[dqybh]

>Otherwise, the whole point of democracy (one human, one vote) is useless, as the rich can simply buy ads to influence enough people to follow their goals.

As they've always done through the media? The hardest thing to swallow, for some people, is that democracy is deeply flawed, and these things openly show it. Until now they've been free to ignore it.

[TelmoMenezes]

> As they've always done through the media? The hardest thing to swallow, for some people, is that these things show very openly how democracy is deeply flawed.

If you study a bit of History, or look beyond the western world, you will see how terrible the alternatives are. And you will see that democracy is something worth fighting for. Democracy is not flawed, it is hard. We have to fight for it, and the next generations will have to fight for it, and so on. It's real life.

I haven't resigned myself to living in a Black Mirror episode.

[perfmode]

Truth: Democracy has dependencies. Just (fair) access to education and opportunity is absolutely necessary for democracy to function.

[xtian]

As early as Athenian democracy the dependencies had been identified as comprehensive education, quality information, and time to debate.

[GoblinSlayer]

And the will to uphold democracy in the first place.

[perfmode]

interesting.

got a link or reference? would love to read more

[xtian]

I might be misremembering but I think I heard that in a speech by John Ralston Saul. Sorry I can’t remember anything more specific!

[syshum]

Democracy is very very flawed, that is why the US is not a democracy, why at every level of government there are checks put in place to put in road blocks to democracy.

And why it is so extremely dangerous that people are trying to destroy those checks and institute a direct democracy with things like the national popular vote.

[checkyoursudo]

Any nation that could, by pure democratic vote of a sovereign people, turn itself into a direct democracy if it so desired, seems related enough to direct democracy that it makes little sense to distinguish it this way.

In the US, the constitutional amendment process simply requires enough people in enough states to make an amendment happen. The people of the US could turn the US into one gigantic direct democracy should enough people so democratically vote.

The fact that most people in the US seem satisfied with a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy hardly seems reason to say that the US is not a democracy at all.

All of those checks and balances at every level of government were established by either the people themselves or by representatives of the people on behalf of the people. They were not put in place by some king or dictator. The checks and balances could be undone anytime enough people wanted to undo them, up to and including voiding the current Constitution and starting over if enough people wanted to. Maybe this kind of democracy should be distinguished from a true direct democracy -- like maybe an acquiescent direct democracy, where as long as you keep doing what the people want they won't take back direct control or something.

But the fact of the matter is that the sovereign of the United States as a whole and of each of the states individually is and has always been the people, the demos, δῆμος -- from whence democracy (δημοκρᾰτῐ́ᾱ) comes.

I mean, it says it right there at the beginning of the establishing document, "We the people ..."

[syshum]

>Any nation that could, by pure democratic vote of a sovereign people, turn itself into a direct democracy if it so desired, seems related enough to direct democracy that it makes little sense to distinguish it this way.

The US could not turn itself in to a direct democracy with a vote of the people. The US Constitution would have to be amended and there is no mechanism in the US Constitution that would allows a direct vote to turn this nation into a direct democracy

>In the US, the constitutional amendment process simply requires enough people in enough states to make an amendment happen.

No that is not how it works at all. Either Congress would have to propose Amendments or 2/3 of the states would have to get together at a convention to propose them

Then they would need to be ratified by 3/4 (not 50%) of the states to be adopted

A direct Democracy would only require 50%+1 of the people in a nation wide vote. That is not how our constitution works and there is zero mechanism for such a vote to happen

>The checks and balances could be undone anytime enough people wanted to undo them, up to and including voiding the current Constitution and starting over if enough people wanted to.

This is all true, and has been over the years. For example on massive check on federal government power was that the Senate was not to be popularly elected by citizens, instead the Senate's purpose was to represent each states government's interest in congress, not the people. The House was "the peoples house", The constitution was amended to make the Senate a popularly elected position just like the house. This resulted in a MASSIVE expansion of Federal power, and the loss of State Sovereignty and pushing us closer to the nightmare that would be a direct democracy aka mob rule

[checkyoursudo]

> The US could not turn itself in to a direct democracy with a vote of the people. The US Constitution would have to be amended and there is no mechanism in the US Constitution that would allows a direct vote to turn this nation into a direct democracy

Who in your mind does the voting on the representatives that would be proposing and voting on the constitutional amendments? I didn't say that it would only take a simple majority of voters to turn the US into a direct democracy. I said it would take enough voters to turn the US into a direct democracy. It would simply take enough voters to turn state legislatures into machines to produce the amendments to turn the Constitution into a direct democracy through amendment.

I never once in my reply said that it would take a simple majority.

>>In the US, the constitutional amendment process simply requires enough people in enough states to make an amendment happen.

> No that is not how it works at all. Either Congress would have to propose Amendments or 2/3 of the states would have to get together at a convention to propose them

Yes, this is literally how it works. If enough people of the several states voted for enough legislators who were committed to amending the Constitution such, that is all you need.

The process is more involved, yes, as you've laid out. But all you need is enough voters to do it. Those voters might have to go through the process of populating their state legislatures and the federal delegations with the right representatives to do it, but the sole requirement is that you have enough voters who want to do it.

> Then they would need to be ratified by 3/4 (not 50%) of the states to be adopted

Yes, again, this is just another way of saying that you need enough people. States can ratify by public referendum or by action of the legislature. Either way, you just need enough people. (E.g., [0])

> A direct Democracy would only require 50%+1 of the people in a nation wide vote. That is not how our constitution works and there is zero mechanism for such a vote to happen

I never said a single, nationwide vote. I just said you need enough people voting.

> This is all true, and has been over the years. For example on massive check on federal government power was that the Senate was not to be popularly elected by citizens, instead the Senate's purpose was to represent each states government's interest in congress, not the people. The House was "the peoples house", The constitution was amended to make the Senate a popularly elected position just like the house. This resulted in a MASSIVE expansion of Federal power, and the loss of State Sovereignty and pushing us closer to the nightmare that would be a direct democracy aka mob rule

I agree with this (except the moralizing about mob rule -- I don't have much opinion on whether direct democracy would be good or bad). All I'm saying is that if enough people wanted to, the progression to direct democracy would be unstoppable. All it takes is enough people (voting for the right legislators, etc etc yes yes the process itself takes more than a simple vote).

Edit: I am not saying whether the US voters turning the US into a direct democracy would be a good thing or not! I don't claim to know one way or another. I am only claiming that they could, if they wanted to. End edit.

I'm sorry that I was not more clear in what I wrote.

I was merely trying to point out that in a nation where the people themselves retain the ultimate power (sovereignty) to direct their own form of government, regardless of how the government is constituted at any given time, then you cannot realistically call it anything other than a democracy.

[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Ratification_of_Federal_Constit...

[HeWhoLurksLate]

I believe you have terms misconstrued.

What we in the US have is a representative democracy / republic that is also rather decentralized federation (states and state's rights) as well.

The US is a democracy. 🇺🇸

[ratsmack]

I believe we, the US, is a Constitutional Republic, and we vote Democratically.

[syshum]

The original design of the government was to have only 1/2 of 1 branch of government Democratically Elected. That being the House

The Senate was appointed by State Legislatures, this was changed with the 17th Amendment

The President is Chosen by Electorial College not a democratic vote (which I support BTW)

The Judicial Branch is Appointed for Life.

[ratsmack]

The Electoral College is one of the most significant aspects of our electoral system and hopefully will never be supplanted by popular vote.

[rhacker]

It is what we want it to be, even if it may take 100 more years to get there.

[darkpuma]

From the 1828 (first edition) of Webster's dictionary:

> Republic: 1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

So historically, a distinction was in fact made.

Here is Alexander Hamilton (a republican in the classical sense of the word) making the distinction very clearly:

> "We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. Those who mean to form a solid republican government, ought to proceed to the confinges of another government. As long as offices are open to all men, and no constitutional rank is established, it is pure republicanism. But if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton#Debates_of_...

[edejong]

The traditional media had to operate in the open. You could figure out what your neighbor was reading by buying his/her newspaper for a day. Also, newspapers could report on each other’s reporting. This has become increasingly opaque.

[hrktb]

I feel the traditional media operated in the open as much as you can still get whatever message is broadcasted to half of the population by clicking on a few links.

Even in the days anything more insidious would happen over direct mailing, or direct spam through the mailbox. Even knowing what magazines someone subscribes to is not obvious if you don’t catch the mail staff or check the garbage, which would be roughly equivalent to stalking someone online and checking their accounts followings and network.

I think as long as people are trying to build communities, there will be channels to get what other people are thinking/reading/discussing. It will be more tricky with true direct one direction messaging sending “orders” to an army of followers of an ideology.

[acct1771]

Media conglomerates still indeed have some sway.

CNN et al which all have questionable at best propaganda/war drum records are still pointed to with appeals to authority.l, etc.

[dominotw]

its not just media though. politicians in my country directly give ppl money, liquor ect in exchange for their vote, its not really happening in open.

[baroffoos]

We need political adverts otherwise we wouldn't know what any party supports. One solution I can think of is every party gets equal ad time so no one can buy more votes and we all find out whats going on.

[GoblinSlayer]

It's not deeply flawed, just corrupted, but hey, anything can, there's no silver bullet against it.

[Franciscouzo]

Why blame democracy when the elephant in the room is capitalism?