That's a stereotypical view that considers America to be nothing more but Pamela Anderson, Hollywood and McDonalds. America is a lot more to offer than that.
Though if your general point is that it is a cultural problem rather than a political problem, I think I might actually agree with you here.
If you're going to speak about whole trends in a 300+ millions population, of course you're going to make generalization and some amount of stereotyping.
My point is just that cultural values in the USA tend to cause the election of economical elites, which by nature tend to look to themselves instead of the public at large.
That's why the US constitution divided governing power between the federal and state governments. However, it seems the power of the federal government seems to have extended beyond what was originally intended.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy. California's State Government is arguably more [copulated] up than the federal government is. We have: a series of districts which were, until 2010 totally gerrymandered to the point where nobody was seriously contesting anybody, a budgetary system that actively prevented anybody from making changes, a legislature that for decades used the education sector as a private piggy bank for their pet projects, a proposition system which squirrels away large proportions of the state's budget for unnecessary projects and which routinely approves bond measures that will be a drain on our economy decades down the line (who cares amirite?). Our legislators face serious corruption charges too. I'm sure if you did a study on Californian politics you'd also find a tendency for moneyed interests to win out over personal ones. Same with County Politics. Same with city politics (just a quick peek into San Jose or San Francisco's historical politics tells you all you need to know about how well-functioning, representative and not-at-all corrupt those are). Or hell, watch Chinatown or Who Framed Roger Rabbit or play L.A. Noire those stories are based on real things that actually happened in LA in the past. Eliminating Federal Government is not going to solve the US's massive problems with being unrepresentative of the people the government supposedly serves. State and Local governments are part of the problem too, moreso, possibly.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy. California's State Government is arguably more [copulated] up than the federal government is. We have: a series of districts which were, until 2010 totally gerrymandered to the point where nobody was seriously contesting anybody, a budgetary system that actively prevented anybody from making changes, a legislature that for decades used the education sector as a private piggy bank for their pet projects, a proposition system which squirrels away large proportions of the state's budget for unnecessary projects and which routinely approves bond measures that will be a drain on our economy decades down the line (who cares amirite?). Our legislators face serious corruption charges too. I'm sure if you did a study on Californian politics you'd also find a tendency for moneyed interests to win out over personal ones. Same with County Politics. Same with city politics (just a quick peek into San Jose or San Francisco's historical politics tells you all you need to know about how well-functioning, representative and not-at-all corrupt those are). Or hell, watch Chinatown or Who Framed Roger Rabbit or play L.A. Noire those stories are based on real things that actually happened in LA in the past. Eliminating Federal Government is not going to solve the US's massive problems with being unrepresentative of the people the government supposedly serves. State and Local governments are part of the problem too, moreso, possibly.
It's not just that state and local governments tend to be even more inefficient and ineffective than the federal government, as well as more corrupt. But taken as a whole the state and local governments have usually been worse on liberty issues as well. And they utterly suck on income support issues. So the states über alles crowd either really doesn't understand what's going on, or has an agenda they're unwilling to own up to.
It's not just that state and local governments tend to be even more inefficient and ineffective than the federal government, as well as more corrupt. But taken as a whole the state and local governments have usually been worse on liberty issues as well. And they utterly suck on income support issues. So the states über alles crowd either really doesn't understand what's going on, or has an agenda they're unwilling to own up to.
Or they simply believe that states, being smaller and more diverse, offer up important improvements in addition to their greater inefficiencies. State autonomy has led the way on a great deal of issues that the federal government has been slow to pick up on. Ending marijuana prohibition. Supporting homosexual marriage rights. Protection of laborers. Etc. There is a balance to strike here, and it isn't "states always suck and the federal gubbernmint is better" anymore than it is "the Fed is teh ebil."
The political funding angle helps. But I think the cultural aspect of being surrounded by lots of other rich peopel (sorry middle class people) is probably the more important.
Seconded. The culture and world-views of the people someone hangs out with have a huge influence on their thinking. And politicians spend a lot of time with lobbyists, funders, etc. For that matter, so do big names in US mainstream media.
Some [territories] matter (from a strategic point of view). Many don't.
As a result you're campaigning for ridings not people and subsequently make policy for ridings not people.
Very important. By way of solutions: the National Popular Vote movement in the USA has serious potential IMO to overcome this issue in presidential elections.
There's some truth in that, but I think structural problems are far more important. As long as "money talks" is considered the new meaning of Free Speech under the First Amendment, politicians will listen to money talking.
Maybe. Most Americans still get most of their news from major TV networks. (Forget where I heard that -- maybe Gallup) The news anchors hang out with Very Serious People, to use Paul Krugman's term, which roughly equates to Very Rich People. That might change, with the internet taking over. Even though big money players influence the internet too, it'd different. A podcast or YouTube video is dirt cheap to produce; unlike TV, you don't absolutely need advertising support. So maybe, just maybe, increased choice and diversity will allow voters to drift away from that influence.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy. California's State Government is arguably more [copulated] up than the federal government is. We have: a series of districts which were, until 2010 totally gerrymandered to the point where nobody was seriously contesting anybody, a budgetary system that actively prevented anybody from making changes, a legislature that for decades used the education sector as a private piggy bank for their pet projects, a proposition system which squirrels away large proportions of the state's budget for unnecessary projects and which routinely approves bond measures that will be a drain on our economy decades down the line (who cares amirite?). Our legislators face serious corruption charges too. I'm sure if you did a study on Californian politics you'd also find a tendency for moneyed interests to win out over personal ones. Same with County Politics. Same with city politics (just a quick peek into San Jose or San Francisco's historical politics tells you all you need to know about how well-functioning, representative and not-at-all corrupt those are). Or hell, watch Chinatown or Who Framed Roger Rabbit or play L.A. Noire those stories are based on real things that actually happened in LA in the past. Eliminating Federal Government is not going to solve the US's massive problems with being unrepresentative of the people the government supposedly serves. State and Local governments are part of the problem too, moreso, possibly.
Its not that state governments are somehow more moral than federal governments (they aren't). Its that there are regional differences in needs/wants/desires. If California wants X and New York wants Y, it makes more sense for state governments to be established and give the people what they want than have the federal government give everybody X or Y and make a segment of the population unhappy.
The problem is that people vote on money. They can just as easily vote on a candidate that isn't bought by money or not vote at all. People apparently vote for the monied interests over and over again.
You have exercised your democratic rights against you. It is your responsibility to vote responsibly and if you vote for monied interests because the media told you it would be alright and you allowed yourself to be tricked, you deserve what you get. Better luck next time.
Don't know any candidates who do not represent monied interest? Then don't vote. There is no compulsory voting in the USA AFAIK.
Democracy and plutocracy are intimately tied: In democracies left-or-right, the people rule, and they are ruled by money. Every voter has a responsibility to be well-informed. Simply saying "the rich control the media" is not a valid excuse, since every human being has the power of filtering his or her media consumption and judging whether to take the media at face value or not.
That said, the USA is simply too big to be a working democracy, if we define democracy as a system of directly elected representatives. It may be a sensible (but politically impossible) option to have Congress and the Senate elected by the electoral college as well or else break up the US.
While PR and campaign advertising matters on the back-end, money distorts the system by selecting candidates before people go to the polls to vote. Even in primaries, much less general elections, candidates with insufficient fundraising chops or backing from lobbying firms struggle to get a campaign off the ground.
It is unreasonable to blame the voters for this distortion. By the time the decision gets to them, the damage is done. Saying "don't vote" is basically voting for the status quo.
Well, the candidate with the most money is also the one with the best PR, the best speechwriters and the best advisers. Should we not vote for the best-looking candidate, because he's obviously better-paid? More to the point, should we set nothing in store by the fact that the country's industries support a candidate? Supporting the party that nobody is willing to pay to assist to win seems like a recipe for disaster: corporations, after all, have an interest in a healthy economy and prosperous consumers. To me, the problem is more that people are allowed to donate in large quantities without sufficient accountability - what people really need is the information to see whose money is going where.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy. California's State Government is arguably more [copulated] up than the federal government is. We have: a series of districts which were, until 2010 totally gerrymandered to the point where nobody was seriously contesting anybody, a budgetary system that actively prevented anybody from making changes, a legislature that for decades used the education sector as a private piggy bank for their pet projects, a proposition system which squirrels away large proportions of the state's budget for unnecessary projects and which routinely approves bond measures that will be a drain on our economy decades down the line (who cares amirite?). Our legislators face serious corruption charges too. I'm sure if you did a study on Californian politics you'd also find a tendency for moneyed interests to win out over personal ones. Same with County Politics. Same with city politics (just a quick peek into San Jose or San Francisco's historical politics tells you all you need to know about how well-functioning, representative and not-at-all corrupt those are). Or hell, watch Chinatown or Who Framed Roger Rabbit or play L.A. Noire those stories are based on real things that actually happened in LA in the past. Eliminating Federal Government is not going to solve the US's massive problems with being unrepresentative of the people the government supposedly serves. State and Local governments are part of the problem too, moreso, possibly.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy. California's State Government is arguably more [copulated] up than the federal government is. We have: a series of districts which were, until 2010 totally gerrymandered to the point where nobody was seriously contesting anybody, a budgetary system that actively prevented anybody from making changes, a legislature that for decades used the education sector as a private piggy bank for their pet projects, a proposition system which squirrels away large proportions of the state's budget for unnecessary projects and which routinely approves bond measures that will be a drain on our economy decades down the line (who cares amirite?). Our legislators face serious corruption charges too. I'm sure if you did a study on Californian politics you'd also find a tendency for moneyed interests to win out over personal ones. Same with County Politics. Same with city politics (just a quick peek into San Jose or San Francisco's historical politics tells you all you need to know about how well-functioning, representative and not-at-all corrupt those are). Or hell, watch Chinatown or Who Framed Roger Rabbit or play L.A. Noire those stories are based on real things that actually happened in LA in the past. Eliminating Federal Government is not going to solve the US's massive problems with being unrepresentative of the people the government supposedly serves. State and Local governments are part of the problem too, moreso, possibly.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy.
You can escape state government by moving from one state to another state. It is called voting with your feet. You do not like the way California is run and you do not like paying their oppressive taxes? You can move to Texas.
It is much more difficult to escape the federal government that way, especially if you are a US Citizen, given that the USA taxes based on citizenship.
You can escape state government by moving from one state to another state. It is called voting with your feet. You do not like the way California is run and you do not like paying their oppressive taxes? You can move to Texas.
It is much more difficult to escape the federal government that way, especially if you are a US Citizen, given that the USA taxes based on citizenship.
The problem with this mindset is that there's a lot more than laws that define whether or not you like a place. The people, the culture, the climate, the proximity to things, family and friendships, pesky feelings of patriotism and loyalty, the nature of the economy, etc. are all powerful motivators to keep a person rooted in a place with laws they detest and have no satisfying way of changing.
Any time we narrow what's socially important to one axis (i.e. a political regime, religious affiliation, etc) we lose out on reality.
It's been years since I viewed the national government as a viable civic driver. My response has been to focus on the local, where individuals as citizens can effect positive change, from the small -- picking up trash as you see it with your own hands -- to the larger-scale and more detached, voting for local politicians. Key for me is finding civic leaders who will work to better the city, or the state, not simply appeal to the Federals for more money - grants and the like. Americans should not be voting on which courtier they will send to the king to beg on their behalf. That is servility, not democracy. We need to take responsibility for our neighborhoods and cities, and let the monstrously large, bureaucratic mess that is the Federal government die of its own excesses.
Its not that state governments are somehow more moral than federal governments (they aren't). Its that there are regional differences in needs/wants/desires. If California wants X and New York wants Y, it makes more sense for state governments to be established and give the people what they want than have the federal government give everybody X or Y and make a segment of the population unhappy.
Most of the time, that's a Very Bad Thing. The hole reason the federal government is so dominant now is that the regional differences in needs/wants/desires was mostly about a bigoted majority harming a powerless minority.
Most of the time, that's a Very Bad Thing. The hole reason the federal government is so dominant now is that the regional differences in needs/wants/desires was mostly about a bigoted majority harming a powerless minority.
Its not that state governments are somehow more moral than federal governments (they aren't). Its that there are regional differences in needs/wants/desires. If California wants X and New York wants Y, it makes more sense for state governments to be established and give the people what they want than have the federal government give everybody X or Y and make a segment of the population unhappy.
Exactly. For example, say a state government wants slavery to be legal. Who is the federal government (aka literally the Nazis) to say that slavery should be illegal? States' Rights!
Indeed. And to some extent, is there a single major country which is not an oligarchy? Oligarchy just means "rule by a few". I can agree with the argument that the average American has less say on the course his country takes than say the average Swiss or Norwegian. But the average Brit, German, Frenchman? I don't think so. To say nothing of the average Russian or Chinese.
Smaller countries tend to be considerably more democratic, all else being equal.
I have never quite understood why people are so besotted with state governments as an alternative to the federal government, some ideal perfectly designed to make everybody happy. [...] Eliminating Federal Government is not going to solve the US's massive problems with being unrepresentative of the people the government supposedly serves. State and Local governments are part of the problem too, moreso, possibly.
I do not agree with the notion that a political entity can be 'too big' for democracy. As Owen says, bad rule can occur both at the U.S. federal level and at the state level. I'd argue that size has relatively little to do with it at all. What matters is the system put in place to ensure proper democratic control of the government in question.
To prove my point, I just collected some statistics on countries population sizes, their level of democracy (an average of Freedom in the World, Index of Economic Freedom, Press Freedom Index and Democracy Index) and their HDI (which measures life expectancy, education and GNI per capita):
The colours show the HDI level (blue being best, red worst), the X axis is the level of freedom (1 is most free, 5 most unfree) and the Y axis is the population (I capped the U.S., India, Indonesia and China at 200 million).
As is evident, there isn't much of a correlation between population levels and freedom. Though as a control, it seems that there is a correlation between high HDI and freedom...
Of course, this data still shows the U.S. as quite free, so it might not be showing exactly what we're supposed to discuss in this thread.
The USA is a free democracy: That it is unable to serve the interests of its citizens can largely be pinpointed in the inability of the general public to vote the right people into office.
That's not a panacea. Up here in the Netherlands we have a directly proportional system and it did not prevent the popularity of Geert Wilders. If anything, lack of a first past the post system is what has allowed radicals like him to become influential in the first place, which is why the party most opposed to Wilders (D66) actually calls for reintroduction of the district system.
At this point, I favour abolishing our house of representatives and only retain the first chamber which is indirectly elected.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, the Netherlands has a parliamentary system. Wilders has about 10% of the seats, and while that means the other parties might have to deal with him, there is no way he can get through any policies which are anathema to the rest. And the people voting for him are actually still getting their opinions heard! Seems like a very well working system to me.
A huge problem with U.S. politics is the extreme Gerrymandering of the voting districts. As candidates become safe from competition from other political rivals, the only people who can threaten their position are allied candidates with ever-more extreme positions. So to hold on to their seats, the candidates outbid themselves in sucking up to their ever-more designed electorate, and the political climate end up in a never-ending death spiral of polarisation.
Even then, any system decays into an oligarchy. However many parties you have, as long as having education and an aristocratic manner behind you and money and time to spare will help you win an election, there will always be only a small subset of the population standing for office, let alone holding it. Don't underestimate the power of 'not for the likes of me' thinking.
The concrete electoral results in and of themselves are not even the biggest problem.
There's a whole culture that comes with having territories not people vote for you or your policies.
And then there's the whole business about some ridings (weird Canadian thingys, whatever) mattering more than others etc. etc.
There is a balance to be found between having a populist vote for the government, and geographically grouped votes to better represent low-population areas.
As an example, Norway has an interesting approach where each county has a number of seats in parliament, and the parties present lists of candidates in each county. So each politician represents a county. However, any extra votes in a county which weren't enough to elect a politician is combined with similar votes from all counties and are then used as national popular votes for the 'levelling seats' (roughly 10% of parliamentary seats).
1. Doing away with Gerrymandering and having each election district correspond to a rectangle on the map. That would make it much harder for politicians to entrench themselves in their districts.
2. Adopting a parliamentary system so the popular vote will be more prominent and it will become more likely to develop a multi-party system. For the U.S. I would think something like the Norwegian election model could work; we have a strong focus on making sure that all counties, no matter their population levels, will get a fair representation in parliament, while still making sure every vote actually counts.
3. Forcing a broadcasters to spend a minimum amount of their budgets on their news, making their news organisations independent and forbidding them from running commercials before, during and after the news. This would hopefully make for a more enlightened electorate.
Given the current state of the American public, revolution really is not a viable option. There are plenty of people who recognize there is a serious problem, but there are too few who are actually willing to take the personal risk to life and property to do something about it. Not to mention, those that would take action would be branded as extremists and nutjobs, thus preventing them from gaining any kind of political momentum.
Just about the only way a successful revolution could be pulled off in the US would be with foreign support. And the kind of countries that would be willing to back a revolution in the US aren't the kind of countries I would want meddling in our politics.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
