America....

[sauin]

Looks like we've got a round 2.

Nothing the DNC did was improper during the primaries, even if some of the things they talked about doing might have been.

Which is why the DNC has been in court this month arguing that they have no legal obligation to be impartial or even-handed, despite the charter of the DNC. I'd think that admitting to being not-impartial as the governing body of an electoral process is improper.

Hillary Clinton would have been perhaps the most qualified person to be President since Eisenhower, if not Roosevelt in his third term.

The sole qualifications to be the president of the united states of america is to win a majority of the electoral college votes and to not be impeached. You may disagree with these qualifications (and I certainly feel that the electoral colleges are in many ways one of the worst parts of the current presidential electoral system), but at this point in time having failed that first condition, Hillary was clearly not qualified.

The real flaw is that we're electing our President in the first place. That position is the head of the Administration of our government, and Commander in Chief of the most sophisticated and powerful military in history. It is not to be some kind of super-representative to the People. It is beyond ridiculous to suppose that the average voter is qualified to make a decision as to who would best perform that job, let alone that all of them together would be.

Then start your military junta.

Mob-rule is not democracy, it is demagoguery masquerading as democracy. And is usually a puppet for oligarchs and genuine aristocrats.

I thought you just said that you didn't want elections and by that definition wanted to implement an oligarchy. This argument isn't consistent.

And the bulk of those failures stem from the fact that we elect those representatives from districts in the first place.

Ok, so we're back to arguing against the population having any say in the rules that govern their lives.

Democracy does not imply or require elections, it requires that the legitimacy and authority of the government descend from the People. Elections are merely the highly flawed tool with which we currently ensure that descent.

So either you're arguing against representative democracy here and for a pure democracy, but your argument above indicates that you don't think that the people should have a say.

To summarise, you want the government to have the legitimacy and authority of the people, without the people actually agreeing to it.

[sauin]

I think you've got a pretty fucked up sense of the word "qualifications".

Welcome to representative democracy Faul, the only qualification is to be elected.
Either you accept that one of its inherent flaws is the ability to elect someone who appeals to the masses, or you can scrap the whole thing and play at being a feudal lord with the DNC superdelegates.

You bored me a long time ago, but now you've officially made me think you're ridiculous and not worth the discussion.

And for the last time, at no point in this discussion have I personally insulted you, nor claimed that you lack any sort of understanding of the question, nor will I. If your argument cannot stand without self referential appeals to authority or ad hominem then it shouldn’t. In the future I hope that you show the same degree of respect and are able to decouple the argument from the person delivering it.

To everyone else, sorry for the trainwreck, and I'm happy to continue this or any tangential discussions with anyone interested.

[Rig]

As the amazing and young American I am, this is actually really entertaining and insightful in its own way. Seeing as most my age don't know a thing about politics, now is a great time to learn!

P.s. Faul is really a blight worm

[Abunar]

Hehe - hi all my wonderful friends, thought I would pop back into our forum and say hi - so impressed that this thread is still going.

To all who know me I will make an attempt to get my zmud moved to this computer and say hi. Seriously I do miss all your text.

[faul]

Welcome to representative democracy Faul, the only qualification is to be elected.

Just no. That's empirically false in pretty much every way.

Either you accept that one of its inherent flaws is the ability to elect someone who appeals to the masses, or you can scrap the whole thing and play at being a feudal lord with the DNC superdelegates.

Right, because there's nothing in the middle and safeguards against this exact inherent flaw wasn't built directly into this republic.

And for the last time, at no point in this discussion have I personally insulted you, nor claimed that you lack any sort of understanding of the question, nor will I.

How noble. If I thought you didn't lack any sort of understanding of the question, I would have done the same. But that's false, and I think you do have a pretty substantial gap in knowledge between philosophy and practice, and to some extent, basic history and definitions.

If your argument cannot stand without self referential appeals to authority

Just to be clear, I am not James Madison. And you're the guy who decided his definition of democracy is IT and everything else is a military junta or some dung. If you're all about the spirit of democracy, go find some solutions to address the trillema and information asymmetry. You think it's as simple as "one person = one vote" and everything else just falls into place? Please.

or ad hominem then it shouldn’t.

It does, the ad hominems are just for flavor.

In the future I hope that you show the same degree of respect and are able to decouple the argument from the person delivering it.

Sounds like somebody wants more qualifications for internet discussions than the presidency.

[Diotima]

Anyone can file suit against anyone else for almost any reason, and there's a very low bar to not having such a suit dismissed entirely. It doesn't mean those suing the DNC have any hope of winning. Having to go to court to defend oneself is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. The DNC's is not arguing that their charter doesn't require them to be fair or even-handed. It's that this aspect of their charter is vague enough that it can't be the basis of a suit for wrongdoing. Your notion of fairness is not the one that rules.

Qualifications to do a job have nothing to do with pre-requisites necessary to be considered. Qualifications, in this sense, are capabilities. The Constitution only requires one to be a natural-born American citizen who's at least 45 years old, have won the electoral college, and not have already been elected twice, or served as President for at least half a term and also been elected once. You're not even disqualified if you've been impeached and successfully removed. You're free to run, and win again, provided you still meet the other pre-requisites. That doesn't mean that any random person in the country who could meet those qualifications is capable of performing the task of being President. Call it a flaw in the Constitution, if you will. And someone not capable of performing the job is not qualified to do it. Few people would have been able to do the job of President better than Hillary Clinton, nobody else in the Democratic primaries, and certainly nobody in the Republican ones.

Elections are not the only way to do democracy. Indeed, the original, Greek form of democracy was sortition. All citizens were capable of participating in the legislative functions of their government, and the executive and judicial functions were performed by a smaller number selected by lottery. Several other times throughout history, democracy has been practiced by sortition. When you want an accurate account of a people's beliefs and interests, unsullied by the distortions of a prolonged period of distortions, peer pressure, group-think, and rhetorical nonsense, there is no better way of gaining it. It is the method scientists use when evaluating the characteristics of a large non-homogenous, self-sorting population. Elections are like trying to figure out what freshly milked milk is made of, by skimming off the top. Sortition is figuring out what milk is made of by withdrawing samples from random places within the bucket. It's clear which one is going to give you the most accurate picture of what the milk is like, and it's also clear which method is going to distort the composition of the milk remaining in the bucket the least.

And genuine democracy, rather than a farce of demagoguery that campaigns and elections bring, knows when and how to go to the People to affirm legitimacy and authority, and when going to the people undermines that legitimacy and authority. Elections, particularly those preceded by lengthy campaigns of deception and manipulation, tend more often than not to undermine that legitimacy and authority. They are a highly flawed tool with which to ground democracy, and unfortunately, the only tool most people recognize. They are easily capable of being co-opted by wealthy and motivated minorities, who are able to use the appearance of legitimacy to conceal their own desires to erode the freedom of their countrymen, and make them into their vassals.

When making decisions that require expertise, and detailed knowledge of means and effects, turning to the People to make those decisions, or even to select individuals to make those decisions, is not democracy, it is foolish idiocy. Democracy does not require us to permit idiocy. You do not ask a cement mason to perform heart surgery, nor to decide how it should be done, nor even to choose the best surgeon to do it. You ask heart surgeons to make those determinations. You turn to the People to make decisions on matters where each person is equally capable of making a determination, where one's opinion of matters is no more right nor wrong than any other; matters of taste and morality. You ask them whether a man who needs heart surgery, but cannot afford it, should get it. You don't ask them whether heart surgery or vitamin pills is the better choice. That is democracy. Knowing what and how to ask the People and assert their authority, and knowing when and how asking them undermines everything democracy is supposed to do, which is to protect our freedoms and promote the general welfare.

[Reyne]

To be quite frank, it seems that the argument so far is "The DNC knows better than the voting public so deal with it" but maybe this elitist strategy is not a good one as they just got annihilated and telling people to ignore issues with the DNC because "that's how a real republic functions" is going to attract voters how exactly?

You don't ask them whether heart surgery or vitamin pills is the better choice. That is democracy. Knowing what and how to ask the People and assert their authority, and knowing when and how asking them undermines everything democracy is supposed to do, which is to protect our freedoms and promote the general welfare.

Yeah so the DNC insiders just know better than the public so they pushed Hillary as the nominee and that was a brilliant move indeed.

Anyone can file suit against anyone else for almost any reason, and there's a very low bar to not having such a suit dismissed entirely. It doesn't mean those suing the DNC have any hope of winning. Having to go to court to defend oneself is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. The DNC's is not arguing that their charter doesn't require them to be fair or even-handed. It's that this aspect of their charter is vague enough that it can't be the basis of a suit for wrongdoing. Your notion of fairness is not the one that rules.

My point was not whether I think they will win that suit or not. They probably will. The DNC is however very much arguing that their charter is not any kind of binding agreement and that in of itself reveals how little regard they hold for the people who gave it credence and acted accordingly. It definitely erodes some trust when they don't say "we acted impartially" but instead say "we can do whatever we want."

It's kind of like Tammany Hall 2.0 up there no? At this point we're basically admitting there was something going on but that's alright because we just have to take our medicine?

Fundamentally you're claiming that the ends justify the means,

I'm glad we're establishing this for the third firetrucking time. And this is even without adding a very relevant 'sometimes' to the start of a tired old catechism to keep it nice and simple.

But in the end the Democrats lost horribly. Presidency, House, Senate, and governors. So maybe this "the voting public isn't capable of making good decisions,, sometimes the ends justify the means" is not actually a good argument at all. Even leaving aside the ethical/moral questions of "do the ends justify the means?"

The real flaw is that we're electing our President in the first place. That position is the head of the Administration of our government, and Commander in Chief of the most sophisticated and powerful military in history. It is not to be some kind of super-representative to the People. It is beyond ridiculous to suppose that the average voter is qualified to make a decision as to who would best perform that job, let alone that all of them together would be.

Well but the executive is supposed to be a check on the legislative so if we adopted something more similar to European Parliamentary systems in which the head of state is selected by the winning party (or coalition) then that disappears no?

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if we also dropped the first past the post system but this is kind of not material to the question of "is the DNC leadership doing a good job or not?" You can't really be arguing that our system is dumb thus the DNC is justified doing whatever.

e: I hope I'm not riling anyone up or anything btw, just posting my thoughts (out of character of course).

[faul]

Yeah so the DNC insiders just know better than the public so they pushed Hillary as the nominee and that was a brilliant move indeed.

Post hoc. If Sanders didn't lose every way you can possibly lose in the primaries outside of caucuses and somehow made it through, there's still a pretty solid chance he gets smoked. He couldn't do dung for Feingold in Wisconsin, would probably have turned Colorado red, probably wouldn't have done a thing for Ohio (evidenced by Strickland), and I could go on. The margins where Clinton lost were so small that it's impossible to say whether or not someone else would have made a difference. In the very likely scenario Bernie lost, would you consider that a fair argument *in favor* of superdelegates? How about if that happened three separate times, twice without Bernie taking the plurality of the Dems? That's exactly the rationalization that went into implementing superdelegates in the first place because that's exactly what happened to the Dems prior to 1984.

But more fundamental than post hoc rationalization is the fact that a doctor or expert firetrucking something up isn't a good reason to decide just anybody can do that thing going forward.

The DNC is however very much arguing that their charter is not any kind of binding agreement and that in of itself reveals how little regard they hold for the people who gave it credence and acted accordingly. It definitely erodes some trust when they don't say "we acted impartially" but instead say "we can do whatever we want."

Yeah, or they're just arguing that an informal document is exactly that in a legal sense because the challenge is a legal one and "we can do whatever we want" is way easier to conclusively prove than "we acted impartially", even in scenarios where you do act with perfect impartiality. You'd have to be a moron to try to prove the latter over the former in a court of law if that's where you're being challenged.

But in the end the Democrats lost horribly. So maybe this patronizing "we just know better than you, sometimes the ends justify the means" is not actually a good argument at all. Even leaving aside the ethical/moral questions of "do the ends justify the means?"

Can you hear yourself?

1) Clinton didn't lose 'horribly' - it's like in the mid-40s for electoral margin and she won the popular vote by the largest margin ever for a losing candidate. The margins where she lost were minuscule. Could she have done a better job? Abso-firetrucking-lutely. Would Bernie Sanders have done a better job and magically kept all of the Clinton votes AND kept the blue wall intact? As evidenced by Berniecrats losing in those states, often by a wider proportional margin than Clinton, doubtful.

2) The means sure as firetruck would have justified the ends if the Republican Party had superdelegates to put Kasich over the top and our worst options were Kasich or Clinton.

[Reyne]

But more fundamental than post hoc rationalization is the fact that a doctor or expert firetrucking something up isn't a good reason to decide just anybody can do something better.

It's like the doctor is recommending homeopathic remedies and you're telling people they are wrong for thinking maybe they should get a second opinion.

Can you hear yourself?

1) Clinton didn't lose 'horribly' - it's like in the mid-40s for electoral margin and she won the popular vote by the largest margin ever for a losing candidate.

Please. The Democrats lost the House, the Senate, quite a few governor's races, and then topped it off by losing to Donald J Trump a literal reality TV show star with no qualifications at all.

I'm not talking specifically about Hillary Clinton. I'm talking about the DNC leadership which seems really disconnected from the average voter who has been struggling to make ends meet while watching billionaires get ever richer. The last thing that person wants to hear is "we're gonna do more of the same, the economy is doing great." Thus the Dems lost the Blue Wall. Their messaging was just really off.

Then instead of trying to bring the Bernie people in by incorporating a more leftist position in their platform, they did everything they could to push the BernieBro narrative and act dismissive of that huge section of voters.

[faul]

Don't you see that this insistence that the DNC leadership is just some elite group that knows better than everyone else and they are making the right choices and we should just support them is precisely what upsets their voters though?

Think it bears repeating that Sanders didn't just lose the superdelegates, he lost from pretty much any angle. Before you give me that dung about "oh, but you see, if people didn't know how superdelegates were going to vote, Bernie would have won in a landslide", consider a few things:

a) I actually agree with superdelegates not making their votes public ahead of time.
b) It doesn't firetrucking matter because being upset with all the "elitists" is a shitty excuse not to do your part to influence 70% of the total delegate count whichever direction you want. I'm sick of repeating myself, but there's also been multiple occasions that have shown that grassroots campaigns CAN and HAVE had a major impact on swaying that other 30% in directions that are distinctly "anti-establishment." Bernie just had no chops to do that.

Please. The Democrats lost the House, the Senate, quite a few governor's races, and then topped it off by losing to Donald J Trump a literal reality TV show star with no qualifications at all.

They certainly didn't do a good job.

Good job countering a point nobody firetrucking made, unless you can point out where I said they did a good job. And, weird, I wonder how a "literal reality TV star with no qualifications" ended up as a serious contender on a major ballot to begin with? If only parties had some kind of control over whether or not Boaty McBoatface could become their candidate based off name recognition or idiotic audacity. Bet the end would have justified the dung out of the means to put an actual candidate forward.