Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow the Tea Party Will Die
By Noah Feldman Oct 17, 2013 1:58 PM GMT-0400
All together now: We like democracy because ... why? The pathologies of the U.S. version are so obvious in the aftermath of the latest averted crisis that we need to ask ourselves whether its worth it -- and why electoral democracy hasnt self-destructed before. Should Tunisians or Egyptians opt for the Chinese model, where rational autocrats may restrict rights, but no one threatens to blow up world markets in the name of an 18th-century tax protest?
There is an answer: Democracy is self-correcting, at least where it works. The key to the process is a version of supply and demand. When a politician acts in a way that doesnt serve the voters interests or desires, demand for that persons services should decline. Another candidate who fills the demand will get elected.
Some democratic systems do this at the level of the individual candidate, some at the level of the party. In a winner-take-all district-based system as in the U.S. Congress, the market is structured to drive elected officials toward the median voters in their districts, and a two-party system usually emerges. In a proportional-representation parliamentary system, the market allows for multiple niches of interest-based parties, which then form coalitions that satisfy their voters policy preferences.
So why isnt the U.S. system working as it usually does to produce moderate elected officials? As recently as the 1990s, critics of two-party democracy charged that its virtue was actually a flaw: that the Democrats and Republicans were so similar as to be indistinguishable on core economic issues. The U.S., they charged, had no meaningful liberal (or conservative) option to satisfy the preferences of voters who wanted radical change.
full article
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-17/how-the-tea-party-will-die.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1058 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the Tea Party Will Die (Original Post)
DonViejo
Oct 2013
OP
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1. The case against democracy, laid out by a chinese communist:
I once spoke to a chinese guy, a devout communist but otherwise totally normal guy. He told me, the secret rationale against democracy in China is that the politicians fear those of their citizens who are too poorly informed and not enough educated to make the right decisions for national politics. Giving those low-information voters (my term, not his) too much political power would threaten the well-being of the PRC.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)2. China may not have 18th century ignorant tax protests....
but they do have 19th century enviromental and labor standards, and no ability of popular concensus to fix it.
Our democracy isn't perfect, but it does eventually get things right after a messy process.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)3. The Chinese guy had a point. I agree. nt