I’ve spent quite a lot of time thinking and writing about democracy, its problems, and possible solutions. It is not perfect, but as Winston Churchill once said, it “is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” In the first English parliamentary elections in 1295, the "forty-shilling freeholder" qualification meant that you had to own land worth at least forty shillings a year in order to vote. You also had to be a man. Since then, the history of democracy has largely been one of expanding the franchise to more and more people. The road to “universal” suffrage was long and required several key pieces of legislation:
When there was an expansion of voting rights there was also an expansion of government. It's not a coincidence that the New Deal came after women's suffrage. The article doesn't necessarily say this, but it's true. But it's that we don't have a proper, moral foundation for the size and nature of government that's the problem. People can vote, but if the government is properly constrained, the masses can't vote to steal from other's pockets.
The problem is how to make people care about being responsible, taking a long-term view, and doing the right thing. Everyone used to care. Now people feel so disconnected from the government that they feel no sense of responsibility. I don’t think that taking voting rights away is the answer (and I see no evidence that your average 30 year old is any less self-interested and apathetic than 18 year olds are). Somehow we have to get people back in the frame of mind that they ARE the government.
Yes, I had considered that as well. Of course one could argue that that is just an extension of taking away the vote of people who take more out of the system than they put in.
Absolutely, it's just one of the easier ways to find those people. Going after non-contributing political clients would be not much more difficult based on tax payments.
Perhaps it is the idea that voting itself is the proper expression of popular government that is the flaw. Ever since Thucydides (speaking as Pericles) noted that people always vote their perceived interests and neglect the general interest, this charge has been made against democracy. But what if people were invited to an assembly in which they must defend the reasoning behind their opinions? It is worth noting that Thucydides did not apply his criticism to the Athenian assembly but to the Achaean League which did involve allies who were indifferent to the overall welfare of their alliance but were only interested in the benefit from which they derived thereof. Having fora in which interested people can discuss the overall advantages of their ideas to their home owners associations, to their work committees, and to their community organizations, has worked to enhance the effectiveness of all these organizations (at least in most cases). It is possible that town halls and public meetings can supply the fair and dispassionate assessment of policy alternatives which is so missing in voting.
We already have these things. The (very few) people who are interested attend them. This largely results in the activist class on the right and the left driving politics. That and the NIMBYs.
The only way to change how the parties behave is to get involved, but again very few seem interested.
Overall, you have a much greater faith in the "reason" affecting people's decisions than I do.
I I think that I may have been misunderstood. I was proposing REPLACING voting with deliberative assemblies. However, you are quite right. Such town halls as we have tend to be dominated by those who are not amenable to argument. The architecture of public fora would have to be changed so as to encourage deliberation rather than just rage.
I wouldn’t suggest sortition, as exemplified by the Athenian demes, although I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it either. When we selected Presidential candidates through a series of conventions, with each local convention selecting representatives to carry its preferences to the next level, I think that we had a higher quality of candidates in general. Thus, I would propose that the assemblies be self selected at the lowest level and that representatives be selected by lower levels to carry their views to higher levels. The method by which our Constitution was ratified represents another successful example of this approach.
I am become a fan of sortition. At least at the House of Representatives level. I think you leave the Senate as a professional politician class and give the house more of a "commoner" feel. If nothing else it would eliminate accusations of bias.
When asked what form of government the newly drafted U.S. Constitution created, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it.".
Well we couldn’t. We have, for all practical purposes, devolved into a democracy. Many mark this new founding at about the turn of the Twentieth century—when the progressive movement began in earnest.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (James Madison—Federalist 51)
Madison, the father of our Constitution, warned in Federalist 10 against democracies in favor of republics. The Constitution therefore instituted a representative form of government with “limited powers” to guard against the tyranny of the majority. FDR and the Democrats blew this up by effectively coercing the Supreme Court to rule in its favor and against first principles.
The fact that only certain American citizens were originally eligible to vote had zero sway over the entire population of the United States.
Why was this so?
Because America was founded on first principles: Self-ownership and property rights. (Please don’t argue against this truth by insisting that slavery contradicts my point. It doesn’t.)
This protection of “minority rights” is now lost forever.
Today we may be in our final century of “constitutional” government. We will probably go bankrupt before our government devolves into something far worse. I certainly hope that I am wrong.
“The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them knows anything about the subject." – Marcus Aurelius
When there was an expansion of voting rights there was also an expansion of government. It's not a coincidence that the New Deal came after women's suffrage. The article doesn't necessarily say this, but it's true. But it's that we don't have a proper, moral foundation for the size and nature of government that's the problem. People can vote, but if the government is properly constrained, the masses can't vote to steal from other's pockets.
The problem is how to make people care about being responsible, taking a long-term view, and doing the right thing. Everyone used to care. Now people feel so disconnected from the government that they feel no sense of responsibility. I don’t think that taking voting rights away is the answer (and I see no evidence that your average 30 year old is any less self-interested and apathetic than 18 year olds are). Somehow we have to get people back in the frame of mind that they ARE the government.
With 30% of US workforce in government, an obvious fix is no vote while working for the government.
Yes, I had considered that as well. Of course one could argue that that is just an extension of taking away the vote of people who take more out of the system than they put in.
Absolutely, it's just one of the easier ways to find those people. Going after non-contributing political clients would be not much more difficult based on tax payments.
Food for thought. Thank you.
You're welcome. I was trying to be a little controversial to make people think.
Perhaps taxes should be levied on the basis of how much an entity has at stake to lose. Take away all the protections provided the wealthy.
You'll have to elaborate on that.
Perhaps it is the idea that voting itself is the proper expression of popular government that is the flaw. Ever since Thucydides (speaking as Pericles) noted that people always vote their perceived interests and neglect the general interest, this charge has been made against democracy. But what if people were invited to an assembly in which they must defend the reasoning behind their opinions? It is worth noting that Thucydides did not apply his criticism to the Athenian assembly but to the Achaean League which did involve allies who were indifferent to the overall welfare of their alliance but were only interested in the benefit from which they derived thereof. Having fora in which interested people can discuss the overall advantages of their ideas to their home owners associations, to their work committees, and to their community organizations, has worked to enhance the effectiveness of all these organizations (at least in most cases). It is possible that town halls and public meetings can supply the fair and dispassionate assessment of policy alternatives which is so missing in voting.
We already have these things. The (very few) people who are interested attend them. This largely results in the activist class on the right and the left driving politics. That and the NIMBYs.
The only way to change how the parties behave is to get involved, but again very few seem interested.
Overall, you have a much greater faith in the "reason" affecting people's decisions than I do.
I appreciate the comment though.
I I think that I may have been misunderstood. I was proposing REPLACING voting with deliberative assemblies. However, you are quite right. Such town halls as we have tend to be dominated by those who are not amenable to argument. The architecture of public fora would have to be changed so as to encourage deliberation rather than just rage.
How do you decide who is on the deliberative assemblies?
I wouldn’t suggest sortition, as exemplified by the Athenian demes, although I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it either. When we selected Presidential candidates through a series of conventions, with each local convention selecting representatives to carry its preferences to the next level, I think that we had a higher quality of candidates in general. Thus, I would propose that the assemblies be self selected at the lowest level and that representatives be selected by lower levels to carry their views to higher levels. The method by which our Constitution was ratified represents another successful example of this approach.
I am become a fan of sortition. At least at the House of Representatives level. I think you leave the Senate as a professional politician class and give the house more of a "commoner" feel. If nothing else it would eliminate accusations of bias.
When asked what form of government the newly drafted U.S. Constitution created, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it.".
Well we couldn’t. We have, for all practical purposes, devolved into a democracy. Many mark this new founding at about the turn of the Twentieth century—when the progressive movement began in earnest.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (James Madison—Federalist 51)
Madison, the father of our Constitution, warned in Federalist 10 against democracies in favor of republics. The Constitution therefore instituted a representative form of government with “limited powers” to guard against the tyranny of the majority. FDR and the Democrats blew this up by effectively coercing the Supreme Court to rule in its favor and against first principles.
The fact that only certain American citizens were originally eligible to vote had zero sway over the entire population of the United States.
Why was this so?
Because America was founded on first principles: Self-ownership and property rights. (Please don’t argue against this truth by insisting that slavery contradicts my point. It doesn’t.)
This protection of “minority rights” is now lost forever.
Today we may be in our final century of “constitutional” government. We will probably go bankrupt before our government devolves into something far worse. I certainly hope that I am wrong.
The 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of United States senators in each state, was a big turning point.
It didn't fix the corruption problem and moved the country too far towards a democracy.
Are you kidding me? What democracy, if there ever been any?
Do they not know or are they just more concerned with maintaining their own power?