front of corporatism?

[Charlls]

First of all, lets narrow what kind of people may be interested in further reading this; those that really wonder if there are alternative ways to improve the democracy content and walk around the very well known "hogs" and "bugs" that current democracies implementations suffer. If you don't consider yourself fit into this description and you dont really care about improving stuff, dont waste your precious time with this and go watch you CBS and FOX. Shoo

Random introductory toughts:

A Fair amount of fairly intelligent people (all over the world) have thought along the last 2 centuries about the optimal way for market and democracy to get along harmoniously, and how to minimize the contradictions that arise between both. In the name of that desire however, have ocurred sad implementations that solved the problem eliminating them both (we are still talking of market and democracy)

Other approaches to the problem deal with restraining some of market freedoms to ensure a partial balance between them. However market restrictions are not perfect, and they usually reflect the point of view of one of the hegemonical parties that usually keep power, more due to the lobbyist fractions that feedback to campaign money thru the media, and into the shaping and management of public opinion.

Thats how democracies work, or at least how we understand it. However this system assures that the desire and perception of change that may dwell distributed, unorganized and in latent state in the society, usually have to evolve, organize, overcome many "political correctness" and "realpölitik" filters, and finally, only if they find a feedback point in the economy (thru some campaign financing) they may have a chance to place themselves into the forces that struggle into the congress for approving bills that become law.

The root of the problem lies in the simple, plain fact that the system doesnt favour that politicians/senators/congressmans/etc think themselves as "employees of the citizens", but as "employees of the lobbists". The closed circuit lobbyists -> campaign -> media -> elections feedbacks a lot faster than the closed circuit citizens -> approval -> elections. But democracy in abstract is the second loop, otherwise is not called democracy but something else (corporatism).

Employees usually have the tangible, motivational fact that their employers have enough power to fire them if they feel their job is not fully satisfactory. That can't be put simpler

To have our politicians to think themselves more as "employees of citizens", they have to have the factual, real, tangible feeling that their jobs (hence their material priviledges) lie in the same hands that gave them their jobs, ie: those who elected them.

In fact we can say that thats exactly what happens now; the reelection happens only when a politician "did it right", and doesnt when "did it wrong". But the feedback loop takes a number of years. No puppy learns a lesson executed ten days after the stain. Ergo, doesnt help to the optimal mindset on politicians.

Lets suppose a election system that removes the notion of fixed-term massive elections, and move into the concept of a dynamical election, where people updates the state of its political preferences any time of the year. So the political support of a senator, a party, freely fluctuates over the year. Allowing it to be dynamical means that political support is not anymore a "blind snapshot" but the ability to auto-organize around alternate options, opening an interesting hole in the bipartidism hegemonical containment security structures.

The stability of a elegible charge now relies precisely on those electors that are in this moment electorally supporting him. If those electors remove him that support, moving its support for that eligible charge to another candidate, and that other candidate reaches a new simple majority, he becomes the new elected representative for that charge.

Politicians will know their job lie in their electors, so they will know to whom they must answer.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. organize

We need to stop focusing on elections, and focus on building organizations. If you are organized, you have enough clout and money to buy politicians. (In many cases they are not that expensive)

[Charlls]

2. elections are the most important thing

in principle organization alone would be ok, but the problem is that corporatism grows much faster than democracy, hence my proposal focus on dynamizing the election system to a level further

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. but this kind of voting system will never happen

There is no chance of reforming the voting system until we have a solid majority. Even when we do have a solid majority, our "leaders" aren't going to vote for anything that will undermine their own power.

The only solution that works and has been proven to work throughout history is strong, civil sector organizations. Candidate organizations don't count, groups like the AFL-CIO and the NAACP do.

The problem is there are too many "independent democrats" that don't have any political organization outside of their own circle of friends. The Democratic party used to have local organizations, but they shut those down when they didn't need them anymore.

Internet organizing like MoveOn is a step in the right direction, but we have to have the MeetUp component - when more and more Democrats and liberal meet each other face to face and correspond on a regular basis, we'll start gaining the majority back.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Tying congressional salaries to the minimum wage would be a good start

Another big change that could be made is restructuring the voting process to make voting more accessible to everybody, as opposed to just the top 25% income tier.

I realize that that would be essentially a revolution, but it would also bring the country a step closer to democracy, but it is an undeniable fact that feudalism has always been and is more profitable for the lord.

[Charlls]

4. thats a possibility; however note that im focusing on election reform

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. One thing I have noticed is that consitutional monarchies

with a Parliamnentary system seem to do better with democracy than the US.

That has an element of what you suggest, and has the added benefit of providing an outlet for nationalist passions that has less potential to harm the public good.

But once again, we both run up against the brick wall of the corporate oligarchy.

Whether implemented within the framework of fixed terms, parliamentary, or dynamic update, things like a Living Wage, a Right to Housing and Universal Health Care simply will not increase revenue to corporations in the same way that the present system does.

Should the state exist to benefit the many or the few? may seem like a no-brainer question to me or to you - the problem is, it is a no-brainer for the few, too! :)

[rucky]

20. Would that make them more corrupt ($$$)?

It doesn't take away their power to be corporate shills, nor does it remove that incentive.

The problem is that elected officials do not listen to their constituents. What if their salary is somehow determined by how many votes they recieve? Just talking out of my ass, here, of course.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. Well, it could go one of two ways. I would let Congress decide which

they would prefer, to have their own salaries cut to let's say 3 times the minimum wage, or raise the minimum wage to 33% of Congressional salaries.

And you can certainly make the argument that allowing poor people to serve in Congress would make them vulnerable to corruption, but you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the rich do not react positively to becoming richer :)

[camero]

6. 2 ideas

1. Take all money out of politics. All candidates must take public funding. All media must give free airtime for the renewal of thier licenses.

2. Use truth in advertising laws for political ads and charge politicians with fraud when they don't do what they promised. Or when their accusations against an opponent is a lie.

[Charlls]

9. why care about particular laws...

that can work better or worse against particular circumstances, why we should instead focus on driving a open electoral democracy without the abstract fixed-term constraint, which could give the political power Directly into the hands of the organized masses, ie: We The People?

[camero]

10. Because even that can be corrupted

Look what happened in California. All it takes is for one well-financed campaign against a politician to get him booted. Repubs would use this with impunity.

[Charlls]

12. that kind of media campaigns work only in a fixed-term election!

thats precisely my point, when you have media and money with you, its easy to focus it near elections, and since the election process determine WHO is in power the REST of the time, its VERY easy for economical elites to maintain power with the help of well designed campaigns


It would be a lot harder when people will have to electorally support their representatives with a vote that can be updated or withdrawed at Any Time :bounce:

[camero]

13. That's the definition of a recall

and recalls can happen any time. Better to just hold them to thier word by charging them with a crime if they don't. And when they get convicted, they cannot serve anymore. Then you have a new election.

[Charlls]

14. the recall is also a one-shot election, hence suffers the same weakness

recall is a collective election; in a continuous election you can withdraw support from a representative simply by going to electoral office and updating it, as simple as that! when a lot of people do the same, in a lapse that can take months, the political support of a representative weakens, and if those people also moved that support to its nearest competitor, then it will likely become the new representative (once its support becomes the new simple majority)

[camero]

16. Like I said, even that can be corrupted

All the politician has to do to avoid getting thrown out is a constant PR campaign through the media. Like how GW manipulates the media. I think it's just about time we held them to thier word.

How is a politician going to say he is for the people and against the oligarchy if he gets charged with a crime when he does something to support the oligarchy?

[Charlls]

19. that line would lead us to conclude that is the media who governs

and no the people. Obviously continuous elections can help people to slowly build alternate political options that are constantly visible in the public political support history.

The thing right now is, that media right now represents the Universe of the reality for a big portion of the electors, a layer that cast shadows under the real alternatives


in a continuous election system, alternatives can grow slowly and steadily, but in a visible manner

[camero]

22. That which controls popular opinion has the power

Repubs know this. That's why you are seeing the consolidation of the media.

Ok, tell me this. What happens when a RW PAC decides to "rate" a politician? To take it to it's logical conclusion, that PAC could easily get a dem thrown out of office with a well-financed media campaign.

[Charlls]

25. i know, but there are (a lot of) people as you and me,

who couldn't care a prick less about RW PAC ratings. If that wouldn't be the case, then repubs will be the rulers of the empire for the next thousand years and all that. Since that is not the case, and we know that we are a LOT (enough to make a difference), but we are unorganized and splitted in independent groups by the natural bottlenecks in communication that arise in a media-based opinion society, the ways are:


1) organize in partial groups that attack in incoherent ways parts of the problem without success

2) focus on reforming election system, to sink a hole into the bullet-proof bipartidist scheme of elections

[camero]

26. and don't you think that RW PACS

would send out flyers and make phone calls to people to get them to fire the dem politician?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea but it has to go with other reforms of the system, of which my ideas are just but a few.

It would probably make it better if the party won the election for a set term and not just the indidvidual candidate. If Dems win, it stays dem for the duration of that term of office. The dems would just appoint a new person to sit in the position until the new election.

Hypthetical scenario: Say Dean wins. In the near future say, it becomes apparent that Dean is siding with the corporations. We then throw Dean out and replace him with either the VP or the second runner-up in the primary election. Then it might work. Might.

I still think we should charge them with perjury if they lie to attain office. This in itself would hold them accountable.

[Charlls]

27. well, for "fire" him, first they must have to have "supported" him

I mean, once you are supporting someone, you can fire him by removing that support, possibly moving it to another candidate (the support is something you move from a candidate/option to another, including the blank one)

what i mean is that if someone hasnt voted for a dem (and hence likely to blindly do whatever RW PACS tell them to do), it hasnt any power to fire him; the most that person can do is support one of its competitors

[camero]

28. Then you're deliberately leaving people out of the process

and that's unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment.

[Charlls]

31. the election works like this:

Once you setup your vote, it will be supporting your options until any of the following happens:

1) that option becomes unavailable, in that case, your support automatically sets to the blank (null) vote, until you go again and update again your support

2) you are unregistered from the elector database, which usually happens when you die

3) you go again (at any time) and update it again.


So, i can "fire" someone that im actually supporting (ie: my vote is currently supporting that candidate), to do that, i remove that support from that candidate and move it to another option that i like better.

I cannot withdraw support from a candidate im not supporting! as simple as that :bounce:

[camero]

32. But you're denying others that same right

And that is why it's unconstitutional. Equal Protection for all? Even if you don't support him? Ring a bell? The loser would most certainly challenge this law in court and would more than likely win.

[Charlls]

33. how im denying anyones right?

Everyone can support the options they want. The one thats is in charge at a given time is the candidate with the simple majority of supporters at that time. Thats how representatives would be elected.

I fail to see how that denies the rights of anyone, could you please explain?

[camero]

36. You said only the "supporters" could fire a politician

That leaves the opponents out of the equation. Look, I don't like the repubs either, but I wouldn't do anything that would interfere with an individual republican to be involved in the political process.

They also have the right to vote. The person that gave you a belated welcome has it right I think. Your system could very well become the tyranny of the minority.

[Charlls]

38. but you are leaving out a subletie

if opponents can support a single candidate that has a simple majority bigger than the actual representative, he becomes the new elected representative. Im not leaving opponents out of any equation. Im allowing opponents to organize around an alternates options even while the representative is in charge

[camero]

41. And that's also where there could be corruption

Look, I'm not gonna go on all day about this. There are others here also who say that the system would be too chaotic and prone to corruption. I'm just agreeing that we will disagree.

[Charlls]

42. ok, i was interested to hear how chaos or corruption could arise

since im not entirely convinced that such things should happen more, if not less in such system

[jpgray]

7. Who regrets that politics have always been this way? (nt)

[JaySherman]

11. Neither socialism nor capitalism are functional systems.

One is too oppressive, the other to exploitive. Socialism ultimately conflicts with man's basic nature to grow and enquire. Democracy and capitalism do not mix because capitalism, by its nature, exploits the fundamentally trusting and tolerant characteristics of a democratic system. Ultimately, the workable reality lies in the middle: a free-market system that allows for unrestrained personal and economic growth, while meeting the basic needs and providing a safety net for its citizens. In such a system, separation of business and state is as important as separation of church and state. Through a taxpayer-funded electoral system, citizens should be enable to choose leaders who will be free from the influence of corporate secular or religious institutions. Ultimately, it comes down to freedom of choice, and enabling the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

As it stands now, the current system we live in is not a free market because it limits the accumulation of wealth to a few corporations and their wealthy constituencies, with the only redistribution of wealth occurring between these priveleged elites.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. Socialism ultimately conflicts with man's basic nature to grow and enquire

"Socialism ultimately conflicts with man's basic nature to grow and enquire."

What?

[camero]

18. He's confusing socialism with communism.

:shrug:

[rman]

21. mutually exclusive: unrestrained growth - safety net for its citizens

Because since there's a limited amount of resources, unrestrained economic growth inevitably leads to shortage of resources for those who grow less.

Combining the two is not a "workable reality" (it may be reality but it is not workable) nor is it "in the middle".
Unrestrained growth is equivalent to "winner takes all"; having more 'stuff' makes it easier to get even more 'stuff' - unrestrained means there's no end to 'getting more stuff'.
This is a situation where a few make huge profits at the expense of a vast majority. Obviously the vast majority doesn't like it that way.

Working harder surely should earn you more. But at some point the ability to acquire more wealth depends more on the wealth one already has, then it depends on the amount of labor one does.

Apparently some people are afraid to come up short even though they already have many orders of magnitude more stuff then most others.

Besides, showing restraint is a sign of maturity.

[Charlls]

30. the are many "middle" schemes

I think the electoral one here presented serves as an balancing power of individual political, weights of citizens thru a dynamical election system in front of the economicals dolars that flow in stock markets

just an idea to debate

[Union Thug]

44. grow and enquire?

Please explain.

Part of the socialist world I envision is one that opens up the educational system to all (higher ed., technical training, etc.) and allows them to pursue that which inspires them.

But of course, if you do this, you run the risk of losing a large chunk of your unskilled, easily exploitable labor pool. Can't have that.

[newyawker99]

45. Hi WillW!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rucky]

17. I've been thinking about an organization with the same goal:

IVOTE

Basically it would be a national organization of multipartisan voters that would assure accountability from elected officials on all levels. The best model for it would be web-based, but you can't just do it on the web. It's like a cross between MWO, and OpenSecrets. Here's how it works:

50 State Offices do the legwork - basically a clearinghouse that rates politicians based upon their level of corporate influence, their system for recieving, tracking and responding to communication from their constituents, and how well their votes represent the positions of their constituents who elected them - no matter what party that may be. Each official is profiled in summary form, constantly updated by the IVOTE state research team & rated by the voters in a number of categories (TBD).

The best way for this to work is to reward "good" politicians, and to give "poor" politicians a chance to explain their positions on the forum. Tying directly into the offices of the elected official would encourage freeform communication between them and their constituents. This way, it's bidirectional: The "good" politicians can use this as a way to solicit feedback from their constituents when key decisions need to be made (polls & forum). This also creates an instant email list for officials & voters to communicate & organize. If the officials choose to ignore IVOTE, it will reflect on their rating. From the user/voter's point of view - it's one-stop shopping to monitor & reach all of the state, local & national politicians which represent their district. It would also be a media resource, and the more they cite information gathered from the site, the more teeth IVOTE would get.

On the national site, of course national issues would be discussed on a national level - but the same issues would be discussed on the state forums as it relates to the user's district & representatives.

Part of the problem with the current system is how the media has failed us in putting all this information in one place on the voters' doorstep. We need to sift & sift to get even basic information about the actions of our elected officials, then we have to work some more to reach them & hope we've timed it right - if they listen at all.

:shrug:

Removal of fixed-term elections would definately put some teeth into any action group.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. I regret it

I think many others do too, they just don't know it yet.

[arendt]

29. Belated welcome. I nominate this for a "Thoughtful Essay" award...

even if it is a little short.

Given when you joined DU, you may have missed my
series of posts on how "democracy does not scale"
and an elaborate but realisable reorganization
would get rid of the middlemen.

Your idea of getting rid of fixed terms is breath-
taking. I'm sure you understand the kind of chaos
that would result, but it is worth considering.
Basically, you would be laying politics open to
the same kind of maneuvers that go on in corporate
takeovers. Citizens don't have the bandwidth to
be on guard against that kind of stuff.

But, very interesting post. I'm bookmarking it.

arendt

[Charlls]

34. thanks

I think that the maneuvers available to corporate are rather limited, since individuals can support only one candidate/option for each choice/eligible charge at a given time and each individual support weights 1 no matter how often they update , however im interested what scenarios you think could represent a clear risk

[Charlls]

35. thanks

I think that the maneuvers available to corporate are rather limited, since individuals can support only one candidate/option for each choice/eligible charge at a given time and each individual support weights 1 no matter how often they update , however im interested what scenarios you think could represent a clear risk

[arendt]

37. I need more details.

E.g., what is a "charge"?

arendt

[Charlls]

40. the position of who is getting elected

usually, you are able vote for various positions, or "charges", including not exhaustively president, congress seats, senators, etc

[arendt]

39. Here's a bookmark to that DU thread about my ideas.

Its actually redeye's synopsys of my ideas, but its
short and accessible. But it misunderstands my plan just
a teensy bit.

In this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=174702

Go to the link "NK government" for my ideas.

arendt

[Charlls]

43. very interesting

i'll give a careful read at that.

[Charlls]

46. comments about NK model applied to politics

If i didnt miss too many points, the main point of NK model is legislation specialization? ie: being able to vote for particular topics, versus to vote for parties/candidates that vaguely represent general policies

I have seen this electoral approach other in other circumstances called "modular democracy" or something like that. The idea in itself is extremely appealing, however i've always wondered about the structure of concrete implementations of these systems. ie: How are new themes proposed? Once a theme has been proposed, who is responsible of the implementation of the proposal? etc.