It may well be that America's electoral system has reached its endgame.

[rogerashton]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/opinion/19hill.html?

Schwarzenegger vs. Gerrymander
By STEVEN HILL

Published: February 19, 2005

San Francisco — GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER visited Washington this week in part to solicit support for his proposal to change the way California draws its legislative districts.

We can't change where people choose to live, but we can begin using some type of proportional representation system. For example, California could use a system like that in Peoria, Ill., for municipal elections. Instead of electing 40 state senators from 40 districts, voters in 10 districts could elect four senators each. Any candidate who won at least a quarter of the vote would earn a seat.

We could also think of different approaches like approval voting or preference voting with an instant runoff. If we want real democracy, we have to get away from the idea that whatever we do is the right, democratic way. But we might have to fight for it.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. If we are going to change our system it should be more like that of

Canada or England, where we can throw out the party leader at any time when we are dissatisfied, AND there can be more than two parties that can wield some power.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Well Canada and England really only have 2 relevant parties

Frankly, I think a two-party system is healthy. I just wish we had some proportional representation so that there are some other smaller parties. My ideal situation would be Germany, where you have the two major parties and 2 or 3 smaller parties that form coalitions with the larger parties. That creates a flexible and stable two-block system.

[Psephos]

2. I don't think we want "real" democracy

The founders set up America as a republic, not a democracy, and for a good reason. In a pure democracy, the majority becomes the tyrant. That's why most states erect serious barriers against direct ballot initiatives.

America has not only survived, but thrived, for more than two centuries under the current system. Why mess with it? Because we didn't win the last few elections?

What we need is not a new system, but instead, restoration of full trust in the old system.

BTW, I'm actually for changing the way districts are drawn; the current gerrymander process was not foreseen by the founders, and favors whoever's in power at the time the lines are drawn. We need a politically-neutral process everyone agrees to honor BEFORE the districts are outlined.

[rogerashton]

4. That's baloney.

"This is a republic, not a democracy" is the slogan of the reactionary John Birch Society for very good reason, and anyone who quotes that slogan ought to think more carefully.

Give me one single argument or one shred of evidence that reforming our electoral system -- in the specific ways that I and the linked editorial propose -- would lead to the repression of minorities! I submit that you cannot.

If you are an ultraconservative, then you are on the wrong board. If you are not, then your stereotypical thinking has got you badly confused.

[Psephos]

5. Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy?

It cuts to the heart of what your original post was about. Despite popular misuse of the term "democracy," we live in a constitutional republic with representative government at national, state, and local levels. (As do most citizens of Western "democracies.") It is democratic in the sense that our representatives at any level are supposed to vote our best interests. Anything that skews the connection between a representative's district and the people she/he represents is a distortion of the democratic principles underlying such a system. That's why the gerrymander mess - unforeseen by the framers of the constitution - needs to be fixed. We've ended up with districts designed to maximize party clout, at the frequent expense of accurately representing the voices of the people they contain. I don't want a system tweaked to serve the interests of its political parties, I want one tweaked to serve the interests of its citizens. There is a difference.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the "repression of minorities." Are you sure you were even responding to my post? I said nothing about that.

By the way, I googled John Birch Society and (holding my nose), went to their website. I did a search for the phrase you claim is their slogan. The search came up empty. On their front page, they do have a slogan. It is ""Less Government, More Responsibility, And – With God’s Help – A Better World." So much for separation of church and state. I also scrolled down through "The Resolutions of the John Birch Society," which apparently is their manifesto. Nothing at all about what you claim is their slogan there, either. (And when I was done, I felt like I needed a shower.) I should not have to do your homework, so check your facts next time, please.

In my post, I urged restoration of trust in the current system, which means reform of the districting process, better accountability, and unbiased monitoring of the election process. The last several national elections have been a mess, some of it due to incompetence, and some of it due to fraud. This can be fixed. If you disagree with me, that's cool, just tell me and other readers of the thread why. At the worst, we can agree to disagree. Isn't the point of a forum that we present different opinions, with a hope of sharpening our arguments or learning about other ways of seeing things?

In my experience, ultraconservatives are closed-minded, and scornful of anyone who has a different opinion. Liberals accommodate a range of opinions and show basic respect to those with whom they disagree. Liberals attack the argument. Ultraconservatives attack the person.

Your ad hominem attack and your scornful condescension to me do not fit in the liberal tradition. Please reconsider your methods when you disagree with people who don't have opinions identical to your own.

Peace.

[rogerashton]

7. No, and neither do you.

JBS used that slogan back in the '60's. National Review defended them (and Pitney-Bowes) in a controversy over the use of the slogan. These facts may be too old to be on the web.

I don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy because there is none. As J-P Proudhon observed, "republic" is a word empty of meaning -- the res publica, the "public thing," can be anything -- more or less democratic, totalitarian (Hitler's Germany was a republic) autocratic, even monarchial.

This being so, it is quite logical for the antidemocratic squadrist ultra-right wingers to claim that America is a republic rather than a democracy, and that democracy means the tyranny of the majority; and they have consistently done so during my lifetime.

That's whyI regard people who mouth those ideas as enemies of the democratic ideas I should think the Democratic Underground stands for.

[loudsue]

8. Roger, no offense, buddy, but you're way off base here.

What Psephos posted is accurate, and perfectly "liberal". He/she wants the system we currently have to be put back to it's "fair" state of elections, and that is a valid, and I agree.

The framers of the Constitution did, indeed, provide us with a Republic, where our representatives are elected by the voters... a Democratic Republic.

There is a story about a woman approaching Thomas Jefferson, as he exited the great Hall where the framers wrote the constitution: She asked him: "Well, sir, and what form of government is this that you have provided for us?"

Jefferson replied: "A Republic, Mam, If you can keep it."

The problem is....the republicans, as well as many complacent, fat and happy, uninvolved citizens, have made sure we couldn't keep it.

IMO, That's why we're here on DU...we're trying to put it back together.

Psephos' posts were well articulated.

:kick::kick::kick:

[fat free goodness]

13. That you do not know the difference does not mean there is none.

That you do not know the difference does not mean there is none. We do not have a true democracy, where the majority is always right. If we did, then slavery would be permitted if it could get voted in, and the party in power would be in limitless power so long as they could keep the majority of the people happy.
You do not really want a true democracy unless you can improve humanity considerably.
I attribute great innocence and decency to anyone who thinks a true democracy would be a good thing, so don’t interpret this post as a slam.

By the way, do you lock your front door when you go on vacation? Perhaps you should consider starting this practice.

(Edited to mention that I meant to reply to rogerashton and not to loudsue. I suspect most people could figure that out, anyhow.)

[Blue Wally]

16. Yes

The German Democratic Republic (old East Germany was Stalinist and used both of "our" words.

[F.Gordon]

11. In a true republic the MINORITY becomes a tyrant

I'm certainly no expert on this subject but in what little I've read about a "Democratic Republic" as proposed by our founders there is a consistent theme:

The people are too fucking stupid to run the country so the stupid fucking people elect the "smart people" to run the country. We are apparently too stupid to have a voice or participate in any actual true democracy but we're smart enough to decide who runs the country????? Makes sense to me. :crazy:

I seem to recall a recent election or two where that whole "republic" thing did a bang up job of putting a whole bunch of "smart" people in charge. :eyes:

If you don't mind, I'll take your "full trust in the old system" and file it under Really Stupid Things I've Read on DU.

Edit? What else. Typing.Fingers.Not.Connected.To.Brain.

[Psephos]

12. Your argument is so powerful, you've completely convinced me

Not.

In short, your argument is: "anyone who doesn't see things the same way I do is really stupid."

I would love to listen to your arguments (that's why I'm here on DU, after all), but you lose the chance to persuade me the moment you insult me. At worst, we can always agree to disagree as friends if we can't find common ground.

You twisted what I said in your elided quotation. I call for a *restoration* of full trust in the old system. Of course the system's not trustworthy right now. That's painfully obvious. So, what's the solution? I didn't see any suggestion of a solution in your post. Slamming the system is easy; fixing it is hard. Typing so fast your fingers can barely express your rage is easy; thinking critically and proposing a solution is hard.

The framers realized that in a pure democracy, people can be swayed by a powerful idea that is ultimately not in their interests, and ramrod a faddish notion into law. By creating a representative structure for government, the framers hoped to provide a braking mechanism to hold the most volatile swings of public opinion in check, yet still provide a structure that remained responsive to public desires over the longer run. As a simple example, consider abortion. At the time of Roe v. Wade, majority public opinion was against legalized abortion. Would you consider it more "tyrannical" for abortion to be legal, or illegal? Majority opinion supported "separate but equal" in the 1940s. Ok with you?

Yes, our government system is full of flaws and abuses. Show me one that isn't. The U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary document, copied around the world. That we don't live up to it is a separate issue, and the one I want to address. I'd rather work with what we've got and make it better than sit on my butt cursing while waiting for the end of the world like some of the Pentecostal evangelists. We always think our own times are the worst ever. Hah. Ignorance of history is no excuse.

I don't have all the answers, but I do believe, as many others do, that action over time equals results. I don't see any positive results from the wailing and gnashing of teeth that's gone on over the past several years. Maybe it's time to focus more on building things up instead of tearing them down. There is a place for anger and even cynicism, but as forces for constructive change, they are the tools of the weak.

We have ideas and beliefs that can deliver a better world not only for us, but also for our political opponents. We must work to show them how they, too, will benefit from our ideas, rather than yell at them how evil they are. Apart from politics, they want mostly the same things we want: economic security, safety in their neighborhoods, a sense of civility in public life, and a feeling that their grandparents can live without fear and their children will live in a better world. They *want* a better world. If they - even a few of them - start to sense left ideas can deliver these things, we will get some of their votes. All we needed in the last election was one in twenty who voted for * to vote for Kerry. One in twenty. If you tell me that's not doable then I say you are part of the problem.

None of this will matter unless we reform election accountability. It won't be easy, and it will require some very tough political fighting and ingenuity, but once we have restored real accountability to elections, with neutral oversight, government will again be run by people who see things our way. As in all seasons of change, momentum shift is the key.

"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others."
- Winston Churchill

Peace.

[F.Gordon]

14. Thanks for the juvenile tag line

It gives me a better sense of who I'm "talking" with.

You lose me when you spout Republic vs. Democracy arguments based on a social-economic-political world that no longer exists. You lose me when you call for restoring "trust in the old system" because that is exactly what the right wing wants to do. Take a peek at the post above referencing locking the door to your house when you go on vacation.

There must be a balance between the two systems. I'm not calling for a "pure" democracy in this country, I just want a system that is representative of the world as it exists today... in the year 2005, because the "pure" Republic system has failed.

To start, I'm an advocate of proportional representation. You can search the Colorado forum for references to Amendment 36 (which failed) for the arguments supporting my position on this. As for what I do outside the tiny confines of this computer keyboard...well, I'd be more than happy to compare resumes if you are questioning my integrity.

You make some good points, but you lose me when your first reaction to the OP is spouting right wing propaganda. Since we can't get past the whole Republic vs. Democracy thing any additional discussion is futile.

Besides, I don't come to DU to debate or discuss. I come here to vent, rant, piss and moan....
:evilgrin:

[Psephos]

15. Alternatively, we could agree to disagree as friends

Let's put aside the broadswords for a moment. I have no problem with disagreement, nor with respecting those who differ with me.

I try to stay away from "gotcha" insults here on DU because it ends meaningful discussion in two nanoseconds. When, in response to my point of view, you sneeringly said you were going to file it under Really Stupid Ideas I've Heard On DU (in bold type, in case I missed the point), you were no longer discussing or persuading. You were shitting. What kind of response back did you expect?

Rather than label and dismiss what I say as RW propaganda, pick it apart, offer your view. Labeling and dismissing is not persuasive in the least. What's obvious to you may not be obvious to me, or others. If you can't take the time to construct a persuasive argument in favor of your point of view, why should I take the time to listen to you?

In my view, the "old" system you disparage is the original liberal system. It's the diametrical opposite of RW. It's the right system, but it's been parasitized by the wrong people. I want to clean it up and make it work right again. I don't see anything in the real world that has proven to work better (remembering that at best, politics doesn't work that well in the first place). But I'd love to learn more if you think there are serious alternatives.

Tone is everything in discussion. We do not advance our own understanding by surrounding ourselves only with ideas identical to our own. That's why tolerance and diversity are foundation stones of the liberal value system.

[F.Gordon]

17. Fair enough

For me, it is the perception. If I sense the "Free Republic" vomit is being spewed I dispense with the discussion mindset. I go for the throat.

Ideally I'd like to have a reasonable discussion on the Republic versus Democracy thing but; (1) (edit MY.. posts/responses might be days apart, and (2) it would probably drive the mods crazy having to deal with the inevitable freeper invasion it would cause.

For me, a "pure" Republic creates a society in which property takes precedence over people. For me, a "pure" Republic not only creates but encourages what some call "the white flight". I have other points regarding what I see as the problems with a "pure" Republic but I'll just let it go.... I think you can see what my position is.

[libodem]

6. I'm hating the electoral college

I live in Idaho which has the distinction of being the most Republican state in the nation. I don't have real facts but this is how it seems to me. We have 4 electoral votes. The Republicans get every one of them every time. We had about a quarter of the votes for Kerry. I certainly didn't feel represented. My kid wouldn't even go vote with me because he said his vote didn't count for anything, anyway. A libertarian type I know called the US a federated republic, he said we weren't a democracy. I don't think a true democracy should be limited to two parties. But if we fragment...say like what Ralph Nader did to us in 2000, we don't have a chance. Just adding my two cents...PS minority representation is something that makes us civilized

[Selatius]

9. The Aristotelian definition of democracy is direct democracy

We do not have direct democracy. We have a republic instead. It is less prone to temporary attitudes the people may have like racism or gay bashing.

If we operated on direct democracy, we wouldn't have, for example, a city council of a small number of people. The people themselves would serve as the city council, all else flowing from that. The decision-making power would rest with the populace meeting, say, once every week for a couple of hours or so. Elected officials would merely be reduced down to servants carrying out the mandate given to them by the assembly.

Direct democracy can be dangerous without checks and balances in addition to this arrangement. For one thing, something equivalent to the Bill of Rights to protect minorities from racist or discriminatory laws could be passed to regulate it and to try to prevent it from stepping over into the tyranny of the majority.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unblock]

18. changing the electoral system while the republicans are in charge is scary

the banana republicans will have a major role in any structural electoral change, and you can be damn certain that they won't sign on to anything unless it helps them more than the democrats.

these ideas might be worth introducing once we have restored some balance in the media and in politics, but until then, let's keep these discussions academic.

(this is my personal opinion, which may not be representative of du, or of any other moderator or administrator)

[John_H]

19. I love the way 3rd parties are willing to ensure endless GOP control

just to maybe win a couple of seats in congress with instant runoffs. Instant runoffs sound good until you do the red-district/blue district red state/blue state math.