What changes do we need to make in our democracy?

[Whammy]

As a tangent, where does this weird "The US is not a democracy, it's a republic" notion come from? I've heard it several times before on this forum, and I've also seen it in other places.

It's always trotted out by the same people who like to talk about how "democracy is two wolves and a lamb" so I'm going to go with it being a Libertarian talking point. The fact that it completely contradicts reality seems to support that idea.

Actually, it's really not a libertarian talking point. It really is an important distinction in political theory. Granted a republic is sort of a sub-group of a democracy, but generally speaking, whenever someone goes on about this being a 'democracy', they're usually going off the idea of a democracy as "rule by majority" and usually direct voting on issues (so direct democracy). So to a degree yes, that would be the idea of "democracy is two wolves and a lamb" and that's because the idea of "direct, majority rule" can in fact lead to such things if, let's say, the majority in the town decides to pass a law that discriminates or hurt a minority group in some shape or form (usually called like tyranny of the majority or what not). Of course, again, there is a crap load of different subgroups on democracy so it depends on who you are talking about XD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

A "republic", on the other hand, tends to imply certain things. The biggest thing being, of course, the election of people to represent us in the government instead of direct democracy. It usually also implies some form of limitations on the abilities of those representing us (in the form of a constitution of some sort), which can solve the "two wolves and a lamb" thing by restricting what can and cannot be up for vote. Generally speaking, this is what I tend to hear about whenever the "we're not a democracy, we're a republic."

A more important issue though is that being a republic does bring into discussion something unique to it that a direct democracy doesn't have is the "delegate vs. trustee" question; are representatives simply voicing our views and votes whatever way we want them to, or should they be able to use their own judgement (while of course taking into consideration into what we want".

I don't have a nice quote on the first position, but the trustee position is pretty well summed up by Edmund Burke here:

...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

-The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. Volume I. London: Henry G. Bohn. 1854. pp. 446–8.

Of course, again, we're a lot more complex than a republic. In really specific terms we're a liberal democratic constitutional republic XD.

[Derek]

A more important issue though is that being a republic does bring into discussion something unique to it that a direct democracy doesn't have is the "delegate vs. trustee" question; are representatives simply voicing our views and votes whatever way we want them to, or should they be able to use their own judgement (while of course taking into consideration into what we want".

I feel this is a pointless question, as ultimately the representative can vote however he likes, and the people will elect their representatives however they like. There is nothing to enforce either stance.

[TrlstanC]

Three parts to this post:
1) an explanation of my views of the impact of representative government, and where it can go astray (in spolier tags because I think 2 and 3 are much more important)
2) a different way to look at the issues of governement
3) a request for help in working on these ideas

Spoiler:

1) Can the structure of our system be thought about as a feedback loop? We elect representatives, they make changes, or just managed programs, and if things are good for the electorate or at least improving we re-elect the representatives. When things don’t go well, someone else gets elected. The feedback loop is supposed to reinforce improvements in government, but I believe that it can get thrown off, and start reinforcing different behavior.

Politics originally meant the affairs of government, but it also has a different definition now – it means to negotiate, to trade favors and to compete for re-election by any means necessary. This has happened because the feedback loop of representative government can reinforce two different kinds of behavior: 1) good management of government or 2) being skillful at campaigning. The ‘negative’ meaning of ‘politics’ recognizes that a lot of activity politicians are engaged during their elected terms in isn’t managing government responsibilities, but in campaigning – either explicitly or implicitly.

The calls for campaign finance reform recognize that politicians are spending a lot of time raising money for their campaigns during their elected terms, and may be making decisions in the interest of maximizing campaign contributions instead of maximizing the welfare of their constituents. But money in politics isn’t the root of the problem, it’s just the most obvious symptom of the problem. In the election money doesn’t vote, politicians still need their constituents to re-elect them. Money just lets them campaign better, it just reinforces the wrong kind of behavior in the feedback loop of politics.

How do we break this feedback loop that’s stuck on the wrong frequency? One way is to vote out everyone, and hope that the next batch of representatives we elect will kick off a cycle ‘positive’ politics. It’s certainly worth a try, but the chances of success probably aren’t high. Another way is to change the way we look at the role of government, this is probably more difficult, but also probably a better long-term solution. Ultimately it’s our view of how government should be run that determines who get’s elected. Ineffective politicians aren’t changing our views, they’re just taking advantage of our skewed perspective.

2) As I see it, there are two decisions any state needs to make about its government: 1) what problems will government try to solve and 2) how will it solve them? The 1st problem is what we spend a lot of time discussing in campaigns, and the 2nd is what we’re supposed to be judging our representatives on. But the 1st problem is both relatively easy to answer (at least compared to the 2nd) and also much easier to argue about – it lends itself to campaigning based on intuition and political philosophy. The 2nd problem is harder, and more difficult to address in debate or campaign ads. The real problem is that every time a new politician gets elected with a new platform on how to answer the “what problems” question, we lose progress we’ve made on the “how.”

I believe that most of the questions about what problems government should deal with can be answered by answering the question “what kinds of decisions are groups good at making?” I see three big areas where groups are better: 1) coordinated decisions (for example “prisoners’ dilemma” and “tragedy of the commons” type problems), 2) ‘solutions’ to risk aversion i.e., situations where everyone can gain by sharing gains and losses and 3) biases and statistical judgments – there are just areas where groups make more accurate judgments than individuals because of inherent biases in human decision making. If we look at available research, the history of our government, and the examples of other governments I think we can discover that the 1st question has a relatively straight forward answer. Getting to these answers will require that individual ignore politics and focus on data. Politicians that are better at campaigning than governing will likely be against this process, because once we answer the question of “what problems should government try to solve” this way the answers will be stable. Politicians won’t be able to campaign on these issues anymore and will have to talk about solutions, costs and benefits instead – difficult, but important questions. Most importantly having a stable answer to the first question will mean that the feedback loop of representative government will reinforce any progress on the 2nd, the much more important and difficult, question.

3) So, what’s the best way to get this kind of idea across? My first though is an Al Gore “An Inconvenient Truth” type presentation. I started working on a presentation, but I’m not 100% sure on how to explain the “what are groups good at answering” question. From an economics or game theory perspective, it seems like a relatively straightforward idea, but that’s not a perspective most people are used to. Is there an easier way to explain it, or good examples to use? I also wonder what the best way is to get people ignore past politics and focus on an empirical answer to that question? I think we’re so used to defining our political views based on this question that it may be difficult to give them up and get to the ‘correct’ answer.

(again, this seems like one of those problems that’s better solved by a group because individuals, myself included, are bad at seeing past their own histories and biases)

[Whammy]

2) As I see it, there are two decisions any state needs to make about its government: 1) what problems will government try to solve and 2) how will it solve them? The 1st problem is what we spend a lot of time discussing in campaigns, and the 2nd is what we’re supposed to be judging our representatives on. But the 1st problem is both relatively easy to answer (at least compared to the 2nd) and also much easier to argue about – it lends itself to campaigning based on intuition and political philosophy.

Not to be mean, but I had to laugh a little at that and this comment you made:

If we look at available research, the history of our government, and the examples of other governments I think we can discover that the 1st question has a relatively straight forward answer.

Trust me as a someone who loves political philosophy and a political science major, the question of "what problems will government try to solve" is far from an easy question. Heck, right off the back you're making an assumption that many a political philosophy reject entirely; that it's the governments job to SOLVE problems. Now I guess to be fair just about any philosophy has government doing something (even if at minimum it's a way of common defense), but what problems government should have a hand in solving is far from an easy question; just go and stick a Keynesian economist and an Austrian economist in a room, get them to start debating, and see what happens. Heck, get an anarchist (I particularly like anarchist capitalist) and...anyone who is a statist in a room together and see what happens. Then there's collectivism vs individualism, authoritarian vs. libertarian, capitalist vs. communist, etc etc etc. In fact, it is at heart probably the most essential question in all of political discussion...well that and your second question in as part of the whole "who gets what, when, and how" which sums up the essence of politics pretty nicely. And the questions are so ingrained into one another, you simply can't split them apart and solve "one" of them to get to the other".

Take for example my Keynesian vs. Austrian school thing. Economy crashes. Keynesian believe government should intervene through fiscal and monetary policy in order stabilize and raise up demand in order to get the spending flowing and lift the economy out of depression. Austrians believe government intervention simply makes things worse by messing up the natural market processes that, if left alone, adjust and will fix the economy. Right off the back you have the question of "what problems government should solve". Sure, the easy thing is the problem is "fix the economy", but the so called "2nd question", how to fix it, is based on each groups answer to the "1st question"; what should government solve. Keynesian believe government can solve the economy, Austrians don't, and that will reflect on how they want to fix the issue of the economy. (and on a random note I never seem to spell Keynesian right...)

And actually, in many ways this addresses a lot of the rest of your post , talking about data and just ignoring politics, and I think in many ways a lot of people's views on politics. The thing is...you can't ignore politics. Ever. Politics is, as I mentioned, at heart simply the question of "who gets what, when, and how." Even if we know what the problem is, there are so many different ideas, theories, philosophies, and what not on how to deal with it that you'd STILL get all the politics. It's simply part of who we are. As for your concern about biases, many of those are pretty ingrained in us as well, and while groups can deal with some biases it can create others (groupthink, for example). And empirical evidence? Well, remember the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics"; nothing in the social sciences is 100% empirical truth unfortunately, we can only deal in probabilities (that makes me want to go all Jedi and say something like "only the natural sciences deal in absolutes"), and you can probably figure out why probabilities=hard to make a foundation of empirical facts.

I can understand the sentiment about wanting to 'remove politics and just get to the facts so we can solve problems', I really do. But politics is, at heart, simply the question of "who gets what, when, and how", a question that obviously is never going to go away as long as scarcity exists. Politics will have winners and losers, people will argue and debate over everything based on their ideals and beliefs, and it really can be a nasty, brutish mess that makes making sausage look like a clean and easy process. But honestly, I love every damn minute of it

[TrlstanC]

The more I think about it, the more I think that referring to both "the responsibility of being a representative in government" and "the process of getting yourself elected" by the same term - politics - make talking about the issues an problems more difficult to discuss, and to some extent is part of the problem. Giving both things the same label, even when they involve very different (possibly even contradictory) goals and actions makes it seem like spending a 1/3 or more of your time actively campaigning is somehow part of the job of governing.

And I would also expect people to initially balk at the idea that deciding what problems government should be solving is laughable, since politicians have spent the last 100 years or so trying to convince us that it's a problem that can't be answered expect by political ideology - that you can (or have to) trust your gut to make that kind of decision. But if we look at it as "what problems are groups better at solving than individuals" then the problem seems a lot more approachable.

[Whammy]

The reason they both get the same name is because they ARE the same thing. If politics is simply the act of "who gets what,when, and how", then the institutions we put into place in order to figure that out (in our case a representative system) are of course going to be part of "politics". And campaigning is obviously a part of any system in which elections occur with any real meaning behind them. There's a reason "politics" is an entire field of study

And I should point out I found the idea of separating deciding "what problems government should be solving" from "politics" laughable, not the idea of solving that question. The reason being, of course, that question is tied in completely with the other. And I would like to state that political philosophy is more than just a "gut" feeling, but is just like any other branch of philosophy with logic and reasoning and etc etc. Granted the average person isn't like that, but give credit that the philosophy and ideals behind belief systems have a basis in well thought and discussed ideas. And of course comes the fact that many people believe their ideas are based on empirical observations (ex: get a Keynesian and an Austrian to discuss the Great Depression. Chances are BOTH groups can explain how the events of the Great Depression help THEIR ideology).

There's also the fact that most people don't have the time or resources to actually do all the research and thinking that is needed in order to actually make the well informed and heavily argued and researched opinion (the paradox of voting, so to speak ^_^"). So for the average person, ideology pretty much is a mental shortcut to help make sense out of the chaos of politics and economics and what not.

Furthermore, looking at it as "what problems are groups better at solving than individuals"...that doesn't have to mean GOVERNMENT solves the problem. See any and all political and economic philosophies that tend to extoll the virtue of the free-market (anarchist capitalist especially),for example. Or any philosophy really that believes that groups independent of the government in some form or another can solve the problems while government maintains a minimal role. Or on the opposite side of things, people who believe that groups cause to much trouble and so favor a more totalitarian style government (you're working on the assumption group rule is inherently better than individual, which would be a sign already of at least some kind of ideology on your part). So again, that question is still rather more complex than at first thought, and it's tied into the "how" part as well since obviously if you feel the government is better at solving the problem leads to X,Y,and Z solutions, but believing the free market leads to A,B, and C solutions, and if you believe a single ruler with absolute power is best, you'll get solutions L,M, and N.

[Silknor]

The more I think about it, the more I think that referring to both "the responsibility of being a representative in government" and "the process of getting yourself elected" by the same term - politics - make talking about the issues an problems more difficult to discuss, and to some extent is part of the problem. Giving both things the same label, even when they involve very different (possibly even contradictory) goals and actions makes it seem like spending a 1/3 or more of your time actively campaigning is somehow part of the job of governing.

When discussing a system where reelection is possible, it's not possible to completely separate the two. For an elected official who wants to shape policy past their current term, reelection is important (obviously it's not everything, it's not like second-term presidents don't have long-term impact). And it's also important that like-minded individuals get reelected or elected in place of those who disagree with you. If your opponents on an issue are sufficiently numerous and determined (so that you can't get what you want on this issue in exchange for giving in on something else), the only way you're going to get change is by defeating them at the polls. And the only way you can secure change against sufficiently determined, but not numerous enough, opponents, is to ensure they don't become sufficiently numerous.

Also, we do have commonly used terms for when we want to refer to just one portion of politics: governing and campaigning. But both are part of politics, and when you're talking about changing policy over the long term, you can't ignore future elections, and when talking about future elections, you can't ignore the immediate policy agenda. As your time-frame gets longer, the line between governing and campaigning blurs more and more until it disappears.

As for the question of what problems should government try to solve, I don't think that's an easy question at all. The issue of for which questions do groups make better decisions than individuals has little to do with most questions about what government should be trying to do. Certainly there's some big ones, for example Social Security is one solution to the problem of excessive inter-temporal variability in income and the bias of excessive discounting of your future utility/self-control in savings, to put it in economics terms. But I don't see how the question of where do groups outperform individuals can shed any light (outside of some small areas) on issues such as national security, issues of rights/morality, or how much revenue should the government raise and from who, just to name a few big areas. You're simply not going to find a correct, empirical, non-ideological/value-based answer to things like this.

[TrlstanC]

My main goal in raising these ideas was

3) a request for help in working on these ideas

I realize that many people think that the way the country is run now, or the things we call 'politics', or even the way we think about the problems of government are either: not worth changing, not possible to change, or are in fact great, just the way the are. If you would like to try and convince me that things shouldn't change, or that these ideas aren't worth discussing, could I ask that you do it in either a pm to me, or start a separate thread.

I would like to keep this thread on the topic of "what changes do we need to make" and "how can we best communicate those ideas" if that's possible. Or at the very least, if you would like to discuss why you think these ideas/changes don't make sense, at least include some suggestions on how to improve or change them.

[Copper Bezel]

No one has left that scope, because no one is objecting to fixing things. Whammy and Silknor objected to your approach - the distinction you made is an important one, but you can't assume that that particular problem can be completely solved or that anyone who disagrees that it can doesn't really want to change anything at all.

I don't disagree with you, by the way. The US political system is a contrived hypothetical illustration of what happens when campaigning overtakes governance and all meaningful discourse,

[TrlstanC]

After talking with a lot of people, I've organized some of the thoughts and ideas in to a presentation. It's very rough right now. But it would be great to get feedback from a larger audience.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id ... 21fkfqzjgd

If anyone would like to make edits or improvements feel free to PM me and I'll add people. Or just copy the whole document and do whatever you want with it

I realize that this is a very non-traditional way to approach the issue of government. Usually when thinking about the problems we've run in to I end up stuck on the idea of "money in politics" since that seems to be at the root of so many problems. But ultimately, no one is going out and buying votes, they're just spending money to try and convince people to change their minds with 30-second campaign ads on issues they think they can get people worked up about.

The real issue seems to be is that we've let politicians dictate the terms of the discussion and what we should be debating. If enough people who's main (only?) concern is to get re-elected do this than the entire discussion is going to be about re-election and not about making progress in government. We seem to have gotten to the point where even talking about progress doesn't fit in to the discussion.