Just in case you think that I’m the only one who doesn’t see our present system as particularly democratic (and it has nothing to do with the Electoral College), you might want to consider Ezra Klein’s latest piece in the New York Times:
And Hélène Landemore, a political scientist at Yale, has one of those ideas. She calls it “open democracy,†and the premise is simple: What we call democracy is not very democratic.
The role of the people is confined to elections, to choosing the elites who will represent us. Landemore argues that our political thinking is stuck in “18th-century epistemologies and technologies.†It is not enough.
We’ve learned much in the last few hundred years about random sampling, about the benefits of cognitively diverse groups, about the ways elections are captured by those with the most social and financial capital. Landemore wants to take what we’ve learned and build a new vision of democracy atop it — one in which we let groups of randomly selected citizens actually deliberate and govern. One in which we trust deliberation and diversity, not elections and political parties, to shape our ideas and to restrain our worst impulses.
As I’ve said before I think that restraining our worst impulses should be effected with laws that severely circumscribe what governments can and cannot do. But our system as it presently works now basically works to create a ruling class dedicated to making the rich richer.
“As I’ve said before I think that restraining our worst impulses should be effected with laws that severely circumscribe what governments can and cannot do.”
That would be great. But let’s look at our last election. Election law was violated at will in contradiction to laws passed by legislatures. The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases. The state courts employed the ole defense to these transgressions, for partisan reasons. So much for law.
I am still convinced that term limits are the only answer. Take away the incentives to make a career of gathering power and then trading legislation for financial gain.
I am well aware of the counter-arguments. The one that should receive the most snorts, guffaws and snickers is that it takes experienced hands at the till to make informed and wise legislative decisions.
It wasn’t solely for partisan reasons. The courts are reluctant to put themselves in the position of deciding the outcomes of elections.
“The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases. The state courts employed the ole defense to these transgressions, for partisan reasons. So much for law.”
You put in judges who say they believe in states rights, then get mad they practice it. Why am I not surprised? On the plus side for your guys, they are more likely to support efforts to make it more difficult for people to vote.
“But our system as it presently works now basically works to create a ruling class dedicated to making the rich richer.”
Mostly. Some exceptions but in general laws do favor the wealthy and are likely to be made for their benefit. Now that the wealthy get elected directly rather than having to buy their influence it has gotten even easier.
Steve
Steve