Is democracy actually alive in the USA?

Michelle Doyle61 said:I have to say, I actually find it quite amusing when someone quotes fifty tiny little snippets and tries to address every single one individually. Honestly, though, nothing they said really resonates with me. It just seems completely unfeasible. I mean, running those kinds of procedures for every single question would be pure absurdity. Still, it’s a creative idea. Very well thought out. Personally, I’d suggest we hold a lottery every four years instead. We could just pick, say, 200 people at random to serve in Congress. You’d likely end up with every kind of person imaginable—a massive spectrum of education levels, perspectives, viewpoints, and expertise. That would be a truly representative sample of the American public. They’d spend those four years working solely for the good of the country. No salary, obviously; we’d just cover their housing and meals. Their real motivation would be either public praise or social disapproval. I suspect we might see something similar to this in the future.

James Lee77 said:The planning part isn't even the issue. It's something else entirely, which I didn't really catch until yesterday. 😳

Why isn't the procedure the problem? Basically, the whole idea is to scrap Congress and hand its power over to the entire political community. Right now, we have a system where a bill goes to Congress, there's public debate, amendments, and then a vote. The big shift here is that this would all happen online, so you wouldn't be limited to just a few hundred people. So, technically, it's actually doable. Every citizen would have their own "representative key," and electronic voting would involve everyone who passes an online test. This test would check if you have the basic knowledge and skills to help decide on a specific proposal—maybe something you could knock out in fifteen minutes or so.

But the real headache is how you stop people from faking it on that competency test if we're using the internet. I mean, someone lazy or just plain clueless might just sell their digital key to someone smarter for a few bucks. I guess that's where the whole concept starts getting way too complicated. 🤷
Quincey:

I’d suggest holding a lottery every four years. You just pick, I don't know, maybe 200 random people to head to D.C. That way, you'd probably end up with every kind of person imaginable. You'd get a huge mix of education levels, viewpoints, attitudes, expertise... basically a perfect representative sample of Americans. They’d spend those four years working solely for the good of the country. No salary, obviously—just food and housing covered. Their only motivation would be avoiding public backlash. I think something like that might actually happen in the future.

It's pretty interesting because back in Greece, democracy meant exactly that: picking leaders by lot. Based on the principle that "everyone is equal, so it doesn't matter who rules."
I personally think that's a pretty terrible way to run things.

Ashley Ramirez41 said:😕

Man, you are clearly taking the whole concept of government way too seriously. Using a lottery to pick officials is just common sense—
if the "person in charge" isn't actually important... you know, assuming everyone's basically autonomous anyway.

James Lee77 said:But let’s be real, nobody is actually 100% independent. It's kind of obvious how much we're all influenced by stuff. To pretend—on paper, at least—that people are autonomous when they aren't really (because they're basically being steered by things they don't even notice, like the news, old traditions, or just plain old biases and wishful thinking...) is just burying your head in the sand.

So, yeah, I'm totally with you that every adult citizen's vote should count the same. But the real kicker is: when is someone actually considered an adult?

Basically, I guess government is necessary for people who aren't self-governing yet—you know, the "kids" or the immature ones. But what happens when most people fall into that category?

Or, to put it another way: I agree, once people are truly grown up, they don't need any government at all. So, the less government there is, the better. But man, what if people never actually grow up?

James Lee77 said:But let’s be real, nobody is actually 100% independent. It's kind of obvious how much we're all influenced by stuff. To pretend—on paper, at least—that people are autonomous when they aren't really (because they're basically being steered by things they don't even notice, like the news, old traditions, or just plain old biases and wishful thinking...) is just burying your head in the sand.

So, yeah, I'm totally with you that every adult citizen's vote should count the same. But the real kicker is: when is someone actually considered an adult?

Basically, I guess government is necessary for people who aren't self-governing yet—you know, the "kids" or the immature ones. But what happens when most people fall into that category?

Or, to put it another way: I agree, once people are truly grown up, they don't need any government at all. So, the less government there is, the better. But man, what if people never actually grow up?

lonegardener said:I really dig the subtext in this paragraph. 😈

👍

Edward Flores4 said:I have to disagree here!

Look, a democratically elected government is made up of human beings, not gods. If people are inherently good, then nobody needs to rule them in the first place. But if they’re fundamentally flawed? Well, then any government chosen through democracy is going to be flawed too. It seems pretty clear to me that even on paper, democratic rule doesn't quite hold water.

Sure, we can use democracy to decide things like whether shops should stay open on Sundays or whether we should join NATO. But using democracy to elect a handful of semi-clueless, wildly ambitious careerists—people who will inevitably break every single campaign promise they made—only to have them ignore us entirely for the next four years? That doesn't sound particularly good to me, even in theory.

there simply isn't enough critical mass to sustain ideas of justice and democracy on a global scale.

I don't see it that way... there are plenty of critical thinkers out there, they just aren't interested in playing the political game. Most democratic governments use the media to sideline intellectuals—and if they do happen to ask an expert for their opinion, it's usually just for show, so they can claim they "consulted the experts" before doing exactly what they planned to do anyway.

Plus, there's this fundamental clash between actual ability and raw ambition. The most capable people generally have zero desire to sit at the same table as thugs like boss, Đapić, Rojs, or Čehok—those kinds of caricatures whose IQ you could probably calculate just by multiplying their shoe size by two.😁

frozenotter232 said:The term "rule by the people" implies a citizenry that is politically informed, rather than just an ethnic group. You could argue that direct democracy is a system where the rulers and the ruled are one and the same. Of course, that’s only actually doable in small communities. For almost every major nation out there, representative democracy is really the "second best" option we have to work with.

Some people argue this isn't just a "second best" option—they think it’s actually the superior way to go. If I recall correctly, John Stuart Mill advocated for representative government not just because of population size, but because he believed most people aren't equipped to govern; they're only capable of picking those who are. So, according to some, representative democracy might actually beat direct democracy because it carries that certain aristocratic, meritocratic edge.

I’ve combed through plenty of definitions of democracy, but one really sticks out to me: the idea that democracy isn't a one-size-fits-all model. In any given era, it presents a unique challenge tailored specifically to the people involved. Since the citizens are the ones pulling the strings and choosing their leaders, they also have to own the consequences. If you vote for a certain government by majority rule, you're stuck with the responsibility of living under the leadership you picked.

Interesting definition.

Even if we wanted to, could they actually answer whether democracy even exists in the US?
...
It’s not about whether a country is technically a democracy anymore. It doesn't matter if the system is built on the principle of free speech or popular vote. The real question is whether democratic values actually exist there—and if anyone is bothered to respect them—even when the formal structure says they should.

That’s right. In America, we have a representative democracy, but our political culture is still pretty shallow.

You could also look at it through this definition of a democratic community:

You can define democracy as a community built on one core principle: recognizing human dignity as the ultimate value. Its whole purpose is to guarantee every citizen the freedom to develop their own personality and take responsibility for their own lives. It’s about creating the social conditions that actually make that kind of autonomy possible.

You don't actually need democracy for this; you just need liberalism. Personal dignity and individual freedom can exist within an enlightened constitutional monarchy, too. Sure, the safeguards for those rights might be a bit shakier since you're largely relying on the temperament of the monarch, but it's doable. That said, you could argue that the "social conditions" required for these values are likely better secured when people get a say in their own political system. At the end of the day, it’s better for people to be citizens rather than just subjects.

Democracy only works if we all agree that we’re equals on some fundamental, moral level. That’s what eventually turns into political equality. Nobody has some natural or divine "right" to rule over anyone else. In this system, everyone is essentially a king. Sure, some people are smarter, more educated, braver, or more driven than others—but that doesn't mean they're born to rule. It's not like Plato's worldview, where he argued that people are fundamentally unequal from the start.

So how do you actually establish political authority within a community of equals? Democracy is basically the only way that works.

(Even an aristocratic setup has a democratic component: the aristocrats act as a club of equals who vote on political matters. It’s just that their definition of "equals"—or "the people"—conveniently excludes everyone from peasants and slaves to women.)

Bottom line: in any society where people are fundamentally equal, democracy is the only viable formula.

Is there any hope, then?

It's not impossible.

Edward Flores4 said:I think you might be taking things a bit too far there... personally, I feel like any vote from someone with an IQ over 120 should carry equal weight. Most political and economic issues aren't exactly rocket science or quantum physics... I really don't see how a person with an IQ of 140 holds a significant advantage over someone with an IQ of 120 in those arenas.

The real issue lies with people whose IQ is below 90—for them, almost everything besides tying their shoes is rocket science, and they make up a pretty large chunk of the general American population.

If we were being honest, ballots should be designed in a way that prevents illiterate or semi-literate individuals from filling them out correctly. When you look at it realistically, people who struggle with basic literacy are informationally disadvantaged; they simply don't have the foundation needed to make informed decisions. Just implementing a selection process based on literacy alone would be a massive leap forward.

We could take correctly filled ballots and sort them into three IQ categories: below 100 (below average), 100 to 120, and over 120. A vote from the below-average group would count as 1, the average group as 2, and the above-average group as 4. We should also track the results separately so we can see exactly which groups are represented by which outcomes.

Of course, voters who refuse to take the test would be removed from the voter rolls. This would likely cause a good number of the illiterate, uninterested, or intellectually underserved folks to opt out of testing entirely, effectively lightening the load on the election by removing their own handicap.

This would fundamentally change how pre-election campaigns work. It’s very possible that voters who are easily swayed by free sausages, cheap wine, Taylor Swift, or other campaign gimmicks wouldn't actually get a say—either because they won't show up for testing or because they can't manage to fill out the ballot properly. Most of those voices would end up stuck in that below-average category.

Political campaigns would turn into something resembling a "double-blind" study. Politicians wouldn't be able to afford to ignore relevant questions, marginalize experts, or try to buy off the masses with free food, patriotic rhetoric, roadside rallies, or concerts by pop stars.

I believe this would dramatically shift the landscape regardless of the actual voting outcome. A significant number of current politicians would suddenly realize that cheap handouts, backyard BBQs, and Taylor Swift aren't adequate tools for reaching the "average" or "above-average" demographics, and that they'd essentially be unable to play politics anymore.

In other words, changing the criteria itself would change the supply side of the equation. Very few candidates would dare to risk running a campaign targeting "below-average" voters if they knew they wouldn't gain anything—or would gain next to nothing—from the other categories.

So, IQ could be one component, but certainly not the only one. What else is there?
And should every single person have the same weight when voting on any given issue?

Given everything I just laid out, I’m honestly convinced that if we simply prioritized literacy and IQ- 140 during the selection process, we would see MASSIVE results almost immediately.

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, I'm not sure if they do.

though it feels like the sheer amount of paperwork involved in a setup like that would be an absolute nightmare...

But wouldn't it work? Think about it—testing happens during those gaps between elections (so, every four years, basically) and only applies to adults. In high school, you already take standardized tests like the SATs, which essentially cover the basics, so there'd be no need to re-test every single new generation from scratch.

It’s kind of wild when you think about it—to get a driver's license in the US, you have to pass a medical exam, show a decent IQ, nail a psych evaluation, complete driver's ed, and then pass both a written and practical exam before a board...
...yet when it comes to deciding the fate of our entire nation and its political direction, we don't even require people to be literate.🙄

If the bureaucracy and the whole procedure for getting behind the wheel works this smoothly... I just don't see why we couldn't implement a much simpler, yet infinitely more vital, process for casting a vote.🤷

It seems pretty obvious that we go to great lengths to keep idiots off the road, but we're perfectly fine letting them call the shots for the whole country!?