The Myth of Democracy

[boneyard bill]

The general view of the public today, and one obviously assumed by mainstream media commentary, is that the US is still a functioning democracy. Ultimately, the people have the final say even if that doesn't always produce the most popular result.

However, critics of that view, on both the right and the left, have arisen and are generally classified as a "fringe" element. These would include, but are not limited to, the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left and the Tea Party movement on the right. These critics, which I shall refer to by that name hereafter, contend that there is really very little difference between Republicans and Democrats so it doesn't much matter which one you vote for. The two parties differ significantly on their electoral rhetoric, but once in office they actually do pretty much the same things.

Critics of the left tend to blame this situation on capitalism, or at least on big corporations and the military industrial complex, while critics on the right tend to blame big government. These aren't necessarily incompatible views, or course. If you have crony capitalism then you have to have cronies at both ends of the cabal, one in business and the other in government. But the right says not all capitalists are to blame while the left says not all government programs are to blame.

Thus the left critics tend to support Obamacare even though they would prefer a single payer plan and recognize that it is a crony capitalist creation. The right critics, however, argue that it is a big government program that will ultimately be worse than the present system because of the bureaucracy and regulation that it creates. Right critics favor free markets while left critics want more government regulation even though they admit that much existing regulation serves the interests of the governing cabal more than anything else.

However, left and right critics tend to agree on one villain, the Federal Reserve System. Both argue that control of the Fed by the big Wall Street banks is one of the major problems facing the country.

But they also tend to agree on foreign policy. While right critics rarely use the same rhetoric as the left (they don't complain of "US imperialism" for example), they agree with the left critics that US interventions overseas are not undertaken for either the humanitarian or national security interests that are officially proclaimed. Both insist that private interests are driving US foreign policy even more than they drive domestic policy.

Given this outlook, it seems clear that foreign policy adventurism will be understood and interpreted very differently by the critics than it is by the mainstream. Indeed, the mainstream interpretation leads Republicans into criticizing Obama as "weak" for having bombed only seven countries in his one and half terms in office.

In any case, the mainstream narrative supports the view that the popular will is being represented. The people generally want the president to use his power to secure America's safety and to preserve America's dominant role in the world and that the president is using his best judgment to do that. This doesn't mean that the president can't be wrong and shouldn't be subject to criticism, but it does assume that the system is working as it was intended to work.

What happens if the public ceases to accept the mainstream narrative? That is the big question, and that is the issue that the critics are raising. There is still the hope that the system can be made to work if only its subversive elements can be exposed.

What I have outlined here is the situation in America, but we're seeing it elsewhere in the world as well, especially in Europe. The UKIP party in Britain won the most votes in the recent European elections and have won both of the by-election seats in parliament since that time. France's National Front also recorded strong support in the European elections as did the Alternative party in Germany. Scotland nearly voted for independence in spite of the serious economic problems that would have created. Catalonia voted for independence in Spain although that vote has no constitutional basis. Now the Swiss are voting on a referendum to require 20% gold backing for the Swiss franc. Essentially, this is a demand by the Swiss to end inflationary policies.

So who is right? Is our system still representing the will of the American people or does it merely serve the special interests and yield to popular desires only when absolutely necessary? What does the empirical evidence lead us to believe?

 

[whichphilosophy]

The general view of the public today, and one obviously assumed by mainstream media commentary, is that the US is still a functioning democracy. Ultimately, the people have the final say even if that doesn't always produce the most popular result.

However, critics of that view, on both the right and the left, have arisen and are generally classified as a "fringe" element. These would include, but are not limited to, the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left and the Tea Party movement on the right. These critics, which I shall refer to by that name hereafter, contend that there is really very little difference between Republicans and Democrats so it doesn't much matter which one you vote for. The two parties differ significantly on their electoral rhetoric, but once in office they actually do pretty much the same things.

Critics of the left tend to blame this situation on capitalism, or at least on big corporations and the military industrial complex, while critics on the right tend to blame big government. These aren't necessarily incompatible views, or course. If you have crony capitalism then you have to have cronies at both ends of the cabal, one in business and the other in government. But the right says not all capitalists are to blame while the left says not all government programs are to blame.

Thus the left critics tend to support Obamacare even though they would prefer a single payer plan and recognize that it is a crony capitalist creation. The right critics, however, argue that it is a big government program that will ultimately be worse than the present system because of the bureaucracy and regulation that it creates. Right critics favor free markets while left critics want more government regulation even though they admit that much existing regulation serves the interests of the governing cabal more than anything else.

However, left and right critics tend to agree on one villain, the Federal Reserve System. Both argue that control of the Fed by the big Wall Street banks is one of the major problems facing the country.

But they also tend to agree on foreign policy. While right critics rarely use the same rhetoric as the left (they don't complain of "US imperialism" for example), they agree with the left critics that US interventions overseas are not undertaken for either the humanitarian or national security interests that are officially proclaimed. Both insist that private interests are driving US foreign policy even more than they drive domestic policy.

Given this outlook, it seems clear that foreign policy adventurism will be understood and interpreted very differently by the critics than it is by the mainstream. Indeed, the mainstream interpretation leads Republicans into criticizing Obama as "weak" for having bombed only seven countries in his one and half terms in office.

In any case, the mainstream narrative supports the view that the popular will is being represented. The people generally want the president to use his power to secure America's safety and to preserve America's dominant role in the world and that the president is using his best judgment to do that. This doesn't mean that the president can't be wrong and shouldn't be subject to criticism, but it does assume that the system is working as it was intended to work.

What happens if the public ceases to accept the mainstream narrative? That is the big question, and that is the issue that the critics are raising. There is still the hope that the system can be made to work if only its subversive elements can be exposed.

What I have outlined here is the situation in America, but we're seeing it elsewhere in the world as well, especially in Europe. The UKIP party in Britain won the most votes in the recent European elections and have won both of the by-election seats in parliament since that time. France's National Front also recorded strong support in the European elections as did the Alternative party in Germany. Scotland nearly voted for independence in spite of the serious economic problems that would have created. Catalonia voted for independence in Spain although that vote has no constitutional basis. Now the Swiss are voting on a referendum to require 20% gold backing for the Swiss franc. Essentially, this is a demand by the Swiss to end inflationary policies.

So who is right? Is our system still representing the will of the American people or does it merely serve the special interests and yield to popular desires only when absolutely necessary? What does the empirical evidence lead us to believe?

If the Americans are voting in candidates by popular vote in a free election then it is a democracy even if not perfect.
However the right to free speech and free expression is certainly much higher than many countries.
The fact that any of us can voice our objections to the government, discuss religion and even anti-religion indicate we do have some form of democrary.
In the UAE, the previous mail address for this forum freeratio.com was blocked by the official censor.
What some argue is we should have more freedom of information and now wait 50 years later to request access to records to find details of certain government actions and policies.
There again apathy and taking things for granted means that the democratic rights available are not always exercised.

The very thought of questioning the the official religion in some Arab countries is regarded as heresay.

 

[NobleSavage]

A few observations:

The famous political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville more or less said that public opinion controls America. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm Is this still true today? I'd say for the most part. We pull out of wars when the public gets sick of it. Gay marriage has mostly won. Marijuana is become legal in some states. Minimum wage hikes generally go through. We have a large safety net (not as good as some countries) but ours is significant. The public is becoming aware of "income inequality" and I figure something half-ass will be done. The war on drugs is losing support and I expect the laws to change. My biggest complaint is civil liberties, but most Americans seem to chose safety over freedom (at least when they are pumped full of fear).

I generally support the political theory of Pluralism.

Every once in a while we have a "critical" election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election

 

[untermensche]

If the Americans are voting in candidates by popular vote in a free election then it is a democracy even if not perfect.

What is a free election?

Because in the US no elections are free. They cost quite a bit, which locks out many candidates and favors sycophants to corporate power.

The US is an oligarchy with a few democratic trappings.

The rich control the agenda in Congress. They control the Supreme Court and they completely own one party and mostly own the other.

When the oligarchy destroys the economy with malfeasance, through their agents at the banks they own, there is no punishment. They are in fact rewarded.

We have been engaged in war non-stop for over a decade to feed the unending greed of the oligarchy.

And most people understand these things. That is why 2/3rds of the population doesn't even bother to vote. They know it is nothing but a game for suckers.

 

[boneyard bill]

The general view of the public today, and one obviously assumed by mainstream media commentary, is that the US is still a functioning democracy. Ultimately, the people have the final say even if that doesn't always produce the most popular result.

However, critics of that view, on both the right and the left, have arisen and are generally classified as a "fringe" element. These would include, but are not limited to, the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left and the Tea Party movement on the right. These critics, which I shall refer to by that name hereafter, contend that there is really very little difference between Republicans and Democrats so it doesn't much matter which one you vote for. The two parties differ significantly on their electoral rhetoric, but once in office they actually do pretty much the same things.

Critics of the left tend to blame this situation on capitalism, or at least on big corporations and the military industrial complex, while critics on the right tend to blame big government. These aren't necessarily incompatible views, or course. If you have crony capitalism then you have to have cronies at both ends of the cabal, one in business and the other in government. But the right says not all capitalists are to blame while the left says not all government programs are to blame.

Thus the left critics tend to support Obamacare even though they would prefer a single payer plan and recognize that it is a crony capitalist creation. The right critics, however, argue that it is a big government program that will ultimately be worse than the present system because of the bureaucracy and regulation that it creates. Right critics favor free markets while left critics want more government regulation even though they admit that much existing regulation serves the interests of the governing cabal more than anything else.

However, left and right critics tend to agree on one villain, the Federal Reserve System. Both argue that control of the Fed by the big Wall Street banks is one of the major problems facing the country.

But they also tend to agree on foreign policy. While right critics rarely use the same rhetoric as the left (they don't complain of "US imperialism" for example), they agree with the left critics that US interventions overseas are not undertaken for either the humanitarian or national security interests that are officially proclaimed. Both insist that private interests are driving US foreign policy even more than they drive domestic policy.

Given this outlook, it seems clear that foreign policy adventurism will be understood and interpreted very differently by the critics than it is by the mainstream. Indeed, the mainstream interpretation leads Republicans into criticizing Obama as "weak" for having bombed only seven countries in his one and half terms in office.

In any case, the mainstream narrative supports the view that the popular will is being represented. The people generally want the president to use his power to secure America's safety and to preserve America's dominant role in the world and that the president is using his best judgment to do that. This doesn't mean that the president can't be wrong and shouldn't be subject to criticism, but it does assume that the system is working as it was intended to work.

What happens if the public ceases to accept the mainstream narrative? That is the big question, and that is the issue that the critics are raising. There is still the hope that the system can be made to work if only its subversive elements can be exposed.

What I have outlined here is the situation in America, but we're seeing it elsewhere in the world as well, especially in Europe. The UKIP party in Britain won the most votes in the recent European elections and have won both of the by-election seats in parliament since that time. France's National Front also recorded strong support in the European elections as did the Alternative party in Germany. Scotland nearly voted for independence in spite of the serious economic problems that would have created. Catalonia voted for independence in Spain although that vote has no constitutional basis. Now the Swiss are voting on a referendum to require 20% gold backing for the Swiss franc. Essentially, this is a demand by the Swiss to end inflationary policies.

So who is right? Is our system still representing the will of the American people or does it merely serve the special interests and yield to popular desires only when absolutely necessary? What does the empirical evidence lead us to believe?

If the Americans are voting in candidates by popular vote in a free election then it is a democracy even if not perfect.
However the right to free speech and free expression is certainly much higher than many countries.
The fact that any of us can voice our objections to the government, discuss religion and even anti-religion indicate we do have some form of democrary.
In the UAE, the previous mail address for this forum freeratio.com was blocked by the official censor.
What some argue is we should have more freedom of information and now wait 50 years later to request access to records to find details of certain government actions and policies.
There again apathy and taking things for granted means that the democratic rights available are not always exercised.

The very thought of questioning the the official religion in some Arab countries is regarded as heresay.

What good is free speech if you can't be heard? If the governing cabal controls the media, and the only criticism that gets a meaningful audience is the officially recognized opposition which supports the same policies with only minor differences in spin, are we really getting a meaningful debate?

Do we not have heresies here in the US as well? What about 9/11 truthers? Do they get a fair hearing in the media? Even though about half the public doesn't believe we've gotten the whole truth about 9/11, truthers are rarely allowed to make their case in the mainstream media, and when they are, they are scornfully dismissed by the media as "conspiracy theorists."

Other critics who get dismissed are critics of the Warren Commission Report even though the House Select Committee on Assassinations has disputed that reports findings and has concluded that Oswald likely did not act alone. Still, they get branded as conspiracy theorists as if a conspiracy theory must necessarily be wrong.

The same is true for critics of our policy in Ukraine. Elsewhere on these boards I have posted an interview with a foreign policy expert on Russia who has said he gets no requests for interviews on this subject nor do others he knows who share his views.

Critics of global warming do a little better, but they still have considerable support in Congress so they are not so easily dismissed.

The point of free speech is to promote free debate. It isn't about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

[boneyard bill]

A few observations:

The famous political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville more or less said that public opinion controls America. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm Is this still true today? I'd say for the most part. We pull out of wars when the public gets sick of it. Gay marriage has mostly won. Marijuana is become legal in some states. Minimum wage hikes generally go through. We have a large safety net (not as good as some countries) but ours is significant. The public is becoming aware of "income inequality" and I figure something half-ass will be done. The war on drugs is losing support and I expect the laws to change. My biggest complaint is civil liberties, but most Americans seem to chose safety over freedom (at least when they are pumped full of fear).

I generally support the political theory of Pluralism.

Every once in a while we have a "critical" election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election

I would dispute some of your claims. Democrats won Congress on a promise to end the Iraq War and did nothing of the sort. Obama promised to pull out of Iraq in 16 months, but actually withdrew out troops when the Iraqi's said we couldn't stay. Now he's sending them back in again. He promised to get out of Afghanistan in 2014 but now he says we're going to keep 10,000 troops there. Public opinion did prevent him from bombing Syria a year ago but now he's bombing Syria.

Gay marriage has won mostly where it has been imposed by the courts. It hasn't been voted in very often.

Marijuana laws have been repealed before and then re-instated. The value of medical marijuana may help the battle this time out, but still, very few states have legalized it, and we have yet to see how long those laws will last.. Here in Florida even medical marijuana failed in the recent election. I'll grant, however, that even the failure of marijuana laws at least represents an expression of public opinion.

Minimum wage laws typically raise the minimum only to what employers are already paying. Social security and medicare are popular because people have become dependent upon them. Obamacare was not popular but it still passed.

I don't think most Americans supported the Patriot Act or the NDAA. They simply didn't know what was in them. These acts have virtually obliterated the Bill of Rights. How much of that have you heard in the mainstream media? Nada. They just don't cover that.

 

[laughing dog]

What good is free speech if you can't be heard? If the governing cabal controls the media, and the only criticism that gets a meaningful audience is the officially recognized opposition which supports the same policies with only minor differences in spin, are we really getting a meaningful debate?

In the age of the 24 hour news stream and the internet it is impossible not be "heard". There is a distinct difference between the inability to gets one message out (i.e. cannot be heard) and people not believing or listening to the message. Perhaps the problem with 9/11 "truthers" and other purveyors of "truth" are that they have been heard and are simply not believed.

 

[boneyard bill]

If the Americans are voting in candidates by popular vote in a free election then it is a democracy even if not perfect.

What is a free election?

Because in the US no elections are free. They cost quite a bit, which locks out many candidates and favors sycophants to corporate power.

The US is an oligarchy with a few democratic trappings.

The rich control the agenda in Congress. They control the Supreme Court and they completely own one party and mostly own the other.

When the oligarchy destroys the economy with malfeasance, through their agents at the banks they own, there is no punishment. They are in fact rewarded.

We have been engaged in war non-stop for over a decade to feed the unending greed of the oligarchy.

And most people understand these things. That is why 2/3rds of the population doesn't even bother to vote. They know it is nothing but a game for suckers.

This is what I would say is a fairly accurate representation of what I have called the "fringe" view. Is any of the above inaccurate? I don't think much of it is. So how are you "mainstreamers" out there going to respond to this?

 

[untermensche]

This is what I would say is a fairly accurate representation of what I have called the "fringe" view. Is any of the above inaccurate? I don't think much of it is. So how are you "mainstreamers" out there going to respond to this?

When 2/3rds of the voters don't even bother to show up that is a message.

I don't think these ideas are fringe.

They are merely under represented in the corporate media.

 

[boneyard bill]

This is what I would say is a fairly accurate representation of what I have called the "fringe" view. Is any of the above inaccurate? I don't think much of it is. So how are you "mainstreamers" out there going to respond to this?

When 2/3rds of the voters don't even bother to show up that is a message.

I don't think these ideas are fringe.

They are merely under represented in the corporate media.

But that's what I mean by "fringe." Sure. Lots of people don't think we've heard the whole truth about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans don't think Oswald acted alone in the JFK murder. But if you express those views in political debate, you get labelled as a "tin foil hat" guy or a conspiracy theorist. If you want to return to the gold standard you're a nut. If you don't support the CO2 theory of global warming you're "anti-science." Yet a large part of the American public believes these things. Sometimes even a very large majority.

 

[laughing dog]

When 2/3rds of the voters don't even bother to show up that is a message.

I don't think these ideas are fringe.

They are merely under represented in the corporate media.

But that's what I mean by "fringe." Sure. Lots of people don't think we've heard the whole truth about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans don't think Oswald acted alone in the JFK murder. But if you express those views in political debate, you get labelled as a "tin foil hat" guy or a conspiracy theorist. If you want to return to the gold standard you're a nut. If you don't support the CO2 theory of global warming you're "anti-science." Yet a large part of the American public believes these things. Sometimes even a very large majority.

Do you think science is determined by majority opinion? Or the effects of the gold standard?

 

[Tristan Scott]

We're not really a democracy. The majority opinion about scientific issues are quite irrelevant to science as they're opinion on economics are irrelevant to our economy and so on. A democracy was determined to be an unworkable system 3,000 years ago and again in the 19th century when our country was founded. That is why the founding fathers chose a to make us a republic.

 

[untermensche]

When 2/3rds of the voters don't even bother to show up that is a message.

I don't think these ideas are fringe.

They are merely under represented in the corporate media.

But that's what I mean by "fringe." Sure. Lots of people don't think we've heard the whole truth about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans don't think Oswald acted alone in the JFK murder. But if you express those views in political debate, you get labelled as a "tin foil hat" guy or a conspiracy theorist. If you want to return to the gold standard you're a nut. If you don't support the CO2 theory of global warming you're "anti-science." Yet a large part of the American public believes these things. Sometimes even a very large majority.

You can spout any crazy conspiracy theory you want and the media will give you all kinds of coverage. There have been plenty of shows about a 911 conspiracy and way too many about the Kennedy assassination.

What you don't see much of are the realities of the system that conflict with the image the media wants to portray.

The media wants to pretend that democracy is working just great and politicians are merely responding to the will of the people.

When it is discovered that whole pieces of legislation have been written by corporations the media yawns and quickly moves to something else.

 

[untermensche]

We're not really a democracy. The majority opinion about scientific issues are quite irrelevant to science as they're opinion on economics are irrelevant to our economy and so on. A democracy was determined to be an unworkable system 3,000 years ago and again in the 19th century when our country was founded. That is why the founding fathers chose a to make us a republic.

How exactly was it discovered to be unworkable?

What happened in history is that the rich didn't like democracy, still don't, and killed it.

The rich in this country are crushing democracy, making a mockery of democracy, undermining democracy, creating propaganda about democracy.

The world has always been plagued by the rich and the powerful. They start the wars, they create poverty so they may have excess. They exploit everything from human labor to the environment.

Democracy is a system that, if functioning, can thwart the destructive tendencies of the rich. That is why the founding fathers sought to limit it, and why the rich have created so much propaganda against it.

In fact the only thing that could possibly save this planet from the destructive tendencies of the rich and powerful is democracy. They will not stop themselves. They are diseased.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Marijuana laws have been repealed before and then re-instated. The value of medical marijuana may help the battle this time out, but still, very few states have legalized it, and we have yet to see how long those laws will last.. Here in Florida even medical marijuana failed in the recent election.

I would not call 57% a failure. That's only 3% short of the required 60% for the amendment to have passed and become "printed" in the Florida Constitution.

I'll grant, however, that even the failure of marijuana laws at least represents an expression of public opinion.

Not the case in Florida. The under performance of Democrat voters (meaning too many not voting) is what caused the 3% short. However, I expect that the mass voting phenomenon expected in 2016 will facilitate the legalization of medical cannabis in Florida. All the polls prior to the mid term elections showed that the public opinion in Florida favored the passage of the amendment. The issue has been a low turn out from Democrat voters.To include how that low turn out was influenced by a lack of enthusiasm regarding the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Not that Crist was ever considered a rising star (more like a fallen one) within the Floridian Democrat electorate.

I don't think most Americans supported the Patriot Act or the NDAA. They simply didn't know what was in them. These acts have virtually obliterated the Bill of Rights. How much of that have you heard in the mainstream media? Nada. They just don't cover that.

Actually, I recall how much media initiated noise occurred at the time of the Patriot Act. One specific term of the Act having fallen under vocal criticism regarding the non necessity of search warrants issued by a Judge. That really struck a chord with the public opinion envisioning how the removal of judiciary orders would greatly empower law enforcement bodies to search privately owned properties such as homes without any need for probable cause. That under such removal and under the motive of protecting National Security such law enforcement bodies could uncover illegal activities in those homes not related to a threat to National Security. The initial condition for a search warrant to be delivered by a Judge having been based on probable cause not mere suspicion. Culpatory evidence collected under a search warrant delivered by a Judge having been the only evidence admissible in a Court of Law.

 

[boneyard bill]

But that's what I mean by "fringe." Sure. Lots of people don't think we've heard the whole truth about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans don't think Oswald acted alone in the JFK murder. But if you express those views in political debate, you get labelled as a "tin foil hat" guy or a conspiracy theorist. If you want to return to the gold standard you're a nut. If you don't support the CO2 theory of global warming you're "anti-science." Yet a large part of the American public believes these things. Sometimes even a very large majority.

Do you think science is determined by majority opinion? Or the effects of the gold standard?

Science certainly isn't determined by Al Gore except in the US media. At least climate scientists who oppose the CO2 theory are given a hearing occasionally. But non-scientists are still denigrated even when they cite these scientists, but you can cite Al Gore all day long and those media hosts won't raise an eyebrow. There are also plenty of economists who support the gold standard apparently including Alan Greenspan judging from this recent statements.

 

[boneyard bill]

We're not really a democracy. The majority opinion about scientific issues are quite irrelevant to science as they're opinion on economics are irrelevant to our economy and so on. A democracy was determined to be an unworkable system 3,000 years ago and again in the 19th century when our country was founded. That is why the founding fathers chose a to make us a republic.

I don't dispute what you're saying here, but when I say we're not a democracy that is not what I mean. I mean the system that we have which has democratic features and which we call a democracy is not democratic even in those features that are presumed to be so.

 

[boneyard bill]

But that's what I mean by "fringe." Sure. Lots of people don't think we've heard the whole truth about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans don't think Oswald acted alone in the JFK murder. But if you express those views in political debate, you get labelled as a "tin foil hat" guy or a conspiracy theorist. If you want to return to the gold standard you're a nut. If you don't support the CO2 theory of global warming you're "anti-science." Yet a large part of the American public believes these things. Sometimes even a very large majority.

You can spout any crazy conspiracy theory you want and the media will give you all kinds of coverage. There have been plenty of shows about a 911 conspiracy and way too many about the Kennedy assassination.

What you don't see much of are the realities of the system that conflict with the image the media wants to portray.

The media wants to pretend that democracy is working just great and politicians are merely responding to the will of the people.

When it is discovered that whole pieces of legislation have been written by corporations the media yawns and quickly moves to something else.

In general I agree. But in the "fringe" issues, even though media may sometimes cover them, they tend to sneer in various ways at the proponents. There are simply huge areas where the media refuses to shine the light.

 

[boneyard bill]

We're not really a democracy. The majority opinion about scientific issues are quite irrelevant to science as they're opinion on economics are irrelevant to our economy and so on. A democracy was determined to be an unworkable system 3,000 years ago and again in the 19th century when our country was founded. That is why the founding fathers chose a to make us a republic.

How exactly was it discovered to be unworkable?

What happened in history is that the rich didn't like democracy, still don't, and killed it.

The rich in this country are crushing democracy, making a mockery of democracy, undermining democracy, creating propaganda about democracy.

The world has always been plagued by the rich and the powerful. They start the wars, they create poverty so they may have excess. They exploit everything from human labor to the environment.

Democracy is a system that, if functioning, can thwart the destructive tendencies of the rich. That is why the founding fathers sought to limit it, and why the rich have created so much propaganda against it.

In fact the only thing that could possibly save this planet from the destructive tendencies of the rich and powerful is democracy. They will not stop themselves. They are diseased.

I don't think it's about the rich getting richer although they are doing that. I think it's about the rich using their money to gain power. When you're worth billions, what's left to buy? People of influence. That's the only thing left, and they are doing in countless ways. Campaign contributions are a tiny part of the process.

 

[boneyard bill]

I would not call 57% a failure. That's only 3% short of the required 60% for the amendment to have passed and become "printed" in the Florida Constitution.

I'll grant, however, that even the failure of marijuana laws at least represents an expression of public opinion.

Not the case in Florida. The under performance of Democrat voters (meaning too many not voting) is what caused the 3% short. However, I expect that the mass voting phenomenon expected in 2016 will facilitate the legalization of medical cannabis in Florida. All the polls prior to the mid term elections showed that the public opinion in Florida favored the passage of the amendment. The issue has been a low turn out from Democrat voters.To include how that low turn out was influenced by a lack of enthusiasm regarding the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Not that Crist was ever considered a rising star (more like a fallen one) within the Floridian Democrat electorate.

I don't think most Americans supported the Patriot Act or the NDAA. They simply didn't know what was in them. These acts have virtually obliterated the Bill of Rights. How much of that have you heard in the mainstream media? Nada. They just don't cover that.

Actually, I recall how much media initiated noise occurred at the time of the Patriot Act. One specific term of the Act having fallen under vocal criticism regarding the non necessity of search warrants issued by a Judge. That really struck a chord with the public opinion envisioning how the removal of judiciary orders would greatly empower law enforcement bodies to search privately owned properties such as homes without any need for probable cause. That under such removal and under the motive of protecting National Security such law enforcement bodies could uncover illegal activities in those homes not related to a threat to National Security. The initial condition for a search warrant to be delivered by a Judge having been based on probable cause not mere suspicion. Culpatory evidence collected under a search warrant delivered by a Judge having been the only evidence admissible in a Court of Law.

Crist and Obama may have combined to be a drag on the Democratic electorate here in Florida (but not in Tallahassee), but my point is that we shouldn't infer too much from the recent successes. The laws may not last. I'm not predicting that. I'm just pointing that out.

I don't recall much criticism of the Patriot Act when it was passed, but I must confess that I don't watch television. I don't even own one. So my understanding of mainstream coverage comes from the mainstream sites which I access on my computer or my smart phone.