Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[Belsnickel]

I read a Foreign Policy article on this survey, which hyped one part of this a bit much. I won't say what, particularly, but I thought it would be interesting to talk about the survey on here. Though it could just be because I am a nerd.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/

Quote:A deepening anxiety about the future of democracy around the world has spread over the past few years. Emboldened autocrats and rising populists have shaken assumptions about the future trajectory of liberal democracy, both in nations where it has yet to flourish and countries where it seemed strongly entrenched. Scholars have documented a global “democratic recession,” and some now warn that even long-established “consolidated” democracies could lose their commitment to freedom and slip toward more authoritarian politics.

A 38-nation Pew Research Center survey finds there are reasons for calm as well as concern when it comes to democracy’s future. More than half in each of the nations polled consider representative democracy a very or somewhat good way to govern their country. Yet, in all countries, pro-democracy attitudes coexist, to varying degrees, with openness to nondemocratic forms of governance, including rule by experts, a strong leader or the military.

A number of factors affect the depth of the public’s commitment to representative democracy over nondemocratic options. People in wealthier nations and in those that have more fully democratic systems tend to be more committed to representative democracy. And in many nations, people with less education, those who are on the ideological right and those who are dissatisfied with the way democracy is currently working in their country are more willing to consider nondemocratic alternatives.

At the same time, majorities in nearly all nations also embrace another form of democracy that places less emphasis on elected representatives. A global median of 66% say direct democracy – in which citizens, rather than elected officials, vote on major issues – would be a good way to govern. This idea is especially popular among Western European populists.

These are among the major findings of a Pew Research Center survey conducted among 41,953 respondents in 38 countries from Feb. 16 to May 8, 2017.

The survey reveals that large numbers in many nations would entertain political systems that are inconsistent with liberal democracy. For instance, when asked about a system in which experts, not elected representatives, make key decisions based on what they think is best for the country, a median of 49% across these 38 countries say this would be a good way to run their nation.

Unconstrained executive power also has its supporters. In 20 countries, a quarter or more of those polled think a system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts is a good form of government. This type of regime is particularly popular in several nations where executives have extended or consolidated their power in recent years, such as the Philippines, Russia and Turkey.

While military rule is the least popular political system tested on the survey, even this finds some support across the globe. Notable minorities in many nations consider it a good way to govern, and half or more express this view in Vietnam, Indonesia, India and South Africa.

There is more, a lot more, at the link, including the actual numbers. I encourage you to check it out. Also, what about you? What do you think of the different governments? Would you consider a strong leader, government by experts, or military government something you'd be okay with? Do you think direct democracy would work out? How confident are you in our representative democratic system?

[GMDino]

(10-17-2017, 09:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read a Foreign Policy article on this survey, which hyped one part of this a bit much. I won't say what, particularly, but I thought it would be interesting to talk about the survey on here. Though it could just be because I am a nerd.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/


There is more, a lot more, at the link, including the actual numbers. I encourage you to check it out. Also, what about you? What do you think of the different governments? Would you consider a strong leader, government by experts, or military government something you'd be okay with? Do you think direct democracy would work out? How confident are you in our representative democratic system?

I think we have a good "system".  I think we have a bad way of choosing which people are in that system.

No one should head an agency that has no idea what the agency does or has zero experience with the area that it covers, for example.

Voting districts need to be designed by non-partisan groups...not the same people who just won the election.

Small changes that could make things a lot better.

[Belsnickel]

(10-17-2017, 09:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think we have a good "system".  I think we have a bad way of choosing which people are in that system.

No one should head an agency that has no idea what the agency does or has zero experience with the area that it covers, for example.

Voting districts need to be designed by non-partisan groups...not the same people who just won the election.

Small changes that could make things a lot better.

That gets kind of outside the scope of what I was going for here, but I don't disagree. There are definitely some changes that could be made to correct problems that were not anticipated by those that wrote the Constitution and have now been exploited by those elected to our government in such a manner as to weaken how representative our representative democracy actually is.

[BmorePat87]

I've stated my views on how our system could improve under a new constitution. The first thing is reforming the Senate's role as a equal voice for states and getting rid of the electoral college. These systems allow a minority to rule over a plurality. It's dated.

With regards to the rise of populism, this is just more reason to seek a more representative form of government. Don't let regional trends dictate for the whole.

[*michaelsean*]

Direct democracy is ridiculous. Although it seems we are to an extent, I don't want to be governed by unelected bureaucrats. And certainly no on a more powerful executive.

[Belsnickel]

(10-17-2017, 12:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Direct democracy is ridiculous.  Although it seems we are to an extent, I don't want to be governed by unelected bureaucrats.  And certainly no on a more powerful executive.

It's funny, I like that they used more descriptive, neutral phrases. I have to wonder if it is because of negative connotations with autocracy, technocracy, and stratocracy, or because they were afraid people wouldn't know what they were.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-17-2017, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny, I like that they used more descriptive, neutral phrases. I have to wonder if it is because of negative connotations with autocracy, technocracy, and stratocracy, or because they were afraid people wouldn't know what they were.

I wouldn't have known what technocracy and stratocracy were.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-17-2017, 12:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I wouldn't have known what technocracy and stratocracy were.  

That's interesting. Stratocracy I get, it's not a commonly known one. Out of curiosity, reading those words, was your immediate reaction negative, positive, or indifferent? Just being academically curious, here.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-17-2017, 11:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I've stated my views on how our system could improve under a new constitution. The first thing is reforming the Senate's role as a equal voice for states and getting rid of the electoral college. These systems allow a minority to rule over a plurality. It's dated.

With regards to the rise of populism, this is just more reason to seek a more representative form of government. Don't let regional trends dictate for the whole.

You just contradicted yourself.

Getting rid of the electoral college would be the very thing that let regional trends dictate for the whole. It would promote creating highly populated political echo-chambers. No longer would it be about trying to convince swing states that they should vote for you, instead it would be about taking states that already are going to vote for you, and creating such a insular self-feeding culture that you eventually create overwhelming support for yourself in that area.

The swing states that actually choose both parties? Who cares. They'll be somewhere between 50-50 and 45-55. Instead it would be all about creating more Californias (D):
54.31% vs 44.36% in 2004
61.01% vs 36.95% in 2008
60.24% vs 37.12% in 2012
61.73% vs 31.62% in 2016

And creating more Texases ®:
61.09% vs 38.22% in 2004
55.39% vs 43.63% in 2008
57.17% vs 41.38% in 2012
52.23% vs 43.24% in 2016

For instance Ohio has never gone higher than 51.7% for a candidate in the last 5 elections and has never voted one party more than 3 times in a row since 1908. So without the electoral college, the difference between getting a majority of voters in Ohio or not is significantly less important than getting 64-66% in California/Texas heavily leaning regions instead of just 61%.

So creating huge crushing victories in the most populace states that a party was always going to win would be more important than getting the last couple % to get a majority in a swing state. It's easier to convince 3-5% more people in a California and Texas region to show up to the polls who were always going to vote for you anway than it is to convince states that don't vote solely based off party lines to vote for you this year.

It would create an even more intense political echo chamber situation than we already have as parties focus more on creating even more decisive advantages in regions that they already were going to win by creating a bigger and bigger us-vs-them mentality each election, and it would almost certainly lead to a political party "war", either a metaphorical or literal one.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-17-2017, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's interesting. Stratocracy I get, it's not a commonly known one. Out of curiosity, reading those words, was your immediate reaction negative, positive, or indifferent? Just being academically curious, here.

Well technocracy looked like a computer takeover, and stratocracy I really had no idea at all.  My assumption would have been I wouldn't like it, so your guess is correct.  'ocracy" without a "Dem" in front of it always seems negative to me. I get it's just a suffix, but since any other is not democracy, I'm usually not agreeable to it.

[Millhouse]

Representative democracy is the best for the long term, though there are certain times when a more autocratic democracy is needed during times of war & extreme situations, like in our Civil War.

Direct democracy should only be for smaller areas like towns and townships, or counties. Not on a national level though.

Overall though in our country, our representative democracy is compromised by the major lobbyist forces, military industrial complex, and a compromised media that falsely influence society with some sort of slanted reporting one way or the other. However we are too big and too far along in the process for much needed change to those three areas.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-17-2017, 12:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Direct democracy is ridiculous. Although it seems we are to an extent, I don't want to be governed by unelected bureaucrats. And certainly no on a more powerful executive.

Agreed.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 01:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You just contradicted yourself.

Getting rid of the electoral college would be the very thing that let regional trends dictate for the whole. It would promote creating highly populated political echo-chambers. No longer would it be about trying to convince swing states that they should vote for you, instead it would be about taking states that already are going to vote for you, and creating such a insular self-feeding culture that you eventually create overwhelming support for yourself in that area.

The swing states that actually choose both parties? Who cares. They'll be somewhere between 50-50 and 45-55. Instead it would be all about creating more Californias (D):
54.31% vs 44.36% in 2004
61.01% vs 36.95% in 2008
60.24% vs 37.12% in 2012
61.73% vs 31.62% in 2016

And creating more Texases ®:
61.09% vs 38.22% in 2004
55.39% vs 43.63% in 2008
57.17% vs 41.38% in 2012
52.23% vs 43.24% in 2016

For instance Ohio has never gone higher than 51.7% for a candidate in the last 5 elections and has never voted one party more than 3 times in a row since 1908. So without the electoral college, the difference between getting a majority of voters in Ohio or not is significantly less important than getting 64-66% in California/Texas heavily leaning regions instead of just 61%.

So creating huge crushing victories in the most populace states that a party was always going to win would be more important than getting the last couple % to get a majority in a swing state. It's easier to convince 3-5% more people in a California and Texas region to show up to the polls who were always going to vote for you anway than it is to convince states that don't vote solely based off party lines to vote for you this year.

It would create an even more intense political echo chamber situation than we already have as parties focus more on creating even more decisive advantages in regions that they already were going to win by creating a bigger and bigger us-vs-them mentality each election, and it would almost certainly lead to a political party "war", either a metaphorical or literal one.

I understand the point you're making, and that's true, and I'll explain how I intended for this to come across.

As it stands, swing states, many of which being regional (midwest or rust belt), decide the outcome of the election. As you have correctly pointed out, they don't tend to be heavily in favor of one candidate, minimally swinging back and forth on between election cycles. This is the regional trend I am referring to. 

Either we give power to this or we just say that the plurality rules, even if they are in higher centers of population. I personally prefer to the latter because it means all voices are equal, all votes count, and it encourages third options. 

Likewise, I'd prefer to see a Senate that represented non regional/state choices. A system, possibly, where we use a ranked choice voting system where we can vote for candidates across the country. I think Matt has advocated for these in the past. 

If you tackle gerrymandering at the same time, it'll mean less echo chambers are states don't come into play for the Senate or the President and congressional districts are less extreme. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 01:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Representative democracy is the best for the long term, though there are certain times when a more autocratic democracy is needed during times of war & extreme situations, like in our Civil War.

Direct democracy should only be for smaller areas like towns and townships, or counties. Not on a national level though.

Overall though in our country, our representative democracy is compromised by the major lobbyist forces, military industrial complex, and a compromised media that falsely influence society with some sort of slanted reporting one way or the other. However we are too big and too far along in the process for much needed change to those three areas.

Yea, direct democracy is impractical on a scale larger than county. It's just unwise too. 

[Benton]

(10-17-2017, 01:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You just contradicted yourself.

Getting rid of the electoral college would be the very thing that let regional trends dictate for the whole. It would promote creating highly populated political echo-chambers. No longer would it be about trying to convince swing states that they should vote for you, instead it would be about taking states that already are going to vote for you, and creating such a insular self-feeding culture that you eventually create overwhelming support for yourself in that area.

The swing states that actually choose both parties? Who cares. They'll be somewhere between 50-50 and 45-55. Instead it would be all about creating more Californias (D):
54.31% vs 44.36% in 2004
61.01% vs 36.95% in 2008
60.24% vs 37.12% in 2012
61.73% vs 31.62% in 2016

And creating more Texases ®:
61.09% vs 38.22% in 2004
55.39% vs 43.63% in 2008
57.17% vs 41.38% in 2012
52.23% vs 43.24% in 2016

For instance Ohio has never gone higher than 51.7% for a candidate in the last 5 elections and has never voted one party more than 3 times in a row since 1908. So without the electoral college, the difference between getting a majority of voters in Ohio or not is significantly less important than getting 64-66% in California/Texas heavily leaning regions instead of just 61%.

So creating huge crushing victories in the most populace states that a party was always going to win would be more important than getting the last couple % to get a majority in a swing state. It's easier to convince 3-5% more people in a California and Texas region to show up to the polls who were always going to vote for you anway than it is to convince states that don't vote solely based off party lines to vote for you this year.

It would create an even more intense political echo chamber situation than we already have as parties focus more on creating even more decisive advantages in regions that they already were going to win by creating a bigger and bigger us-vs-them mentality each election, and it would almost certainly lead to a political party "war", either a metaphorical or literal one.

Ohio and California represent a pretty good piece to the problem: gerrymandering. If you take gerrymandering out of the equation, states like Texas aren't really so Republican, and Democrat strongholds like California are. It's largely irrelevant in some of those states to get 3-5% to show up if the district is already a non-factor due to mapping. And it eliminates the chances of a third party in most instances.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/09/what_ohio_could_learn_from_cal.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-gerrymander-20170711-story.html

Representative democracies are the way to go, but elections should be direct. If you've got 10 people, four shouldn't have a bigger say than six.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-17-2017, 01:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I understand the point you're making, and that's true, and I'll explain how I intended for this to come across.

As it stands, swing states, many of which being regional (midwest or rust belt), decide the outcome of the election. As you have correctly pointed out, they don't tend to be heavily in favor of one candidate, minimally swinging back and forth on between election cycles. This is the regional trend I am referring to. 

Either we give power to this or we just say that the plurality rules, even if they are in higher centers of population. I personally prefer to the latter because it means all voices are equal, all votes count, and it encourages third options. 

Likewise, I'd prefer to see a Senate that represented non regional/state choices. A system, possibly, where we use a ranked choice voting system where we can vote for candidates across the country. I think Matt has advocated for these in the past. 

If you tackle gerrymandering at the same time, it'll mean less echo chambers are states don't come into play for the Senate or the President and congressional districts are less extreme. 

The problem being that we're not America, but The United STATES of America. You're taking the ability for each State to make a decision out of their hands. While the electoral college weighs each state according to their population, it doesn't make it so that they completely negate each other's opinion, which a straight popular vote would do.

The reason each state has their own separate popular votes is because each state has their own interests. Say a candidate is running on an idea of a huge Mississippi River project that would be a huge economical boon for the states on the Mississippi. The states affected vote to a reasonable, but still clearly majority 55-45 split for that candidate. Then California comes in and says "That isn't the party we vote for." and they go extremist party tactics and go 80-20 split (which is how San Francisco County votes). The sheer population difference just made California crush the other 6-8 or whatever states in a popular vote.

There's a reason every state has their own government, their own national guard, their own constitution, their own senate, etc. We're a collection of united but separate territories. A straight populous vote would wreck that by promoting insular tribal (party) extremism. That would not be healthy for the country because then you're silencing large swaths of states' voices because they're not extreme enough to one side or the other.

The last thing we need is changing things to promote MORE extremism political opinions rather than less. Even fixing Gerrymandering wouldn't change the trend of creating more and stronger echo chambers in that case. Gerrymandering is a Congress problem not a Presidential Election problem, because in the end, the State totals up the votes.

- - - - - - - - -

Keep in mind there's nothing preventing a state from splitting it's electoral votes if it wanted to. Each state decides if it wanted to in their constitutions. For instance, Trump got 1 vote from Maine out of their 4 electoral votes. Most states just chose an all-or-nothing stance. Nebraska is the other state that can split their votes.

(10-17-2017, 02:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Ohio and California represent a pretty good piece to the problem: gerrymandering. If you take gerrymandering out of the equation, states like Texas aren't really so Republican, and Democrat strongholds like California are. It's largely irrelevant in some of those states to get 3-5% to show up if the district is already a non-factor due to mapping. And it eliminates the chances of a third party in most instances.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/09/what_ohio_could_learn_from_cal.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-gerrymander-20170711-story.html

Representative democracies are the way to go, but elections should be direct. If you've got 10 people, four shouldn't have a bigger say than six.

Sure, Gerrymandering is a problem for Congress, but I was only arguing Presidential Election-wise with Bmore. I believe States need to each have their own say on that. If you've got 10 people in California and 8 say Ohio shouldn't be allowed to chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, and Ohio has 4 people and 0 of them say Ohio shouldn't be allowed to chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, the 8:2 for:against votes in California shouldn't negate the 0:4 for:against votes in Ohio and decide what happens to them.

But yes, as for Congress, something probably needs done.

[hollodero]

(10-17-2017, 02:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The problem being that we're not America, but The United STATES of America. 

I get your points and think they do hold merit. I just want to add that your system cements the two party system, and I wonder if that's the wisest way to go. Also, and I just need to stress that, it's just a wonderful feeling to know your vote effectively counts for the party/person you voted for. 

Regional autonomy in certain areas could still protect state's rights.

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 02:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The problem being that we're not America, but The United STATES of America. You're taking the ability for each State to make a decision out of their hands. While the electoral college weighs each state according to their population, it doesn't make it so that they completely negate each other's opinion, which a straight popular vote would do.

I'm representing these ideas as changes in a new constitution, playing off a thread Matt made a few weeks ago. The idea being that concept is antiquated. 

Quote:The reason each state has their own separate popular votes is because each state has their own interests. Say a candidate is running on an idea of a huge Mississippi River project that would be a huge economical boon for the states on the Mississippi. The states affected vote to a reasonable, but still clearly majority 55-45 split for that candidate. Then California comes in and says "That isn't the party we vote for." and they go extremist party tactics and go 80-20 split (which is how San Francisco County votes). The sheer population difference just made California crush the other 6-8 or whatever states in a popular vote.

This is a bit of anachronism. The system was designed so that states could pick a way to assign electors or educated people to go to Congress and vote for the President. The idea of a popular vote for candidates isn't uniformly established for decades. Same with the allocation of electors within the state. 

The analogy also ignores the fact that with California's larger size and population comes greater diversity in demographics and needs. The issue is still rooted in your wanting to place importance in the idea of a state as a whole. Putting less importance on the idea of California as a state provides for more voices in California to be heard and their unique needs addressed, like the 1 in every 14 Trump voters who live in California.

Quote:There's a reason every state has their own government, their own national guard, their own constitution, their own senate, etc. We're a collection of united but separate territories. A straight populous vote would wreck that by promoting insular tribal (party) extremism. That would not be healthy for the country because then you're silencing large swaths of states' voices because they're not extreme enough to one side or the other. 

Again, this is a hypothetical change and I'm only suggesting these changes occur within the Senate and in the Presidential election. It won't affect the representation of regions in addressing their needs, it just takes away the uneven voice given to small population states smaller than large cities. 

Quote:The last thing we need is changing things to promote MORE extremism political opinions rather than less. Even fixing Gerrymandering wouldn't change the trend of creating more and stronger echo chambers in that case. Gerrymandering is a Congress problem not a Presidential Election problem, because in the end, the State totals up the votes.

If anything there will be less extremism. The 4.5 million Trump voters in California would have their voices heard in both the Presidential election and the senatorial elections. You'll likely see more moderate candidates. 

Quote:Keep in mind there's nothing preventing a state from splitting it's electoral votes if it wanted to. Each state decides if it wanted to in their constitutions. For instance, Trump got 1 vote from Maine out of their 4 electoral votes. Most states just chose an all-or-nothing stance. Nebraska is the other state that can split their votes.

I know. The issue isn't allocation, it's the fact that we use electoral votes. Why should a voter in Wyoming count the same as 3.5 voters in California?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-17-2017, 03:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get your points and think they do hold merit. I just want to add that your system cements the two party system, and I wonder if that's the wisest way to go. Also, and I just need to stress that, it's just a wonderful feeling to know your vote effectively counts for the party/person you voted for. 

Regional autonomy in certain areas could still protect state's rights.

And I get the other side of the argument, and it's not that the way I am arguing for is perfect by any means, but I do think it's currently the best available, or at least the best that's realistic.

No doubt you've seen me argue quite a few times on here against the two-party system, but honestly... even with a straight popular vote, we would never lose the two-party system. There's simply too much money involved in those two for any third contender to get in the ring. Unless that third party can summon up well over a billion dollars in campaign money, and have SuperPACs spending even more for their campaign, no third party stands a chance at becoming President.

For that matter, even winning a Congress seat is extremely hard because the two parties send some of their money down to their party members at lower levels for them to run, too. Just this year there was a special election in Georgia for a congressional seat. The two parties combined for over $50m in spending. For just one of Georgia's 12 seats, and one of the US' 435 seats.

Unless you can make some major campaign finance reform, there will always be a two-party dominance here... and good luck getting that reform, because the two parties don't want to share their power, and they got into power by being able to spend so much and make so much money.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

You might feel a bit difference on the wonderful feeling if each of the different areas in Austria had their own Constitution, and you had some extremist A-holes in some far away region deciding what should happen to your region, simply because your region isn't extremist or populous enough to stop theirs from deciding everything that will happen to you, for you.

I mean, the best example I can think that you'd understand is... could you imagine if every country in the EU went to a straight collective popular vote to decide a single leader for the EU? Though I guess it wouldn't be that different from it is now, where it seems like Germany pretty much runs the EU.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-17-2017, 03:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm representing these ideas as changes in a new constitution, playing off a thread Matt made a few weeks ago. The idea being that concept is antiquated. 



This is a bit of anachronism. The system was designed so that states could pick a way to assign electors or educated people to go to Congress and vote for the President. The idea of a popular vote for candidates isn't uniformly established for decades. Same with the allocation of electors within the state. 

The analogy also ignores the fact that with California's larger size and population comes greater diversity in demographics and needs. The issue is still rooted in your wanting to place importance in the idea of a state as a whole. Putting less importance on the idea of California as a state provides for more voices in California to be heard and their unique needs addressed, like the 1 in every 14 Trump voters who live in California.




Again, this is a hypothetical change and I'm only suggesting these changes occur within the Senate and in the Presidential election. It won't affect the representation of regions in addressing their needs, it just takes away the uneven voice given to small population states smaller than large cities. 





If anything there will be less extremism. The 4.5 million Trump voters in California would have their voices heard in both the Presidential election and the senatorial elections. You'll likely see more moderate candidates. 


I know. The issue isn't allocation, it's the fact that we use electoral votes. Why should a voter in Wyoming count the same as 3.5 voters in California?

'Cause California is full of a bunch of freaks.