Dispatches from the Creation Wars

I'd much rather focus on issues than on partisan politics.

Posted by: Beowulff | October 30, 2008 9:47 AM

I for one am tired of the "Chinese Combo deal" nature of representative democracy...

Tough shit -- that's what representative democracy is all about: no one gets to shove their agenda down the majority's throats; you get things done by appealing to the majority, recognizing their interests, and making deals that benefit as many people as possible.

Of course, if you don't like the "Chinese combo deal," you could always see what's on the North Korean menu...

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 30, 2008 10:10 AM

Wow, Raging Bee, way to miss the point completely.

Direct Democracy *would* require majority consensus but *on individual issues* (rather than merely throwing an American Idol-esque popularity contest every four years and calling that the will of the people).

No one would be able to "shove their agenda down the majority's throats" as one would need the majority on their side to pass any legislation on the issue they were promoting.

Sure, as in any democratic system, you wouldn't get your way every time, but you would have your say every time, and you wouldn't be stuck voting by proxy for things you don't support at all, as is often the case in today's representative democracies.

I really don't understand how anyone could misunderstand what I wrote that badly, unless the misunderstanding was intentional and merely an excuse to indulge in raging. In that case, to use your own words, "tough shit"; the rest of us would like to have a constructive conversation here.

Posted by: Jason Failes | October 30, 2008 10:38 AM

What column? And who's Jacob Weisberg?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 30, 2008 11:01 AM

"In what way are we currently "stuck voting by proxy for things we don't support at all?""

Say you like Obama's tax policies and hate his immigration policies, but you like his tax policies more than you hate his immigration policies, so you vote Obama. When he wins, he represents you by proxy, and tries to put forth his own mixed bag of policy ideas, which include both the tax policies you support and the immigration polices that you do not.

A similar situation plays out at every level of a representative democracy (I'm Canadian actually, so there's only so much I can say about the particulars of the American system, even though watching your national politics is our national past time). Again, I'm not saying you would get your way on tax policy and immigration policy under a system of direct democracy; you may get neither in fact. The important thing is that you would get to vote separately on each issue.

"Please describe how, exactly, your "direct democracy" system allegedly works, and tell us how we would "have our say every time" in that system but not in the current system."

First, it would certainly have to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, something added to current representative democracies then, only gradually over perhaps decades, replacing them.

Second, I would by no means single-handedly organize it. Direct democracy would have unique challenges (heavy emphasis security, privacy, and error/fraud elimination) and would require strong systems of checks and balances (notably to limit the harm that "mob rule" can do), requiring the inputs of thousands of professionals to develop, implement, and improve the system over time.

All that said, the basics are direct participation of all of-age citizens in bill development, amendment, and voting through an appropriately secured internet network.

Again, I realize that this would not work overnight, and would be subject to fraud, hacking, and perhaps even Rickrolling at first, which is why it wouldn't replace representative democracy overnight, but over time it would be adapted and improved to truly represent the will of the people (much in the same way wikipedia was a hackfest at first, but over time has developed a clear trajectory towards becoming a legitimate online encyclopedia).

I apologize for the lack of details at this point. They are not for me (alone) to determine even in my own country, much less yours.

Posted by: Jason Failes | October 30, 2008 11:40 AM

but I do not intend to endorse anyone (and frankly can't imagine why anyone would pay any attention to me if I did)

I understand what you are saying, but I think you underestimate yourself. I've been reading Dispatches for a while and although I rarely leave a comment, I do appreciate your perspective on things. Your posts are intelligent, honest and thoughtful. Just remember there are many others listening/reading and taking your words into consideration - as well they should!

That said, I probably would not publicly endorse a candidate either - LOL!! Isn't it enough that you do the research so the rest of us can make an informed decision? Everyone should collectively be less lazy in decision making anyway and stop relying on what other people think - such as in the form of endorsements.

Keep up the great work!

Posted by: JCE | October 30, 2008 12:15 PM

Stewie, I have read the Federalist Papers, I just don't agree with everything they say. Yes, they were terrified of the common people (Chomsky gives some thorough, though dry, talks about this) largely due to their lack of education, high passions, and poor decision-making skills.

Even though I cannot claim this has changed as much as we would have liked in the two centuries plus since, it is not an invariant. People can be educated, perhaps even to the point where they can be trusted to run their own country.

Donalbain, actually I was thinking there may be a problem with bias, but in the opposite direction.

If direct democracy was based on an internet network that anyone with a connection could access, a disproportionate amount of bill introduction, amendment, and voting might be done by people bored at work, homemakers, and the same kind of cyber-philes who dominate wikipedia, digg, etc, with a disproportionately low representation from relatively computer-shy geriatrics.

Again, something that would have to be addressed, but not a reason to abandon the idea of direct democracy if such problems could be ironed out.

Posted by: Jason Failes | October 30, 2008 1:17 PM

Again, something that would have to be addressed, but not a reason to abandon the idea of direct democracy if such problems could be ironed out.

They will never be ironed out. In any political system, regardless of what the org-charts say, there will always be groups of people with disproportionately more influence than others. At least with a representative democracy, the bias tends toward people who actually put in more work, get more experience, and build up more knowledge of the relevant issues. (McCain and Obama both have long careers, which gave them huge amounts of experience that would make either of them a better President than I'd be likely to make.) If you expect me to scrap that for an impossible pipe-dream of absolute equality, then all I can say is "forget it." Politics is about reality, and I'll stick to a realistic system, thankyouverymuch. If that makes me a elitist, than go rat me out to Sarah Palin already; maybe she'll let you hump her leg for a few seconds.

As for "mob rule," I'm totally in agreement with heddle, and the Founders. The last thing America needs is a system where large numbers of hysterical fools (like the folks who gave us Bush, Rove, McCain, Huckabee, Falwell and Palin) can be whipped up to "e-vote" for some draconian witch-burning law before they can think about it, or before the rest of the public can be informed about the details of the proposal. The potential for disasterous irrationality is enormous, and no, technology won't save us from it.

Some states, such as CA, have initiatives and referendums, and one of their major failings is that such measures come up for a vote at odd times of the year; which gives certain interest-groups the advantage of being able to vote for them when the rest of the public aren't even aware there's a vote coming up.

Direct democracy didn't even work on the city-state level for the ancient Greeks (Peloponnesian War, anyone?); and there's no evidence that it will work any better for us.

You can tinker with the system all you want; but it's not likely to give you a better government than what we have now, because human nature, human needs, and human interests will stay the same anyway.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 30, 2008 2:08 PM

Another endorsement of note - The Economist endorsed Obama today.

Posted by: Anna | October 30, 2008 2:16 PM

Heddle, it would still be a constitutional direct democracy.

Just as today's constitutional representative democracy couldn't vote in, for example, a return to the slavery of African Americans, no matter the level of support, neither could a direct democracy.

No witch burnings either, for the same reason.

I've given this some thought, and in addition today's system of checks and balances, there would also need to be almost a scientific element, a limiting of potential policies to those with at least the measurable possibility of working. (Not that it is a federal issue, but the best example I can think of is abstinence-only education. No matter how much popular support it enjoys, its complete failure on any metric should remove it from any serious policy discussion.)

Posted by: Jason Failes | October 30, 2008 2:38 PM

...I've given this some thought, and in addition today's system of checks and balances, there would also need to be almost a scientific element, a limiting of potential policies to those with at least the measurable possibility of working.

So in other words, a "direct democracy" wouldn't work at all unless there's a "panel of experts" ("Politburo?") to "guide" the process, whom the hysterical rubes couldn't overthrow in the heat of ignorant passion? I guess that means "direct democracy" is just a pipedream.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 30, 2008 3:08 PM

Direct democracy didn't even work on the city-state level for the ancient Greeks (Peloponnesian War, anyone?); and there's no evidence that it will work any better for us.

You can tinker with the system all you want; but it's not likely to give you a better government than what we have now, because human nature, human needs, and human interests will stay the same anyway.

Posted by: wesele | October 30, 2008 5:58 PM

Raging Bee, I'm not making an argument against regulation in general. But your characterization of what happened with Fannie and Freddie is just plain ignorant. Yes, they were under real pressure from the government to relax their standards for giving out housing loans. It was part of a deliberate social policy to expand home ownership--certainly a desirable goal in itself.

I would note that other banks faced pressure to do the same, under the explicit threat of being charged with redlining. That is, if they didn't relax their underwriting standards for granting mortgages, so less qualified borrowers could get loans, they would be charged with deliberate racial discrimination.

That is simply not a free market situation. Prior to government pressure and threats to charge banks with redlining, these risky loans were not a major part of any financial institution's portfolio.

And that's not about being libertarian--it's about knowing what the facts are.

Posted by: James Hanley | October 30, 2008 7:10 PM

SLC,

Good point, but not complete. One of the reasons the properties continued to increase in value was the Fed's easy money policy (again, not precisely a free market thing, as it was government policy; but admittedly liked by most businesses). That kept interest rates very low.

And the adjustable rate mortgages that banks were pressured to give risky borrowers absolutely depended on increasing housing prices. Interest rates on the ARMs would go up after 3-5 years, forcing people to refinance. The increased market value of their home gave them equity (more equity than they had earned through mortgage payments), making refinancing possible. Once the bubble popped, people couldn't refinance their ARMs because they often had negative equity.

On that side of things it was a mixture of bad policy and bad market predictions about the future (or, more precisely, market predictions that were right enough for a while to fool most people into thinking they'd be right forever).

Posted by: James Hanley | October 31, 2008 9:32 AM