Democracy in trouble, Gore says in book

[RedHot25]

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2...gore-book.html

Gore released a new book on Tuesday, The Assault on Reason, which describes U.S. politics as a rigged game that suppresses honesty and rewards deception.
...

"It's about that there are cracks in the foundation of American democracy that have to be fixed."

....

"It is too easy and too partisan to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush," Gore writes in The Assault on Reason.

"We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Why have they all failed us?"

Despite claiming not to blame Bush, Gore is intensely critical of the current U.S. president's climate policies and his response to the 9/11 attacks.


The Bush White House "has engaged in an unprecedented and sustained campaign of mass deception — especially where its policies in Iraq are concerned," he writes.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2...gore-book.html

Gore released a new book on Tuesday, The Assault on Reason, which describes U.S. politics as a rigged game that suppresses honesty and rewards deception.
...

"It's about that there are cracks in the foundation of American democracy that have to be fixed."

....

"It is too easy and too partisan to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush," Gore writes in The Assault on Reason.

"We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Why have they all failed us?"

Despite claiming not to blame Bush, Gore is intensely critical of the current U.S. president's climate policies and his response to the 9/11 attacks.


The Bush White House "has engaged in an unprecedented and sustained campaign of mass deception — especially where its policies in Iraq are concerned," he writes.

Of course democracy is failing from Al Gore's prospective. He lost despite having the popular vote. I'm sure he's still pretty chapped about that.

[Azure]

I've already said it...if the US falls, it'll be from within.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

He is sharply critical of the media for being controlled by a few powerful interests, of television for covering trivial excess and of politicians for alienating the public.

No kidding. There's a discertation in there someplace. Oh, wait...

[Cube Inmate]

Democracy, as practised by the typical Western-world examples, is fundamentally flawed. Despite the fact that we have universal sufferage and regular elections, the average person feels so far disconnected from the actual governing process that we've begun to treat "the government" as an entity in and of itself, rather than an entity of, by, and for the people.

Governments seem to feel the same way about themselves...that they're some kind of divinely-created institution whose voter mandate gives them free reign to act. As long as governments think of themselves as "the government," rather than a group of individual citizens tasked with the responsibility of governing, I don't think anything will change.

I think representative democracy can work for small populations, but not to the extent that it's being used now. Things will only get worse as populations continue to rise.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I think representative democracy can work for small populations, but not to the extent that it's being used now. Things will only get worse as populations continue to rise.

Sounds akin to Communism. I'd argue that it's a feasable ideology on the small scale as well.

Basically once you get invovled in massive populations there are so many different opinions that someone, and probably a lot of someone's are going to be left out.

Question is.. Is there another way?

[RedHot25]

I think some consideration has to be given at looking at democracy in a more "micro way". When we traditionally think of democracy, we think of the things in this thread. But involving people, on a smaller scale, in decisions that will affect their lives is to me the way things will go. Participatory democracy, at that level, in my mind has potential.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Question is.. Is there another way?

I don't know. While I appreciate the fact that I (technically) have a direct say in how I'm governed at all levels, I also realize that my vote is far less influential in the grand scheme of things than public opinion polls, lobbyists, and the personal whims of the politicians we elect. As such, I don't honestly believe that the practice of directly voting for all levels of government is necessarily a keeper.

Right now (with 3 levels of government) my personal level of influence at each level is as follows, both at a representative level and in total (assuming entire population could vote):

Federal: 1/103,000 (riding)....1/34,000,000 in parliament
Provincial: 1/38,000 (riding) .... 1/3,300,000 in legislature
Municipal: 1/68,000 (ward) .... 1/1,000,000 in city council

Now, I don't think I should have a larger voice in the overall scheme of things, but looking at those numbers leaves me wondering how I'm supposed to have any influence at all when my GREATEST impact by voting is a 1/38,000th share of a provincial electoral district??

I've occasionally wondered how a purely hierarchical government structure would work.... Suppose we still want 3 levels of government...call them local, regional, and national. What would happen if, instead of having them as totally separate entities, make them entities of one another?

Have a federal governing council of 30 representatives...1 from each region, selected by the regional council. The regional council is composed of 30 representatives, each selected by a local council. Finally, the local council members (30 again?) can be directly elected. Now we've got 27,000 local representatives, each representing about 1260 people.

With this arrangement, I at least feel like I can be heard by my representative. I know that my representative will be heard by his council, since we're limiting things to small groups of 30 (instead of 300!). Furthermore, I think that every member, from the local to the national, is more accountable to those he/she is representing.

It might work...or perhaps the lack of direct elections at the higher levels would somehow lead to even more cronyism and corruption. I don't know...and I don't know of any way to find out. It's just a thought I had that I wouldn't be totally opposed to studying.

[Bobblehead]

Perhaps age is an issue.

I know as I have aged I have become more disillusioned with the current systems. If that is a general trend then with the overall aging of the population come an increasing disconnect.

Also, it seems to me that media has more of an agenda than it did in the past. It is more obvious in the US, but even in Canada media deregulation initially seemed to lead to more choice, but through time there has been a media consolidation. This has coloured the public perception of politics and politicians.

And finally, I think people become jaded when they don't see or hear from the representative that they are voting for. I rarely hear about Art Hanger. The only real time he made the news with any frequency was during the Stockwell Day revolt. Other than that, I get a couple fliers in the mail where he rails against the Liberal (still), but doesn't have any vision. Same on the provincial level. Other than the portable signs advertising the Stampede BBQ, I never hear a word about Shiraz Sheriff. It really makes me question what they personally are doing to deserve my vote, or if a monkey trained to stand when the party whip tells them to stand might not be as good a representative and only cost a few bananas.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Perhaps age is an issue.

I know as I have aged I have become more disillusioned with the current systems. If that is a general trend then with the overall aging of the population come an increasing disconnect.

Also, it seems to me that media has more of an agenda than it did in the past. It is more obvious in the US, but even in Canada media deregulation initially seemed to lead to more choice, but through time there has been a media consolidation. This has coloured the public perception of politics and politicians.

And finally, I think people become jaded when they don't see or hear from the representative that they are voting for. I rarely hear about Art Hanger. The only real time he made the news with any frequency was during the Stockwell Day revolt. Other than that, I get a couple fliers in the mail where he rails against the Liberal (still), but doesn't have any vision. Same on the provincial level. Other than the portable signs advertising the Stampede BBQ, I never hear a word about Shiraz Sheriff. It really makes me question what they personally are doing to deserve my vote, or if a monkey trained to stand when the party whip tells them to stand might not be as good a representative and only cost a few bananas.

Ha Bobble...perhaps age is an issue with you, hey . I know that, generally speaking, political participation increases as you age until you reach a certain age...and then it either plateaus or starts to decline (I can't remember which off the top of my head). So maybe you are starting to get up there

And, I think you hit a point regarding efficacy. Part of it is the "why bother, they don't do much/aren't very responsive/even if I have a great idea they are not going to listen to me oract on it in the first place" type of thing.

Anyways, some people have mentioned that there is a cross-generation effect happening. I.e. people point to education levels increasing, yet unlike in the past, political participation is not increasing alongside it. There has been some research done into this that suggests that this is not so much aboput education levels, but a generational shift/decline in participation. I'm not sure that makes any sense the way I put it, but I have to run out the door now...

[Claeren]

A totally inept media, in the hands of a VERY small number of very partison players, does not help the situation.

A more fragmented and independent media set on telling the REAL news first and getting ratings, pleasing advertisers and being a slave to internal politics second would probably cure 50% of the ills facing American Democracy.


Better education (especially political) for the masses would solve a large portion of the rest.



Claeren.

[Azure]

Better education?

The government could solve that by putting education back into the hands of each state.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Better education?

The government could solve that by putting education back into the hands of each state.

Education is in the hands of each state.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I don't know. While I appreciate the fact that I (technically) have a direct say in how I'm governed at all levels, I also realize that my vote is far less influential in the grand scheme of things than public opinion polls, lobbyists, and the personal whims of the politicians we elect. As such, I don't honestly believe that the practice of directly voting for all levels of government is necessarily a keeper.

Right now (with 3 levels of government) my personal level of influence at each level is as follows, both at a representative level and in total (assuming entire population could vote):

Federal: 1/103,000 (riding)....1/34,000,000 in parliament
Provincial: 1/38,000 (riding) .... 1/3,300,000 in legislature
Municipal: 1/68,000 (ward) .... 1/1,000,000 in city council

Now, I don't think I should have a larger voice in the overall scheme of things, but looking at those numbers leaves me wondering how I'm supposed to have any influence at all when my GREATEST impact by voting is a 1/38,000th share of a provincial electoral district??

I've occasionally wondered how a purely hierarchical government structure would work.... Suppose we still want 3 levels of government...call them local, regional, and national. What would happen if, instead of having them as totally separate entities, make them entities of one another?

Have a federal governing council of 30 representatives...1 from each region, selected by the regional council. The regional council is composed of 30 representatives, each selected by a local council. Finally, the local council members (30 again?) can be directly elected. Now we've got 27,000 local representatives, each representing about 1260 people.

With this arrangement, I at least feel like I can be heard by my representative. I know that my representative will be heard by his council, since we're limiting things to small groups of 30 (instead of 300!). Furthermore, I think that every member, from the local to the national, is more accountable to those he/she is representing.

It might work...or perhaps the lack of direct elections at the higher levels would somehow lead to even more cronyism and corruption. I don't know...and I don't know of any way to find out. It's just a thought I had that I wouldn't be totally opposed to studying.

Who's gonna pay all these people? Rather a large pay roll for the country.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Education is in the hands of each state.

So the federal government has 'nothing' to do with it, outside of perhaps funding it?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

So the federal government has 'nothing' to do with it, outside of perhaps funding it?

Very little actually. The elementary and secondary school systems are locally governed through locally elected school boards. These boards administer funding, curriculum, and all policies that could affect the local school districts. These districts define the quality of education available and is why people are so selective as to which district they reside when they have children. Educational standards, grading and standardized testing is defined and administered by the local state government. The state also outlines mandatory attendance rules and defines the waivers for special education standards (home schooling as an example). Each state has a its own post-secondary system and the quality varies depending on the state. Some states (California for example) don't charge their permanent residents tuition to attend state run university. Outside of federal funding (which is 1/3 of the funding that schools receive), the feds have little say in K-12. The Department of Education's role is the accreditation of post secondary institutions, done on a regional basis. The feds have little say in education, which is a weakness of the American system IMO. They require better national standards, not weaker ones.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by redforever

Who's gonna pay all these people? Rather a large pay roll for the country.

I was waiting for that one...

The number of elected politicians in this country under the current 3-level system is already huge. There are about 1,000 members elected to parliament and the various legislatures. Beyond that, how many municipal/county politicians are there? 5,000? 10,000? That said, I'll still admit that yes, I've proposed a huge number. If you want to reduce my proposed level of local representation by a factor of 2, or even 3 times, that'll bring the total number of "politicans" down closer to the current number while still giving us an order of magnitude more representation at our closest level.

On the other hand, in my utopian little world, someone serving as representative for only one or two thousand people couldn't treat it as a full-time position, and wouldn't need to. That happens now in small towns, where sitting on town council is a part-time job, with pay commensurate.

As I said, utopian and unrealistic. Just a thought, though.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Democracy got in trouble the second the masses were given the right to vote for shallow populists like Gore.

[CaptainCrunch]

One man, one rule, limited term

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Democracy got in trouble the second the masses were given the right to vote for shallow populists like Gore.

Yes, democracy is in trouble when the person you don't like gets elected . i don't know, Flame of Liberty, but if you don't like it....why not run yourself?