Why democracy is failing America

[tzor]

Teddy split the vote on purpose. See, Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, but his hand picked successor turned out not to be. So when Teddy's successor ran again Woodrow Wilson (Progressive) Teddy made sure the vote was split, because even if Teddy's own 'party' lost, Teddy still won the cause (Progressivism)

Bully!

But I don't think it was that easy. I think Teddy really wanted to win. One can speculate on what might have happened had he not been sidelined from the campaign because he was shot. I don't think he particularly liked Wilson and he strongly advocated against Wilson's military policies at the start of WWI. He didn't much like his relative Franklin either. So it's just just a case of "letting the progressive win." When he lost, his flavor of progressive died with him. Another reason why he lost was that, in effect, the South won (he failed to win any Southern state). This resulted in a President that promoted segregation and actually had a showing of "Birth of a Nation" in the White House.

[Metsfanmax]

I never said that big government causes empowered citizens. I just asked whether or not it's possible to have both at the same time. Other countries manage it. Why not the US? What's different?

We don't have nearly the same level of cultural homogeneity that Switzerland and the Nordic countries have.

[Phatscotty]

Because, the government did not create the new industry. did not create the jobs, did not innovate a new product, it did not earn or create that power, that power was taken by the government. What I am saying is why should the power be handed over to anyone at all? Why does the power have to 'end up in someones hands'? Why must the power be transferred to an entity that has no idea what it took to create the power or how to maintain it?

Well that's not vague at all. What power are you talking about? Your problem is with the government regulating industry?

Anyway, I thought your complaint was that power becomes 'for sale' once it is in the hands of the government. Now you're talking about the government stealing power from those who truly deserve it. Which do you want to talk about?

We are way off topic, so I'm backing up. btw, it's almost EVERYONE'S complaint that money and corruption is ruining Democracy in America. But back to the point, here is a little inside baseball on the kind of power and corruption I/WE are talking about.

One focus of the investigation is on allegations by federally indicted businessman Jeremy Johnson, who says he was asked by Mr. Swallow and other intermediaries to route hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and consulting payments to an associate of Mr. Reid and other companies in hopes that the senator would intervene on two matters.
The first was a dispute that Mr. Johnson was having with the Federal Trade Commission, which led to a fraud lawsuit against him.
Mr. Johnson says he was instructed by intermediaries to write a $200,000 check to one company and a $50,000 check to a personal friend of Mr. Reid in return for getting the senator to intervene with the FTC, an intervention that did not happen.
The second accusation involves the timing of Mr. Reid’s changing his opposition to legislation allowing Internet poker. Mr. Reid’s aides contend his change of heart was consistent with a broader shift underway in his state — and of the leading industry group, the American Gaming Association.
Mr. Johnson says Mr. Reid announced his new position in 2010 at a fundraiser with online gambling executives in a Las Vegas.
In a recorded conversation published last year by a Utah newspaper, Mr. Johnson is heard telling Mr. Swallow about the Las Vegas event.

[mrswdk]

How would to figure you could have both at the same time. Do you have some thoughts to offer?

OTHER COUNTRIES MANAGE IT. You are writing off the idea immediately as if it is impossible, in which case the answer you arrive at is always going to be 'tiny government'.

How do you figure most of my country is voting to stick with the established system?

Because most people in the country are not voting for the Tea Party or BBS. If enough people were voting for 'tiny/no government' representatives then tiny/no government is what you would have.

[mrswdk]

I never said that big government causes empowered citizens. I just asked whether or not it's possible to have both at the same time. Other countries manage it. Why not the US? What's different?

We don't have nearly the same level of cultural homogeneity that Switzerland and the Nordic countries have.

Roughly 28% of the population of Switzerland is foreign and the country has three official languages. Minority religion is also more prevalent in Switzerland than in the USA (although admittedly we're only talking about a couple of percentage points).

[mrswdk]

Mr. Johnson says he was instructed by intermediaries to write a $200,000 check to one company and a $50,000 check to a personal friend of Mr. Reid in return for getting the senator to intervene with the FTC, an intervention that did not happen

So a businessman got taken for a ride by a friend of a politician? Where is the corruption here?

[Phatscotty]

Teddy split the vote on purpose. See, Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, but his hand picked successor turned out not to be. So when Teddy's successor ran again Woodrow Wilson (Progressive) Teddy made sure the vote was split, because even if Teddy's own 'party' lost, Teddy still won the cause (Progressivism)

Bully!

But I don't think it was that easy. I think Teddy really wanted to win. One can speculate on what might have happened had he not been sidelined from the campaign because he was shot. I don't think he particularly liked Wilson and he strongly advocated against Wilson's military policies at the start of WWI. He didn't much like his relative Franklin either. So it's just just a case of "letting the progressive win." When he lost, his flavor of progressive died with him. Another reason why he lost was that, in effect, the South won (he failed to win any Southern state). This resulted in a President that promoted segregation and actually had a showing of "Birth of a Nation" in the White House.

I'm gonna recheck a couple of books I read about 15 years ago. But both Teddy and Wilson were big government progressives, hope we can agree on that, as well as Taft was Teddy's hand picked successor, and Teddy was pissed Taft wasn't doing what Teddy wanted him to do, which is to say Taft was actually rolling back some of the big government policies. We on the same page so far? So Teddy got pissed and his ego kicked in, to the point he believed Wilson (Democrat) could protect Roosevelt's legacy more than Taft which was from TEddy's own party. IMO Teddy wanted to stop Taft more than he wanted to win an unprecedented 3rd term.

We'll revisit this in the future. Of course it's a theory and nobody can know for sure, but don't discount the Federal Reserve planning aspect either. The Aldrich bill was signed by Teddy in 1907...yup, that Aldrich.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what's the difference between bribing a private company's HR officer to employee you instead of a more suitable candidate, and bribing a public official to award a tender to your company in place of a slightly more suitable one?

Surely, there's more to these two exchanges than bribes, right?

Even if the democracy is not corrupt, there's still differences between the two.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think PSs argument (and for once I don't entirely disagree with him) is that government interference creates power over situations where without government none would exist, rather than the power being in private hands

Well then you need to look at each individual example (e.g. sale of firearms) and consider the pros and cons for society of regulation versus deregulation.

That's a great idea, but it fails in implementation. Governments don't maximize benefits and minimize costs.

I would also argue that the issue is not the power that comes with regulation per se, but the way in which that power is used. Proper checks and balances would be just as viable a way of fighting corruption as throwing out official power altogether would be.

This another another great idea, but it's unattainable. Sure, we can get various degrees of it, but money will still flow (legally and 'illegally') to those who have the power to restrict competition.

[mrswdk]

Governments don't maximize benefits and minimize costs

They enjoy extremely high customer loyalty, which gives them less incentive to improve efficiency. If a political party consistently runs up debts and wastes money, then stop voting for them. The leverage is there, but people just don't use it.

I would also argue that the issue is not the power that comes with regulation per se, but the way in which that power is used. Proper checks and balances would be just as viable a way of fighting corruption as throwing out official power altogether would be.

This is another another great idea, but it's unattainable. Sure, we can get various degrees of it, but money will still flow (legally and 'illegally') to those who have the power to restrict competition.

Just because politicians are exploiting loopholes doesn't mean the whole system needs to be scrapped. If enough people actually care then they can campaign and pressure their legislators. If their legislators don't get anything done about it, remove the legislators and find new ones who will. That's the good thing about living in a democracy - no one is forcing you to live with corrupt and shitty leaders.

[Phatscotty]

How would to figure you could have both at the same time. Do you have some thoughts to offer?

OTHER COUNTRIES MANAGE IT. You are writing off the idea immediately as if it is impossible, in which case the answer you arrive at is always going to be 'tiny government'.

If other country's do it, then why are you asking me if it's possible??? You brought it up, I just asked you to spit out what you are trying to get at. We want smaller government. Tiny government is what you come up with when you take everything to extremes like you do. I don't usually argue with foreigners about my own country, especially those who do not listen to a word that is said.


Another major reason Democracy is failing in America: America'a social contract, Too much red tape, too much PC, too much taxation, too many new regulations, too many redistributionary programs that are meant more to keep people elected than they are to actually help people. All symptoms of a government gone wild.

[mrswdk]

Alright, dude. You have discovered the Answer. Go forth and spread the word.

[BigBallinStalin]

Governments don't maximize benefits and minimize costs

They enjoy extremely high customer loyalty, which gives them less incentive to improve efficiency. If a political party consistently runs up debts and wastes money, then stop voting for them. The leverage is there, but people just don't use it.

Voters aren't far-sighted because they're not incentivized to be. Politics involves the transfer of income across current groups and of income from future generations to present. So, the voters actually 'benefit' from deficit spending. That's the incentive. It's geared to increase benefits for select groups while dispersing the costs on everyone else of today and of the future.

As for consumer loyalty, it's pretty low considering participation rates: roughly 50%-60% for presidential elections, about 30% for State elections, and even less for municipal. So, another aspect of the problem is that voters as a whole don't matter as much as you think. Much of actual government is sustained through rent-seeking from select businesses, bureaucracies, and interest groups (of varying pressure).

To further separate the market from government, government is politically a duopoly and bureaucratically a monopoly. Nothing like this exists in markets--except in very few fringe cases (e.g. De Beers diamond industry). If you can build a better mousetrap, consumer demand will support it. If you can charter a free city (e.g. setup your own government), consumer demand won't be allowed to support it; the government will simply use force or impose obstacles through law to prevent this. But can't mousetrap providers do the same? Only through government, which highlights PS' concern about the growing power of the state.

I would also argue that the issue is not the power that comes with regulation per se, but the way in which that power is used. Proper checks and balances would be just as viable a way of fighting corruption as throwing out official power altogether would be.

This is another another great idea, but it's unattainable. Sure, we can get various degrees of it, but money will still flow (legally and 'illegally') to those who have the power to restrict competition.

Just because politicians are exploiting loopholes doesn't mean the whole system needs to be scrapped. If enough people actually care then they can campaign and pressure their legislators. If their legislators don't get anything done about it, remove the legislators and find new ones who will. That's the good thing about living in a democracy - no one is forcing you to live with corrupt and shitty leaders.

It just doesn't work that way. Consider the low participation rates and other sources of influence beyond the large majority of potential voters. There are no market prices when it comes to government. You can't simply stop buying the good if you don't like it because you'll be forced to continue buying it. Prices tell providers the cost of goods, where goods of certain quantities are in highest demand, and so on. None of this information is easily communicated through intermittent elections, and much information is transferred through other routes--that of corruption (rent-seeking), which obviates the necessity of the consent of the government (primarily through majority voting). So, voting hardly changes the outcomes when the process of crony capitalism persists. Greater centralization complements the cronyism.

[mrswdk]

Voters aren't far-sighted because they're not incentivized to be. Politics involves the transfer of income across current groups and of income from future generations to present. So, the voters actually 'benefit' from deficit spending. That's the incentive. It's geared to increase benefits for select groups while dispersing the costs on everyone else of today and of the future.

Then your problem is with democracy in general, not the way democracy is implemented. Unless you could incentivize far-sightedness when voting. But how would you do that?

Or if you want to circumvent government altogether, how would long-sightedness be incentivized by increasing the role of private markets? It's well documented that human behavior has a natural bias to short-termism.

As for consumer loyalty, it's pretty low considering participation rates: roughly 50%-60% for presidential elections, about 30% for State elections, and even less for municipal. So, another aspect of the problem is that voters as a whole don't matter as much as you think.

If those 40-50% of people who don't bother voting at presidential elections actually came out to vote then, assuming they are unhappy with the status quo, they could award 40-50% of the vote to an alternative option. So why don't people vote? Do they just not care enough about changing things for it to even be worth a short walk to their polling station once every four years?

Consider the low participation rates and other sources of influence beyond the large majority of potential voters

Corporations (or whoever) can only influence a politician that has been elected by the majority of the population. If people don't re-elect shitty politicians then shitty politicians cannot remain on the payroll of shitty corporations.

Plus, low participation rates suggest that no one cares that much. In the Middle East, people got pissed enough about their shitty governments that they violently overthrew them. Likewise Ukraine. Americans aren't even pissed enough to cast a vote. Maybe people are relatively content with their system and democracy is working just fine.

[tzor]

We are way off topic, so I'm backing up. btw, it's almost EVERYONE'S complaint that money and corruption is ruining Democracy in America. But back to the point, here is a little inside baseball on the kind of power and corruption I/WE are talking about.

But is it seriously ruining it or just one of many factors that work together to make it work.

Consider the recent election of Jolly and Sink.

The RNCC has one and only one priority; to raise a vast army of Boehner-bots.
And Jolly wasn't taking a blood oath to support the speaker at all costs.
So they tried to find someone to run against him, not once but twice.
They stood back and hoped a bloody primary would defeat him.
They complained and they harped and at the last week they even tried to sabotage the campaign by leaking stuff to Politico.
Sink significantly outspent Jolly.
Sink pulled in all the political celebrities she could.
And yet, Jolly Good, Jolly Won!

So let's look to my home town, the congressional US1 district, currently under control by Tim Bishiop (D)
George Demos, two time flop going for the failure hat trick marries into big Democrat Supporting Money.
His wife loans him $2M which he uses to send non stop commercials through Fox News.
His commercials repeat a lie that somehow a state senator voted to approve Federal Money allocated by the Governor's Executive Order.
He is currently using "paid" workers to collect petitions.
If Demos wins over Zeldin in the primary, your assertion that money ruins democracy is valid.
But if Zeldin wins over Demos, then there is still hope.

[oVo]

Democracy in the United States isn't working "just fine" but it is getting by and there are a number of reasons that less than half of the eligible voters actually exercise that right. Citizens are okay with the government as is, knowing it isn't anywhere near perfect, but accepting it. Many people doubt they have any power to change it and politicians say and do anything to climb on the gravy train.

Most voters are totally uninformed with the facts/truth about the candidates when they go to the polls. They will be aware of specific issues on the ballots and of their candidate of choice, only to discover other issues and people on the ballots they've never considered at all.

The size of government & regulation is self inflicted and grows with the need. Pollution, quality control/health issues, community resources and civil rights all require oversight that only government can provide. Unscrupulous industry, people and corporations driven by profits make it a necessary evil.

[mrswdk]

If Demos wins over Zeldin in the primary, your assertion that money ruins democracy is valid.
But if Zeldin wins over Demos, then there is still hope.

The Freakonomics guys made a pretty convincing case for money being something that gravitates towards a likely election winner, not the thing that causes their victory. I wouldn't worry too much about the impact of campaign financing on democracy.

[Metsfanmax]

If Demos wins over Zeldin in the primary, your assertion that money ruins democracy is valid.
But if Zeldin wins over Demos, then there is still hope.

The Freakonomics guys made a pretty convincing case for money being something that gravitates towards a likely election winner, not the thing that causes their victory. I wouldn't worry too much about the impact of campaign financing on democracy.

They were answering a very narrow question -- in these races, is the amount of money the two candidates raise a causal factor in whether they win? They weren't addressing the larger question of the effect of campaign financing on democracy. For example, that doesn't really touch on the issue of candidates not being able to get prominence because they're not endorsed by one of the major parties, and don't have the initial financing to get noticed in this way.

[mrswdk]

Various politicians and their parties have become prominent across Europe without being endorsed by the main pairing of established parties in their respective countries. Beppo Grille, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders and the la Penne family spring to mind. If someone has the right message then they don't need that much money to take on the established parties.

[tzor]

The trick is to get your message out. That requires effort and work. A real "grass roots" operation can supply you with a lot of effort and work. Unfortunately, money can also buy you a lot of effort and work; thus money has an important factor. In addition, it is an unfortunate fact that most politics is an illusion. The truth does not always win out over the lie; in fact it rarely does. If the people do their own due diligence, the nation prospers; if not the nation falls to the lying despot. That is the sad fact of humanity.

[Metsfanmax]

If the people do their own due diligence, the nation prospers; if not the nation falls to the lying despot. That is the sad fact of humanity.

Why is that a sad fact? That's exactly how it should be.

[BigBallinStalin]

Voters aren't far-sighted because they're not incentivized to be. Politics involves the transfer of income across current groups and of income from future generations to present. So, the voters actually 'benefit' from deficit spending. That's the incentive. It's geared to increase benefits for select groups while dispersing the costs on everyone else of today and of the future.

Then your problem is with democracy in general, not the way democracy is implemented. Unless you could incentivize far-sightedness when voting. But how would you do that?

Or if you want to circumvent government altogether, how would long-sightedness be incentivized by increasing the role of private markets? It's well documented that human behavior has a natural bias to short-termism.

Private property rights yield future streams of income into its present discount value to the owners (i.e. you get stuff from what you own, and its future wealth is in present dollars). With the political process, this is lacking since 'everyone' 'owns' the government's property (but not really).

As for consumer loyalty, it's pretty low considering participation rates: roughly 50%-60% for presidential elections, about 30% for State elections, and even less for municipal. So, another aspect of the problem is that voters as a whole don't matter as much as you think.

If those 40-50% of people who don't bother voting at presidential elections actually came out to vote then, assuming they are unhappy with the status quo, they could award 40-50% of the vote to an alternative option. So why don't people vote? Do they just not care enough about changing things for it to even be worth a short walk to their polling station once every four years?

The general story is that people who don't vote are acting very rational--in that, the chances of one's vote swaying the presidential election is about 1/20 million, yet the chance of being killed in a car accident while en route to the voting booth is much higher. It makes more sense to stay home. There's other theories--e.g. voting is just an expressing of preferences for political slogans (i.e. it's cheerleading), and most people aren't cheerleaders most of the time.

Consider the low participation rates and other sources of influence beyond the large majority of potential voters

Corporations (or whoever) can only influence a politician that has been elected by the majority of the population. If people don't re-elect shitty politicians then shitty politicians cannot remain on the payroll of shitty corporations.

Plus, low participation rates suggest that no one cares that much. In the Middle East, people got pissed enough about their shitty governments that they violently overthrew them. Likewise Ukraine. Americans aren't even pissed enough to cast a vote. Maybe people are relatively content with their system and democracy is working just fine.

Well, each politician is not voted by a majority of the registered voters. The president gets the highest percent (about 30%), while state reps get about 15% on average, and municipals being the lowest.

It may sound simple that people shouldn't vote in shitty politicians, but what are shitty politicians? In my view, nearly all of them. In the voting public's view, none of them. So, who knows better and why? I spent about 4 years studying politics and economics, while most of them haven't, so... should I expect people to spend just as much time studying to become more informed? Seems like they're rationally irrational (see Bryan Caplan).

So, we probably can't get good politicians. Also, the voting public isn't that stupid. Those who join special interest groups receive rents from voting for certain politicians and for the activities of their lobbyists. The lesser organized voters still get some government goodies from their favored politician if he wins. So, even if the politician is 'shitty', he still transfers wealth from others to his constituents.

On the contrary, the whole political system is full of perverse incentives and deficient outcomes. It just works better than most other democracies because our markets are allowed to do much more heavier lifting.

[BigBallinStalin]

The size of government & regulation is self inflicted and grows with the need. Pollution, quality control/health issues, community resources and civil rights all require oversight that only government can provide. Unscrupulous industry, people and corporations driven by profits make it a necessary evil.

How is regulation intertwined with corporations?

RE: underlined, which 'need'? Because the growth of government isn't explained by per-capital population growth.

[mrswdk]

Or if you want to circumvent government altogether, how would long-sightedness be incentivized by increasing the role of private markets? It's well documented that human behavior has a natural bias to short-termism.

Private property rights yield future streams of income into its present discount value to the owners (i.e. you get stuff from what you own, and its future wealth is in present dollars). With the political process, this is lacking since 'everyone' 'owns' the government's property (but not really).

Easy, cowboy, you've lost me. What are you talking about, and how does it relate to my previous question?

As for consumer loyalty, it's pretty low considering participation rates: roughly 50%-60% for presidential elections, about 30% for State elections, and even less for municipal. So, another aspect of the problem is that voters as a whole don't matter as much as you think.

If those 40-50% of people who don't bother voting at presidential elections actually came out to vote then, assuming they are unhappy with the status quo, they could award 40-50% of the vote to an alternative option. So why don't people vote? Do they just not care enough about changing things for it to even be worth a short walk to their polling station once every four years?

The general story is that people who don't vote are acting very rational--in that, the chances of one's vote swaying the presidential election is about 1/20 million, yet the chance of being killed in a car accident while en route to the voting booth is much higher. It makes more sense to stay home.

If those 40-50% who stay at home actually went out and voted then it would be much easier to see what people actually want and then actualize those desires. If they all went and voted for the Democrats or Republicans then we would see that most people in the US want their current leaders. If they went and spoiled their ballots then we could see that 40-50% of the country is fed up with their choice of leaders and that there is a sizeable market for an alternative (and for the incumbents to make more of a serious effort to clean up their act). However, those 40-50% choose instead to sit at home and do nothing, which is why nothing is going to change any time soon.

There's other theories--e.g. voting is just an expressing of preferences for political slogans (i.e. it's cheerleading), and most people aren't cheerleaders most of the time.

You're assuming that people decide who to vote for based entirely or mostly on political slogans, which sounds like a pretty broad and sweeping assumption. Do you vote?

Consider the low participation rates and other sources of influence beyond the large majority of potential voters

Corporations (or whoever) can only influence a politician that has been elected by the majority of the population. If people don't re-elect shitty politicians then shitty politicians cannot remain on the payroll of shitty corporations.

Well, each politician is not voted by a majority of the registered voters. The president gets the highest percent (about 30%), while state reps get about 15% on average, and municipals being the lowest.

If no one is going to bother to vote then they can't expect to get anything from their government. Like I said, if people actually care then the least they can do is make their voice heard once every four years. As it is, a lot of people have seemingly chosen to disengage from the political process and instead just heckle from the sidelines.

It may sound simple that people shouldn't vote in shitty politicians, but what are shitty politicians? In my view, nearly all of them. In the voting public's view, none of them. So, who knows better and why? I spent about 4 years studying politics and economics, while most of them haven't, so... should I expect people to spend just as much time studying to become more informed? Seems like they're rationally irrational (see Bryan Caplan).

I imagine there are also plenty of people out there who consider themselves much better informed than you. What are you suggesting? Removing voting rights from some people? Replacing democracy with meritocracy?

That 'rational irrationality' is a valid theory (people's ideological beliefs do tend to correlate with their self-interest), but I don't see why it's a problem if people are using phony justifications for voting in their own self-interest. That means that all the 'hurr durr' is just masking a deeper pragmatism and in reality people are voting for their own practical interests, which is rather the point of the whole system.

If you don't agree that people should be doing that then the problem is not that democracy is being abused, but rather democracy itself.

[thegreekdog]

mrswdlkrmpsroc:

A couple of things as I skimmed through your posts:

(1) While it may not influence the eventual winner of an election as compared to his/her opponent, money does do two things that are problematic: (a) it restricts who can realistically run for office; and (b) it gives certain actors influence over politicians that other interested parties do not have. We've discussed (a) and (b) ad naseum around here and far be it from me to critique the Freakonomics guys (who are much smarter and more resourceful than I am). But the Freakonomics had a very specific conclusion that is being used by people (like you) to denigrate the position that money has an influence in politics (I just read Mets' post and it looks like he addressed it as well). The Freakonomics guys didn't conclude "money influences politics." The Freakonomics guys concluded that money doesn't win an election as between two candidates. Further, if we use the Freakonomics guys' conclusion that more money goes to the winner because he/she is going to win, doesn't that validate (b)? "Let's give our money to Winner, because she will make sure our cause gets to the top of the list."

(2) Politicians aren't exploiting loopholes. Politicians are exploiting the system they implemented. There is a significant difference, in my opinion.