America....

[sauin]

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

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

Faul, and this is where we differ. I believe that your statement is incorrect, and to demonstrate this rather than just disagreeing with you I will present evidence to this. To quote the definition:
Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.
That's it. All that is required for representative democracy is that the person is elected, all other arguments devolve to why should that particular person be elected, for example rather than "more qualified" the argument to be made is "more familiar with the bureaucratic infrastructure" or "more experienced at dealing with foreign governments. Both of which arguments can certainly be made. However neither of these attributes make the person more "qualified" at being elected or more "qualified" to represent those who have elected them.

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.

[/quote]
Ah, and now we're getting somewhere, you discussed before and conveniently dropped the notion that super-delegates are a concession against democratic principles. That is to imply some loss. So the question here is who is losing, and quite clearly, just as the 3/5ths compromise was made with no representation by the group who are being forced to make this compromise, the institution of this 1/10000th concession was made with no representation by the group who were being forced to make this concession.

Fundamentally if the argument being made is that Trump is a demagogue then clearly the "safeguards" in the republic have failed and have only served as an intellectually dishonest measure to strip power from the people. Similarly the claimed safeguards the DNC have implemented have simply stripped power from their electorate and handed it up the chain, replacing the fear of an elected demagogue with that of an effectively unelected oligarch.

This entire balancing act is shown in Arrow's impossibility theorem, the actions of the DNC constitute a weak violation of the third fairness axiom. Given the point of the theorem is to demonstrate that not all of the axioms can be simultaneously satisfied, breaking this one is most commonly associated with the adage "the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship".

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.

This is something that is very easy to say when one doesn't have a response to an argument presented. Present your evidence

Just to be clear, I am not James Madison. And you're the guy who decided his definition of democracy is IT

The definition I am using happens to be the literal definition, everything else has its own name. If you want to argue that the process of the DNC is not a representational democracy I agree with you. If you argue that it should continue with its electoral process in the current form and with the current abuses of the charter, then I do not.

and everything else is a military junta or some dung.

Once again you're mischaracterising, my statements, and once again you're missing the nuance of the definitions of these terms. You're also conflating our discussion with the one where diotama argued that the person who should be president is the person who is best qualified to lead the military.

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.

Excellent, then we've already established that you're aware of these problems and how different systems that are not democracy attempt to address them by making resource tradeoffs. The US system approaches the case of pair their only existing a pair of alternatives, this ensures that no voting preference cycles can occur.

In these terms, and as stated above my argument is that the DNC's approach represents an unacceptable tradeoff.

It does, the ad hominems are just for flavor.

In the context of a debate, ad hominems just show that you have no real argument.

Lastly, one flaw with the argument that the ends justifies the means, even sometimes, is that if the ends aren't achieved then all you are left with are the means. The means of the DNC have eroded the confidence of their voterbase, and at the end of the day they cannot even make the claim "At least we stopped Trump.".

A second flaw, that is also relevant here, occurs in the iterative form of the problem whereby achieving ends is necessarily pyrrhic.

[faul]

Nah. Already told you - you're functionally ridiculous. There's zero point in "debating" with somebody with zero consideration for the actual outcomes and implications of what he's advocating for on top of a pretty obviously shaky and shallow grasp of history with regards to what he's debating. Let me know when your preference changes from just jerking off to borderline practical and we can do this again.

[sauin]

Nah. Already told you - you're functionally ridiculous. There's zero point in "debating" with somebody with zero consideration for the actual outcomes and implications of what he's advocating for on top of a pretty obviously shaky and shallow grasp of history with regards to what he's debating. Let me know when your preference changes from just jerking off to borderline practical and we can do this again.

You still cannot separate the person from the argument Faul and as your previous trend you've now entirely dropped to nothing but throwing insults and refusing to substantiate your claims. If I am clearly as incorrect and debased as you think I am, then surely you should be able to provide a clear, logical argument that demonstrates this. Until then I thank you for your unsubstantiated insults and hope that you are just as civil with everyone else you think disagrees with you.

[sauin]

Firstly Diotima, it is much easier to disect these if you use the quote tags. Either way I will persevere.

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.

The argument being used is that the charter is not legally binding, and that the DNC has no legal obligation to be fair or even handed, combined with their actions during the last primary which were neither fair nor even handed (and as admitted by the DNC). When the DNC says that they're not being fair or even handed, and have no legal obligation to be fair or even handed despite initially claiming to be so, this might erode some confidence in their party amongst voters.

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.

This is the exact argument I just presented Faul with.

And someone not capable of performing the job is not qualified to do it.

And then you go ahead and contradict yourself, so long as you fulfill the qualifications you are qualified to do the job, you can still be bad at 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.

I'd consider this to be a subjective statement that can only ever be argued post-hoc. One argument to be made is that the job of the president is to represent the people, and that this criteria is fulfilled simply by winning the election, though that's something of a cop out for an ill defined statement.

Elections are not the only way to do democracy.

Yes, though they are an integral component in representative 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.

Sortitions are a form of democracy, they also aren't scale invariant and suffer from structural flaws with large populations.

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.

I'd first argue that the notion of a democratic system that doesn't go to the people is a contradiction of terms. But disregarding that for the moment:
When does it know? Should the people have a say in taxation rates? Should the people have a say in whether or not the got to war, or whether they surrender? Fundamentally who decides what the people do and do not get a say about in this system?

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.

I agree, I also point out that they are one of the few scalable systems that still allow for (or at least claim to allow for) the representation of the people.

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.

That's not democracy, you're describing a form of meritocracy or technocracy.

Democracy does not require us to permit idiocy.

Actually, one of its biggest flaws is it does.

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.

[/quote][/quote]
Actually, by the definition of democracy that isn't. It's a hybrid system involving an overriding oligarchy of supposedly meritorious technocrats with elements of limited democracy. You still haven't said which or how to select your pure of heart individuals are supposed to preside fairly over this system in order to ensure that the "right" individuals make the "right" decisions,

[Diotima]

The argument being used is that the charter is not legally binding, and that the DNC has no legal obligation to be fair or even handed, combined with their actions during the last primary which were neither fair nor even handed (and as admitted by the DNC). When the DNC says that they're not being fair or even handed, and have no legal obligation to be fair or even handed despite initially claiming to be so, this might erode some confidence in their party amongst voters.

Not legally binding, because too vague to permit any kind of objective ruling. Reasonable people can disagree whether the DNC violated their charter, they've made no admission that they have, and argue that even if that weren't the case, that clause of the charter does not permit damages to be claimed against them even if they violated it. And you're not meant to have confidence in the party. That's for the politicians who are members of that party. You're supposed to have confidence, or not, in the politicians and their policies.

I'd consider this to be a subjective statement that can only ever be argued post-hoc. One argument to be made is that the job of the president is to represent the people, and that this criteria is fulfilled simply by winning the election, though that's something of a cop out for an ill defined statement.

In the real world, post-hoc reasoning is often the only reasoning available. It's how the sciences of sociology and economics, and to a great degree biology and climate science, proceeds, by necessity. Fields where controlled experiment is either impossible or infeasible, and models can only be checked by finding sufficiently similar real-life examples, and checking the model against real life. Further, your "argument" that the job of the President being to represent the people is not. It is a statement that even cursory reading of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers denies. The job of the President is to be Chief Executive of the various departments and bureaucracies of the federal government, to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and head of diplomacy and foreign affairs, subject in various of these duties, to approval by the Senate. Nothing about those duties suggests he is to somehow "represent the people." Represent them in what capacity? In what ways could he represent the people better than their own Representatives?

Sortitions are a form of democracy, they also aren't scale invariant and suffer from structural flaws with large populations.

Actually, they scale quite well. The ratio of sample size to population one needs to have reasonable confidence that the sample is reasonably similar to the population falls off as the population grows. With just the size of the House of Representatives, were they all selected randomly from the population, there are 51 more members than are needed to be assured that they would accurately represent the people they were chosen from, 95% of the time within a 5% margin of error. As opposed to elections, which would not be objectionable to a very great degree, even using the worst possible voting system as the US does, had they not such a profound effect on the electorate themselves. It is human nature, not the mathematics of voting systems, that makes electoral "democracy" inevitably devolve into a sham appearance of such, whose strings are pulled by oligarchs.

I'd first argue that the notion of a democratic system that doesn't go to the people is a contradiction of terms. But disregarding that for the moment:
When does it know? Should the people have a say in taxation rates? Should the people have a say in whether or not the got to war, or whether they surrender? Fundamentally who decides what the people do and do not get a say about in this system?

I explained that already:

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.

As for who decides what the people do and do not get a say about, then quite clearly it's the founders of that government, and their political heirs, using those levers of change they are left with.

Democracy does not require us to permit idiocy.

Actually, one of its biggest flaws is it does.

If, in your mind, it does, then you must acknowledge the loss of any claim to desirability or moral superiority for democracy. Better to live under a competent tyrant than the sort of mob-rule you espouse as "democracy."

[sauin]

Reasonable people can disagree whether the DNC violated their charter

Ok, let me ask then, do you believe that the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the Chair of the DNC violated the charter? That internal DNC memorandum relating to "advancing Hillary Clinton to the nomination of the Democratic Party" that dates back to a month after Sanders declared, the emails showing the chair of the DNC giving debate questions to Hillary's team in advance, of the DNC scheduling debate times to favour Clinton over Saunders. I think it's incredibly clear at that point that the DNC were not acting at all in an impartial, or even handed fashion. The most important point here is the loss of trust in this party mechanism, that is supposed to keep their politicians in line. When in a first past the post system that strictly punishes not voting for third party candidates we're now seeing that the DNC wants to not just be entirely bought and sold by lobbies, but one who also pre-selects candidates to uphold the current system.

And you're not meant to have confidence in the party. That's for the politicians who are members of that party. You're supposed to have confidence, or not, in the politicians and their policies.

Tell that to everyone who indicates that they "vote democrat" or "vote republican". So long as the parties select the candidates and the politicians, people require confidence in the party.

Sortitions are a form of democracy, they also aren't scale invariant and suffer from structural flaws with large populations.

Actually, they scale quite well. The ratio of sample size to population one needs to have reasonable confidence that the sample is reasonably similar to the population falls off as the population grows.

And now I also need a fair system of selecting people that isn't going to be compromised by gerrymandering on every issue. Given that you cannot trust US politicians to do this with political boundaries, I cannot begin to imagine the arguments that would arise about the fairness of sampling distributions. Beyond that though, people do not like being told what to do and having no choice in it, a fair, full election at the very least gives some illusion of control, and in some cases might give actual control to the people. When I tell you that I sampled enough people to reduce my error sufficiently and it both didn't include you and the result is against your interests, people tend to get rather annoyed.

As for who decides what the people do and do not get a say about, then quite clearly it's the founders of that government, and their political heirs, using those levers of change they are left with.

Yes because politicians getting to decide what people do and don't get to vote about ends so well every time. Take a look at the reaction to the TTIP and similar trade agreements after the EU ruled that national assemblies do not get review or voting rights. Imagine an all republican government that decides to abolish the minimum wage, or an all democrat one that removes all border protections (depending on your political point of view).

Democracy does not require us to permit idiocy.

Actually, one of its biggest flaws is it does.

If, in your mind, it does, then you must acknowledge the loss of any claim to desirability or moral superiority for democracy. Better to live under a competent tyrant than the sort of mob-rule you espouse as "democracy."[/quote]
I never claimed that democracy is morally superior, I merely espouse it, and its antecedents as the only current political systems that in theory, give everyone an equal weighting in their own futures. I entirely disagree with the notion of living under a competent tyrant, when there is no path to the top there is no trust in the system, and when there is no trust in the system the system collapses. How many nations ruled by "competent dictators" have gone up in flames? I'd rather a controlled mob rule than to be lectured down from on high by your aloof purely moral technocratic demagogues who claim to know what I want and need better than I do.

[Equitant]

This thread sucks. Big thumbs down.

[Davor]

There's got to be a GIF about arguing on the internet its 2017!! It's a sad state of affairs right now. Its the first time that despite my differing opinions on the POTUS I just have no respect for him. Hopefully he lowers my taxes soon! 1% ftw!

[Treach]

Trump has now gone full fellow taking the scenic route to conclusions. His overseas trip was an embarrassment and his tweets after the London attack were monumentally stupid. I used to find keeping up with the Trump politics as entertaining, but now it is just too depressing. If the whole Trump administration gets thrown in jail I see it playing out the same way in Harry Potter when Voldermort dies. Rejoicing and parties in the streets, with shooting stars and owls flying everywhere..

I think the quote below needs to updated somehow to also include lies. Democracy to Trump means that his lies are just as good as other people's knowledge.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. ... that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”