09 November

[xxlt]

(10-21-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What spurred this was that in one of the email dumps there was a link to this 2014 study that was shared: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

tl;dr: Princeton study said we are an oligarchy.

We probably talked about this study when it came out, and I'm sure that many of us agreed with some points. It got me thinking about what will happen after the election, though. Because I think that more and more people will be feeling this way.

We are, of course, not a pure democracy. No such thing exists. We are a republic where we elect officials to represent our interests. At least in theory. I am rather fond of Dahl's point of view on things, and so would like to think we are a polyarchy. But in truth it is hard to really see it as such given current events.

So what do you think? Are we still a democratic nation? Do our politicians represent us? Most importantly, what do you think should be done to fix it?

Trust in government is extremely low, depending on the poll you look at it could be an all time low, but even if it isn't it is very close. Policy mood is also interesting right now, the most conservative it has ever been in 70 years. Policy mood typically has a negative correlation to the party in the White House (a liberal POTUS results in a conservative shift, and vice versa), so with Clinton winning it will just continue to move further and the distrust will continue to grow. Clinton will be a one term POTUS and it will be the GOP's election to lose, just like this one.

The RNC will move to a super-delegate system, like the DNC has. What I would love to see would be a move to the ranked/alternative/instant-runoff voting system combined with publicly funded elections. Will never happen, but those are the two things I would most like to see. I've said before that I would like to see a new constitution happen and there was a lot of disagreement, I get that, but I am sticking by that. I would like to see it, though, it's not something I see as a need quite as much as the election changes.

So what do you think

Nice post.

I think anyone who is not in the top 1% would be hard pressed to present compelling evidence that his or her interests are represented by the federal government.

I think it is impossible for two parties to represent the interests of 300 million people, and I think it is impossible for fewer than 1,000 elected officials to represent the interests of 300 million people. We need more elected representatives to dilute the power in D.C. and we need a plurality of parties, not extreme conservative and not quite as extreme conservative, which is what we have now (the irony being not so extreme is labeled as liberal beyond anyone's wildest imagination, LOL).

The ranked/alternate system is also superior, but Americans by and large are both too disinterested and too stupid to demand/understand it.