By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 19 January 2013
Edit Thread

A lot of issues here. I'm going to focus on the American system for simplicities sake.

 

  1. As you even mentioned, not many people are going to argue that democracy is perfect.....just that its the best among alternatives. For instance, they won't argue that democracy is perfectly accountable, but that it is more accountable than other governmental systems.
  2. The fact that a politician supports the 51% over the 1% is how the system is set up (the idea of majority rule). Once again, its not perfect, but I think you can imagine the stale mate that would ensue if 60% was required (just look at Congress), let alone unanimous consent.
  3. Politicians actually do have a pretty good idea of who voted for them, hence, why they represent those who voted for them much better than those who did not vote for them. A lot of stuff is public info....for instance if you voted in the general or the Dem/Rep primary election.....just not who you voted for. Needless to say, they also have access to public opinion polls, communication with constituents (email, phone calls, letters), the news media.
  4. As for lobbyists, I think its a problem as well because organized interests are going to have a louder voice unorganized or under-resourced interests, however, the truth is that there is very little research to suggests that lobbyists actually buy votes from politicians. The causal connection you are claiming just doesn't have much empirical support.....not saying lobbyists don't have influence, but its not as drastic as you claim.
  5. As for your second argument, the problem is that the system would become unwieldy. If democracy was pushed back that far, you wouldn't really have a collective United States. With a lack of central power, you would also have the problem of discrimination at the local level (just think about Jim Crow laws in southern states up until the 1960s/1970s when the federal government stepped in).
  6. I also think you drastically underestimate the power of state and local governments. Contrary to popular presentation, they are still very active in people's everyday life.....I would argue more active that the national government, particularly when looking at the dispensation of government resources, even those funded at the federal level.
  7. I don't even know if I would agree that the national government is the least accountable. There is a system of checks and balances in place. Just for instance, the president, Senators, and House members all serve a different body of constituents.....the House representing the local level. Its not like the national government is just concerned with representing the collective whole.....just think about pork-barrel spending.
  8. As for people keeping local government's more in-line, I think the argument has some intuitive appeal, but the truth is that there is still a lot of corruption and inefficiency at the local level as well. Also, the quality of local politicians tends to be pretty low. They tend to be well-meaning, but they often don't know the first thing about navigating the governmental system.