The future of democracy

[12:02] MeMyselfandI: I am laughably ignorant to many things about american politics
[12:02] MeMyselfandI: I just don't care, to be ohonest
[12:04] Philosopher: somehow I had that sneaking suspicion
[12:05] Philosopher: my interest is not really legislative
[12:05] Philosopher: I find american domestic politics pretty abhorrent
[12:05] MeMyselfandI: rather?
[12:05] MeMyselfandI: heh
[12:05] MeMyselfandI: me too
[12:05] Philosopher: although I'm also coming to appreciate that american domestic politics are little different than domestic politics anywhere else, let alone international politics, I just have more familiarity with the american system
[12:06] MeMyselfandI: I would disagree with the 'little different' part
[12:06] MeMyselfandI: parties play much different roles here in DE or in the UK than in the US
[12:07] MeMyselfandI: parliamentary systems work differently, there are different political areas to pay attention to
[12:07] Philosopher: I contend those are differences without distinctions
[12:08] Philosopher: I'll grant parlimentary systems produce constituencies very different than america, and that parlimentary parties work differently than american parties do
[12:08] MeMyselfandI: but?
[12:08] Philosopher: perhaps this is more ignorance on my part, but I have a very hard time believing politics is practiced honestly, justly, or well anywhere
[12:09] MeMyselfandI: I would contend that the EU plays a role in European politics that is comperable to nothing in the US
[12:09] MeMyselfandI: I would argue that politics as a whole, no. There are good examples of political bodies that function well or effectively
[12:10] Philosopher: a unique role in what way?
[12:10] MeMyselfandI: and comparing local politics with national politics is an incorrect comparison..different issues, different actors, different tools, different influences
[12:10] MeMyselfandI: well, many things are dictated from the EU
[12:11] MeMyselfandI: agricultural policy as a prominant example
[12:11] Philosopher: I can't say I've focused much attention on the EU, but my basic understanding is that it is essentially equivelent to the federal government here
[12:11] MeMyselfandI: defense is still a national issue, though there are some pan-European initiatives
[12:12] MeMyselfandI: nope
[12:12] MeMyselfandI: the federal government in the US is also completely different to that of Germany
[12:12] MeMyselfandI: the EU, insofar as it has the power in this area, may make policy
[12:12] MeMyselfandI: these are passed to the lowest communal level of all member states
[12:12] Philosopher: I mean, these are countries with millenia of unique histories and cultures, but how is the EU substantially different than very very infantile federal government here?
[12:12] MeMyselfandI: which then check if they have the capacity to implement, and if not, it gets passed up the ladder
[12:13] MeMyselfandI: because it has in many cases overlapping but not necessarily suppositionary powers
[12:13] MeMyselfandI: it dictates something like air quality standards but not how it is to be implemented
[12:13] Philosopher: such as?
[12:14] Philosopher: that still sounds like policy formation here
[12:14] MeMyselfandI: it has policy functions
[12:14] MeMyselfandI: it has no taxation function
[12:14] MeMyselfandI: its representatives are not necessarily directly elected nor directly accountable
[12:15] MeMyselfandI: in some respects it functions like the UN, with national agreement and input but not necessarily force
[12:15] MeMyselfandI: in other aspects it functions like congress, directly dictating policy
[12:15] MeMyselfandI: in others it functions like the supreme court only in cases where national policy conflicts with EU policy
[12:15] MeMyselfandI: there is, however, no EU defense council or EU army
[12:16] MeMyselfandI: there is still national sovereignty
[12:16] MeMyselfandI: and it is all still subject to wildly different national political climates--like the US; CA and TX in comparison
[12:17] Philosopher: I mean, I get that a strict comparison to say 1800-era American federal government is facile, but by and large, it sounds like they are attempting the same experiment of melding together a disparite group of states into a cohesive whole, and the active issue is the ongoing negotiation between states rights... er... national rights and federal rights
[12:18] MeMyselfandI: but EU policy areas do not presuppose national policy areas
[12:18] MeMyselfandI: and there is no concept of a cohesive whole
[12:18] MeMyselfandI: they turned down the constitution twice
[12:18] MeMyselfandI: it's a common market that grew to acquire social aspects
[12:18] MeMyselfandI: there is no EU health care
[12:18] Philosopher: well... "they" is quite misleading, especially considering who did and who did not ratify it
[12:19] Philosopher: I mean, the vast majority of countries adopted the constitution, it was two that refrained
[12:19] Philosopher: and I mean, passage of our own constitution wasn't exactly a walk in the park
[12:19] MeMyselfandI: well, without France there is no EU
[12:19] Philosopher: that's unfortunate
[12:20] Philosopher: but that is very similar to talking about the comments of SC or Penn during the continental congresses
[12:20] MeMyselfandI: I don't disagree that there are aspects of federalism there
[12:20] MeMyselfandI: but it is more a confederation than a federation
[12:20] MeMyselfandI: the EU is not just like a bigger national government
[12:21] MeMyselfandI: it is an entity of itself. a different kind of animal, if you will
[12:22] Philosopher: right
[12:22] Philosopher: but again, remember our first experiments in trans-state governance, the articles of confederation
[12:22] Philosopher: like I said, I could be just flat out wrong on a lot of this, but as best I seem to understand the EU, it is america 200 years ago
[12:23] MeMyselfandI: Much of the academic community (including Weiler, below) do not see the European Union as a supranational entity. It is more akin to an intergovernmental organization, as it does not regulate many aspects of the member states, the states themselves vote for bills by Qualified Majority Voting and The European Council controls the legislative agenda. It is more a matter of negotiation between the states than that of blanket policy.

Some however, see the EC as being a supranational body, adopting paradoxical arguments about the existence of a European Parliament (for democracy), and the democratic deficit in policy making (The Commission setting the agenda). While it is true that the Court of Justice often dictates to Member States how to apply their law, both the court and the community institutions cannot exceed the powers conferred upon them by the treaty. In that sense, they are limited in their actions and therefore the EC is not a supranational body.
[12:23] MeMyselfandI: (from wikipedia)
[12:24] MeMyselfandI: I concede the similarities but dispute that implies or inferrs a development along the same lines
[12:25] Philosopher: right, there is absolutely no guarantee that just because they resemble america 200 years ago they will develop into america today
[12:26] Philosopher: and I get the comparisons to the UN, especially and primarily about how the EU only weilds the authority conceded to it by the constitutive nations
[12:28] MeMyselfandI: it's an interesting thing to look at, for sure
[12:28] Philosopher: that's one word for it
[12:29] Philosopher: as Eddie Izzard puts it "its the cutting edge of politics, in an incredibly boring way"
[12:29] MeMyselfandI: hah
[12:29] MeMyselfandI: gotta love him
[12:30] Philosopher: watching West Wing has certainly impressed upon me the value of comprehensive understanding of the political workings of the government, but I am faaaaar more interested in the executive branch than the legislative
[12:31] MeMyselfandI: good to know
[12:33] Philosopher: the whole genesis of my antipathy towards politics largely stems from the perverse corruption wrought by democracy
[12:35] Philosopher: I've been infected by too many philosopher-kings
[12:36] MeMyselfandI: hah
[12:36] MeMyselfandI: well, I can't argue that dictatorships worked
[12:37] Philosopher: considering how ill-informed people are when they cast their vote, I have a lot of trouble imagining even the simple majority of votes represent the well-considering decision making that so underpins democracy
[12:38] MeMyselfandI: a scary thought
[12:39] Philosopher: I mean, if people actually voted (in the pure democratic sense) I would have little problem with democracy (at least on the voter's end)
[12:39] Philosopher: but they don't, party line, tradition, sound-bites all end up forming the majority of how people vote
[12:39] MeMyselfandI: well, how else would they vote?
[12:39] Philosopher: it is a travesty to call the voting that goes on here democratic
[12:39] MeMyselfandI: a bunch of entirely uninformed people?
[12:40] MeMyselfandI: but having a requirement of basic understanding goes against primciples of fairness
[12:40] MeMyselfandI: most people are just barely more than absolutely uninformed
[12:40] MeMyselfandI: which is why we elect people, because they are supposed to have a clue and know how to work things
[12:40] Philosopher: the trusteeship argument
[12:41] Philosopher: although considering the quality of people who get elected, I have trouble stomaching that in practice
[12:41] Philosopher: and how is requiring informed decision making unfair?
[12:42] MeMyselfandI: well, those were the methods used to exclude african americans after the civil war
[12:42] MeMyselfandI: jim crow laws
[12:42] MeMyselfandI: and who decides how much?
[12:42] MeMyselfandI: such a requirement can be subject to political manipulation
[12:42] Philosopher: and conversely, if I spent the time and effort informing myself on the issues so as to make a well-considered position, why is the vote of someone who went into the booth and checked every other box given equal consideration?
[12:43] MeMyselfandI: your personal aversion aside, I can't claim that I would be doing a better job--I am just now starting to begin to have a view of the vast multitude of factors that play into politics such that I would be completely overwhelmed
[12:43] MeMyselfandI: because he or she has to live with the consequences
[12:43] MeMyselfandI: which is why we have compulsory education, in the hopes that the ignorami who vote may not do so too stupidly
[12:43] Philosopher: if they are willing to randomly fill out ballots, I'd guess they're pretty indifferent to the consequences
[12:43] MeMyselfandI: or unaware
[12:43] Philosopher: exactly my point
[12:45] Philosopher: the entire argument for the value of democracy over the aristocracy of a monarchy or the philosopher is predicated upon an informed, educated populace
[12:45] MeMyselfandI: It's not possible for one person to manage everyting; there has to be delegation--thus it is not possible to directly decide every aspect, every decision
[12:46] Philosopher: ok...
[12:46] MeMyselfandI: you can't possibly determine everything from municipal services to national defense
[12:46] MeMyselfandI: it makes sense to have a few people really educated in their specific issues to make decisisoons, so you get a civil engineer to decide municipal services
[12:46] MeMyselfandI: and you get someone with an IA phd and military experience maybe to decide national defense
[12:46] MeMyselfandI: the flaw in the theory is the personal ambitions of the individuals
[12:47] MeMyselfandI: an incomplete understanding from their side of the consequences
[12:47] MeMyselfandI: and the fact that voters are easily influenced by rhetoric
[12:47] Philosopher: I'm not saying that division of labor is not needed
[12:47] MeMyselfandI: it's like macroeconomics---every 20 years there is a new theory, we all sit around and say 'this will end poverty', like the structural ajustment theories of the 1960s and 1970s, then you do it, find out it doesn't work, but, well, youVe just fucked your economy
[12:48] MeMyselfandI: so you try something else
[12:48] MeMyselfandI: that is how many policies are done
[12:48] MeMyselfandI: and good intentions get marred by budget constraints and bureaucracy
[12:48] Philosopher: ok... I'm kinda lost on where you're going with all this
[12:49] MeMyselfandI: My point: it is, in many respects, a sucky system with flaws and problems, but there is no better alternative
[12:49] Philosopher: I think there are better alternatives
[12:49] MeMyselfandI: there has to be delegation and some concentration of authority
[12:49] MeMyselfandI: you have to decide somehow who these people are who have this responsibility
[12:49] MeMyselfandI: thus, representative democracy
[12:50] Philosopher: except that the majority of executive branch employees are political appointees
[12:50] Philosopher: subject to senate approval, but appointees nonetheless
[12:51] MeMyselfandI: hopefully to avoid the stupid voters
[12:51] Philosopher: representative democracy, strictly speaking, is the election of delegates to express the will of their constituency, to speak with the voice of a thousand people because counting a thousand votes in impractical
[12:51] MeMyselfandI: theoretically appointed by informed individuals
[12:52] MeMyselfandI: well, given technology, it's not the vote counting that is impractical
[12:52] Philosopher: but it is
[12:53] Philosopher: we can't have everyone voting on everything, no one would every get anything done
[12:53] MeMyselfandI: it's the extent of people's knowledge
[12:54] MeMyselfandI: if you are arguing that only informed people should be able to vote, that is no longer direct democracy
[12:54] MeMyselfandI: and reflects only the interests of the educated few
[12:54] Philosopher: I'm arguing that uninformed voting cannot qualify for any type of democracy
[12:55] Philosopher: and I really don't have a problem with it reflecting the interests of the educated
[12:55] MeMyselfandI: but it is fair
[12:55] MeMyselfandI: because you are educated
[12:55] Philosopher: but it isn't fair
[12:55] MeMyselfandI: but you, for instance, are neither the benificiary of nor directly involved in agriculture, so why should you be allowed to determine ag policy?
[12:56] Philosopher: look at the educational differences between red states and blue states and the increases in likelihood in voting democrat education confers
[12:56] MeMyselfandI: the decisions made reflect the entirety of society, so why should only the few be allowed to vote?
[12:56] Philosopher: because it doesn't ever represent the entirerty of society
[12:56] Philosopher: the sheer inability to motivate people to vote amply demonstrates that
[12:56] MeMyselfandI: well, I would argue the democratic party is better but also not the pinnacle of politics
[12:57] MeMyselfandI: no, but the entirety of society should have the opportunity
[12:57] Philosopher: why?>
[12:57] MeMyselfandI: because they are affected by the policies
[12:57] MeMyselfandI: even if education = voting democratic, that does not mean that the democrats are always correct
[12:57] Philosopher: of course not, I think the democratic party is as ridiculously flawed
[12:58] MeMyselfandI: I don't want to argue in favor of the republican party, nor have my argument be predicated on the value of any particular party
[12:59] MeMyselfandI: but your interests as a voter, from your white upper-middle-class upbringing, are not the same as some kid in the bronx or someone in miami, so why should people of your socioeconomic background (who are more able to afford college and trips to europe, and who comprise the majority of college students) decide policy for the others?
[13:01] Philosopher: I absolutely support universal eduction and I thought that were the populace as a whole informed and educated, then I would have no problem with democracy, direct or representative
[13:01] Philosopher: but instead, we have a system where not only are the majority uneducated, they don't even care to exercise their votes
[13:02] MeMyselfandI: political apathy is not the same
[13:02] Philosopher: we already have an de facto aristocracy, but one clocked in hypocracy of supposidly "universal" elections, and to satisfy the pro forma aspects of the democracy, the political parties and political process is corrupted
[13:03] Philosopher: it isn't the same
[13:03] MeMyselfandI: the greatest cynics, to me, seem to be polisci students
[13:03] Philosopher: because we realize how much of a fraud the system is perpetrating and how the system can be improved
[13:03] Philosopher: I'll make no chops about it, I'm an elistist
[13:03] MeMyselfandI: well, elitism hasn't worked too well so far
[13:04] Philosopher: it wasn't meriotcratic
[13:04] MeMyselfandI: I would argue that the death knell of democracy, insofar as there was one, is the advent of career politicians, political elite
[13:04] Philosopher: it was social
[13:04] Philosopher: then democracy died over 60 years ago
[13:04] Philosopher: at least in the US
[13:05] MeMyselfandI: what about the Adams dynasty? or the Roosevelt dynasty? if one could term them dynasties
[13:06] Philosopher: IO
[13:06] Philosopher: I'm not sure what you are getting at
[13:06] Philosopher: are you saying American democracy died from its inception? or what?
[13:07] MeMyselfandI: well, there you go--there has been a history of that in the US from the beginning
[13:08] Philosopher: read the Federalist papers, they explain why education and informed populace counteract political rhetoric (ostensibly at least)
[13:08] MeMyselfandI: I read those, once upn a time
[13:08] Philosopher: so then if democracy in the US never existed, isn't it time we got rid of the fig leaf?
[13:08] MeMyselfandI: and replace it with.....?
[13:09] Philosopher: the rule of the meritorious
[13:11] Philosopher: I'm perfectly conformtable with the idea of disenfranchisment since barely over the majority of people vote anyways, and even of that group their quality is suspect
[13:12] Philosopher: I'm not looking for even any particular ideological bent, although I do have personal preferences, but simply votes as actual informed and considered decisions
[13:13] Philosopher: I incidentally think we should have a national draft, after a fashion, but one in which military service is only one (ideally small to non-existent) component of the obligation
[13:14] Philosopher: if we are going to have universal enfranchisment, then everyone ought to have, at some time and for some reasonable period of time, actively contributed to the system, beyond paying taxes