The U.S. Was Just Downgraded from a 'Full' to 'Flawed Democracy'

[bilby]

Or refused to call a second vote, once the actual details of what Brexit entails are known.

The Brexit referendum was ridiculous; Nobody, neither the voters nor the politicians, had a clear idea of what a 'leave' vote might mean, because the idea that 'leave' might win was never seriously considered. It was entirely a cynical exercise intended to secure David Cameron's position within the Conservative Party, and no thought was given to the possibility that his faction might not win.

Since the vote, a small but vocal group of 'leave' supporters have declared that democracy would be destroyed if there was a second vote - presumably these people also think that Robert Walpole should still be Prime Minister.

After all, voting once, and then making a semi-permanent change, with no future voting to be allowed for at least several decades, is the epitome of democracy.

Good grief. So keep having votes until you get the result Bilby and the unelected autocrats in Brussels want. You really don't care for democracy, do you? The arrogance and snobbery you display here is why Brexit won and Trump was elected.

Sure. It's the essence of democracy to have a vote before the thing you are voting about is understood.

The Brexit referendum boiled down to "Should we keep on with what we are doing, or do a different thing?". The voters have spoken - 'a different thing' won. Now, can you honestly say that you (or anybody) knew on the day of the vote what that 'different thing' was, how it could be achieved, or what effects it would have? Because it's pretty damn clear that the people who proposed the question didn't know, or care.

But voting more than once is anti-democratic, which is why Trump will be president for life, right?

 

[Trausti]

Or refused to call a second vote, once the actual details of what Brexit entails are known.

The Brexit referendum was ridiculous; Nobody, neither the voters nor the politicians, had a clear idea of what a 'leave' vote might mean, because the idea that 'leave' might win was never seriously considered. It was entirely a cynical exercise intended to secure David Cameron's position within the Conservative Party, and no thought was given to the possibility that his faction might not win.

Since the vote, a small but vocal group of 'leave' supporters have declared that democracy would be destroyed if there was a second vote - presumably these people also think that Robert Walpole should still be Prime Minister.

After all, voting once, and then making a semi-permanent change, with no future voting to be allowed for at least several decades, is the epitome of democracy.

Good grief. So keep having votes until you get the result Bilby and the unelected autocrats in Brussels want. You really don't care for democracy, do you? The arrogance and snobbery you display here is why Brexit won and Trump was elected.

Sure. It's the essence of democracy to have a vote before the thing you are voting about is understood.

The Brexit referendum boiled down to "Should we keep on with what we are doing, or do a different thing?". The voters have spoken - 'a different thing' won. Now, can you honestly say that you (or anybody) knew on the day of the vote what that 'different thing' was, how it could be achieved, or what effects it would have? Because it's pretty damn clear that the people who proposed the question didn't know, or care.

But voting more than once is anti-democratic, which is why Trump will be president for life, right?

When would you be satisfied that "the thing you are voting about is understood"? You don't see the arrogance and snobbery there? Would you not be satisfied until voters understood it your way, but not sooner? I'm not even British but I'm well aware from across the pond that there was plenty of discussion about Brexit before the vote. Voters returning a result you don't like doesn't mean they misunderstood the issue; it simply means they disagreed with you. Your position lost the vote, get over it.

 

[bilby]

Sure. It's the essence of democracy to have a vote before the thing you are voting about is understood.

The Brexit referendum boiled down to "Should we keep on with what we are doing, or do a different thing?". The voters have spoken - 'a different thing' won. Now, can you honestly say that you (or anybody) knew on the day of the vote what that 'different thing' was, how it could be achieved, or what effects it would have? Because it's pretty damn clear that the people who proposed the question didn't know, or care.

But voting more than once is anti-democratic, which is why Trump will be president for life, right?

When would you be satisfied that "the thing you are voting about is understood"? You don't see the arrogance and snobbery there? Would you not be satisfied until voters understood it your way, but not sooner? I'm not even British but I'm well aware from across the pond that there was plenty of discussion about Brexit before the vote. Voters returning a result you don't like doesn't mean they misunderstood the issue; it simply means they disagreed with you. Your position lost the vote, get over it.

NOBODY understood what was being voted upon. The actual actions taken by the government post-referendum bear no resemblance to any of the things that were proposed, mooted or discussed before it took place. The economic impacts already seen are much larger and much more negative than anyone suggested before the vote. I am not accusing my opponents of ignorance; I am making a well evidenced and factual claim that EVERY voter, on either side, was ignorant of the effects that a 'leave' vote would have, and that the result is therefore meaningless in the absence of a follow up vote once the likely impacts are known.

There was plenty of discussion before the vote. NONE of it bore any resemblance to what has happened since the vote.

If a second referendum held between now and 29 March 2019 shows a majority who still want to leave, then that would be an end of the matter. But without such a vote, nobody can honestly say that what happens on 29 March is in any way reflective of the will of the people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sure. It's the essence of democracy to have a vote before the thing you are voting about is understood.

The Brexit referendum boiled down to "Should we keep on with what we are doing, or do a different thing?". The voters have spoken - 'a different thing' won. Now, can you honestly say that you (or anybody) knew on the day of the vote what that 'different thing' was, how it could be achieved, or what effects it would have? Because it's pretty damn clear that the people who proposed the question didn't know, or care.

But voting more than once is anti-democratic, which is why Trump will be president for life, right?

When would you be satisfied that "the thing you are voting about is understood"? You don't see the arrogance and snobbery there? Would you not be satisfied until voters understood it your way, but not sooner? I'm not even British but I'm well aware from across the pond that there was plenty of discussion about Brexit before the vote. Voters returning a result you don't like doesn't mean they misunderstood the issue; it simply means they disagreed with you. Your position lost the vote, get over it.

Well, according to this article, which is typical of what's going on presently, it seems all those people who want out, well, they want "out" but they want everything to stay exactly like it would be as if they were still "in."

The £28.8bn industry is the UK's largest manufacturing sector, employing 400,000 people.

Rachel Reeves, who chairs the committee, said: "The success of the industry has been highly dependent on participating in the [EU] single market and customs union.

"To ensure the continued success of our food and drinks industry, the government must provide clarity and certainty on our future relationship with the EU and seek continued regulatory, standards, and trading alignment with the EU in the processed food and drink sector."

also

Without access to EU markets after December 2020, when the post-Brexit transition period is due to end, UK exports of processed foods such as chocolate, cheese, beef, pork and soft drinks would suffer, the committee said.

At the same time UK consumers would see less choice on supermarket shelves and have to pay higher prices, it added.

Defaulting to World Trade Organization tariffs "would not be an acceptable outcome for the sector and would seriously jeopardise the competitiveness of UK exports", the committee said.

No-deal Brexit 'disastrous' for food firms

I will give you that people still make bad decisions because they make emotional decisions. This usually happens when they're content - fat and happy.

 

[barbos]

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
HL Mencken (1880 - 1956)

 

[fast]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mocracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f822ed98ff22

There is a hideous deception underlying the term, "flawed democracy." The above link is a reminder that words have meaning.

The groupings full democracy and flawed democracy have labels with descriptors, namely "full democracy" and "flawed democracy," but they could just have easily been labeled "category 1," and "category 2." Do we think a disabled person is any less of a person because of disabilities? No, a person is a person is a person, and a democracy is a democracy is a democracy. The US is a republic, and it has a constitution, and no name given as a category label can alter the fact that it's a democracy.

This is where things get tricky. One might say, "oh, but fast, the label 'flawed democracy' doesn't imply that it's not a democracy but rather the opposite." That's right, it doesn't, but hailed up against the term, "full democracy," it highly suggests that it's less of a democracy. My point is to explain that the terms used as labels must not be taken as holding true meaning. The label could just as well read, "not a real democracy" and it would still be as much of a democracy as a democracy could be. Labels need not be accurate in their reflection. Words, as they are otherwise used, maintain their meaning no matter how pathetic people might otherwise use labels.

A hamburger joint named Pizza's R Us does not make it a pizza selling establishment, and a democracy differentiated from others and categorized with a label that insinuates it's somehow not a true democracy by contrasting it to another category called "full democracy," well, deserves to be highlighted.

 

[Tigers!]

If a second referendum held between now and 29 March 2019 shows a majority who still want to leave, then that would be an end of the matter. But without such a vote, nobody can honestly say that what happens on 29 March is in any way reflective of the will of the people.

No Bilby you would still complain about if the Leave won again.

 

[bilby]

If a second referendum held between now and 29 March 2019 shows a majority who still want to leave, then that would be an end of the matter. But without such a vote, nobody can honestly say that what happens on 29 March is in any way reflective of the will of the people.

No Bilby you would still complain about if the Leave won again.

Oddly, I don't recognise you as a greater authority on my position than I am myself.

 

[Elixir]

There is a hideous deception underlying the term, "flawed democracy."

Seems to me they're quite up-front about it:

“Popular trust in government, elected representatives and political parties has fallen to extremely low levels in the U.S.,”

I don't know how they manage to quantify something like a level of popular trust, but they aren't pretending there's anything more to it than that. I see no "hideous deception", unless you too can quantify popular trust, and then show that contrary to the article's assertion, it has NOT fallen to "extremely low levels" (whatever those are).

FWIW, I felt like my own trust in government took a big hit during the Nixon administration, another significant hit during the Dubya years, and an absolute drubbing over the last year and a half.

 

[fast]

There is a hideous deception underlying the term, "flawed democracy."

Seems to me they're quite up-front about it:

“Popular trust in government, elected representatives and political parties has fallen to extremely low levels in the U.S.,”

I don't know how they manage to quantify something like a level of popular trust, but they aren't pretending there's anything more to it than that. I see no "hideous deception", unless you too can quantify popular trust, and then show that contrary to the article's assertion, it has NOT fallen to "extremely low levels" (whatever those are).

FWIW, I felt like my own trust in government took a big hit during the Nixon administration, another significant hit during the Dubya years, and an absolute drubbing over the last year and a half.

What is a full democracy, not to be confused with "Full Democracy?"

 

[Elixir]

Seems to me they're quite up-front about it:



I don't know how they manage to quantify something like a level of popular trust, but they aren't pretending there's anything more to it than that. I see no "hideous deception", unless you too can quantify popular trust, and then show that contrary to the article's assertion, it has NOT fallen to "extremely low levels" (whatever those are).

FWIW, I felt like my own trust in government took a big hit during the Nixon administration, another significant hit during the Dubya years, and an absolute drubbing over the last year and a half.

What is a full democracy, not to be confused with "Full Democracy?"

I thought that was obvious from the article. By their metric, a "full democracy" would be a democracy wherein popular trust in government, elected representatives and political parties has risen to, or is maintained at high levels. Presumably a "Full Democracy" would feature extremely high levels...
I agree that the article is an attempt to provoke emotion using something that cannot be statistically supported or falsified. Isn't that what political article do?

 

[Tristan Scott]

I agree with this and as the article stated that it preceded Trump. By a lot. There is only one place to blame and that is the American people themselves. They have allowed themselves to be misinformed. Sure their ignorance is exploited by conservative media and by politicians like Trump, but the responsibility lies with the individual citizens.

That means democracy is working. You get the kind of system you deserve.

Certainly true.

 

[dismal]

Well I, for one, didn't vote for the US to have this "democracy downgrade".

Seems like these English Economist bastards unilaterally foisted it upon us without our consent.

 

[Elixir]

Well I, for one, didn't vote for the US to have this "democracy downgrade".

Seems like these English Economist bastards unilaterally foisted it upon us without our consent.

Lulz ... you're not advocating truncating their free speech rights or anything, are you?
Next thing ya know, someone is going to want to prevent Pizzagate stories from proliferating.

 

[dismal]

Well I, for one, didn't vote for the US to have this "democracy downgrade".

Seems like these English Economist bastards unilaterally foisted it upon us without our consent.

Lulz ... you're not advocating truncating their free speech rights or anything, are you?
Next thing ya know, someone is going to want to prevent Pizzagate stories from proliferating.

It's my understanding people in England aren't covered by our First Amendment. They have their own laws and stuff.

Nonetheless, I am not here to advocate any military or diplomatic action against them.

My main reaction to media, foreign or domestic, issuing a list or ranking designed to provoke magazine sales is the proactively not giving of a shit.

it's not like the bastards said the 27 Yankees weren't our greatest baseball team or somesuch really provocative.

 

[RVonse]

While U.S. citizens could once claim to be part of the 9% of people in the world governed by a “full democracy,” they are now part of the near 45% who live in a “flawed democracy.”

http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/us-democracy-downgrade/

But Americans are the exceptional people! We are the shining city on the hill!

Thats what our president's always say before they bomb a country like Syria. All of our presidents except for Trump have said this. And Americans believe this too. Trump being the only one not stupid enough to make that claim.....yet.

We will give him a little more time though.

 

[Underseer]

While U.S. citizens could once claim to be part of the 9% of people in the world governed by a “full democracy,” they are now part of the near 45% who live in a “flawed democracy.”

http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/us-democracy-downgrade/

Are you just saying that because we have a treasonous corrupt president who defends literal Nazis, or are you saying that because around a third of the nation supports him anyway and would vote for him again (or someone else just like him) given the chance?

 

[steve_bank]

No no a thousand times no!

We are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. The founders never wanted POTUS to be elected by popular vote. Trump is the reason why.

Franklin thought it would last 40 or 50 years before a despot would emerge.

The American experiment was the people in charge in a broad sense instead of a European style political aristocracy bred to govern. The Frenchman De Tocqueville in the 1800s commented it is not the best system, but it may be good enough. He added that the saving grace was that in the long run it corrected itself.

State governments work fairly well. Here in Washington referendums have been the bane of politicians.

Problems have become too complex for the Congress, that is obvious. The founders intended limited professional federal government.

I'd argue that today in some sense it is working better than ever, relatively. Political corruption goes back to the beginning. Lincoln's public persona was crafted just like today. His first election campaign played hardball and used dirty tricks at the convention.

What we are seeing in vivid detail in the media is what has been going on all along. There has never been a coherent USA. A recent book divides the country into 3 or 4 countries going back to the 19th century.

Look at a world map and superimpose the USA over Europe.

We expect too much from the federal govt.

What saves us right now is that the states are highly autononomous. The fed does little in day to day operation of the economy, by design the economy runs itself.

The question is if the extreme divisions will diminish. The long term threat is the development of factionalism that can not reach any kind of consensus. If it goes on too long and worsens the fed govt will fail. Our polarized media is complicit.

 

[lpetrich]

Well I, for one, didn't vote for the US to have this "democracy downgrade".

That is an *assessment*. dismal, I don't know what sort of job that you have, so I cannot go much further than that.

My main reaction to media, foreign or domestic, issuing a list or ranking designed to provoke magazine sales is the proactively not giving of a shit.

So they are guilty of practicing capitalism?

 

[dismal]

Well I, for one, didn't vote for the US to have this "democracy downgrade".

That is an *assessment*. dismal, I don't know what sort of job that you have, so I cannot go much further than that.

Huh? What does my job have to do with the Economist not running a democratic process? If I worked as a pipefitter their process was democratic, but if I worked as a school crossing guard it wasn't?

My main reaction to media, foreign or domestic, issuing a list or ranking designed to provoke magazine sales is the proactively not giving of a shit.

So they are guilty of practicing capitalism?

Did you think The Economist was a charity? In fact, it seems to be owned by the Rothschilds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist