Is Democracy Subverted If You Keep Voting For The Same Party/Politican Out of Habit?

[Exarch]

the whole idea of democracy is to effect political change via your votes-either via direct democracy or voting in someone to represent your views in office.

However, since human beings are creatures of habit, you tend to get incumbent senators who stay on for decades and decades because the electorate tends to be made up of ppl of habit (especially if they're old ppl), loyally voting in the same person every 4 years. i mean how do you explain a like joe liebermann? more on him, later.

Same goes with parties, the older ppl get the more they'll stick with one particular party out of loyalty, rather than a critical evaluation of their policies.

Isn't this a subversion of democracy? the whole idea of democracy is to vote in the person whom you, the voter, believes to be the most apt an able person for the job. Isn't that compromised when you just vote in the same guy out of habit, as opposed to evaluating their new policies and track record? essentially all you're left with is an entrenched plutarchy where power is concentrated amongst complacent politicians, confident in their voter bases, as opposed to the democracy you were promised back in grade school when you were taught about how a bill gets made.

what do you think?

[Jedi1]

I think the idea that democracy is merely voting ever 3 or 4 years is serious subversion of democracy. Effective and truly representative democracy requires that the people keep well informed and engage with their representatives to make sure they are being represented, not "the party". That is one of the core reasons of our present lack of effective government. Of course another problem is the institutionalized bribery that pays for the mess, how can we ever honestly expect to have a government which serves us, that we the people are master of, if we allow our politicians and parties to be bribed, regularly and repeatedly every single year. It is sheer insanity.

[General Brittanicus]

Isn't this a subversion of democracy? the whole idea of democracy is to vote in the person whom you, the voter, believes to be the most apt an able person for the job. Isn't that compromised when you just vote in the same guy out of habit, as opposed to evaluating their new policies and track record? essentially all you're left with is an entrenched plutarchy where power is concentrated amongst complacent politicians, confident in their voter bases, as opposed to the democracy you were promised back in grade school when you were taught about how a bill gets made.

I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK most people don't vote for who they think will most represent their interests. They just vote for who they think looks the nicest or just base their vote on what other people say - i.e people tell them the Tories are evil, so they dont bother looking at their policies or people tell them that Labour are extremely incompetent and always overspend and so they vote lib dem and then never look at a single lib dem policy. I imagine the two major parties could put whatever the hell they liked in their policies and as long as they had someone who looked good on camera they'd still be able to win an election due to the idiocy of the vast majority of people in this country. And of course there are seats that are so safe in parts of the country that the candidate for the party that always wins could murder someone and probably still get elected. Universal Suffrage Democracy is useless, but so long as everybody sees it as the pinnacle of human civilisation nobody will take steps to try and improve it or alternatively come up with a better system, so it doesn't really matter if democracy is "subverted" or "undermined" and i dont really see that it can be subverted if the system currently used is already completely broken in the first place.

[Squiggle]

I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK most people don't vote for who they think will most represent their interests. They just vote for who they think looks the nicest or just base their vote on what other people say - i.e people tell them the Tories are evil, so they dont bother looking at their policies or people tell them that Labour are extremely incompetent and always overspend and so they vote lib dem and then never look at a single lib dem policy. I imagine the two major parties could put whatever the hell they liked in their policies and as long as they had someone who looked good on camera they'd still be able to win an election due to the idiocy of the vast majority of people in this country. And of course there are seats that are so safe in parts of the country that the candidate for the party that always wins could murder someone and probably still get elected. Universal Suffrage Democracy is useless, but so long as everybody sees it as the pinnacle of human civilisation nobody will take steps to try and improve it or alternatively come up with a better system, so it doesn't really matter if democracy is "subverted" or "undermined" and i dont really see that it can be subverted if the system currently used is already completely broken in the first place.

"The best arguement against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

Couldnt agree more. Frankly, we would all be far better off if we had age, wealth and property restrictions on voting. Hell, maybe a god damn political test every four years would suffice in keeping your right to suffrage. Either way, I hold in no regard the opinions of 90% of my countrymen, and without question their idiocy has hurt us all.

[Blaze86420]

"The best arguement against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

Couldnt agree more. Frankly, we would all be far better off if we had age, wealth and property restrictions on voting. Hell, maybe a god damn political test every four years would suffice in keeping your right to suffrage. Either way, I hold in no regard the opinions of 90% of my countrymen, and without question their idiocy has hurt us all.

Jesus, thank God people with your opinion are a tiny minority in this country.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Jesus, thank God people with your opinion are a tiny minority in this country.

Usually, it's thanks to democracy that such opinions exist. ''Haters gonna hate'' and all that stuff.

[Jedi1]

I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK most people don't vote for who they think will most represent their interests. They just vote for who they think looks the nicest or just base their vote on what other people say - i.e people tell them the Tories are evil, so they dont bother looking at their policies or people tell them that Labour are extremely incompetent and always overspend and so they vote lib dem and then never look at a single lib dem policy. I imagine the two major parties could put whatever the hell they liked in their policies and as long as they had someone who looked good on camera they'd still be able to win an election due to the idiocy of the vast majority of people in this country. And of course there are seats that are so safe in parts of the country that the candidate for the party that always wins could murder someone and probably still get elected. Universal Suffrage Democracy is useless, but so long as everybody sees it as the pinnacle of human civilisation nobody will take steps to try and improve it or alternatively come up with a better system, so it doesn't really matter if democracy is "subverted" or "undermined" and i dont really see that it can be subverted if the system currently used is already completely broken in the first place.

"The best arguement against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

Couldnt agree more. Frankly, we would all be far better off if we had age, wealth and property restrictions on voting. Hell, maybe a god damn political test every four years would suffice in keeping your right to suffrage. Either way, I hold in no regard the opinions of 90% of my countrymen, and without question their idiocy has hurt us all.

So you would have us hand the democratic control over to the landowning elite? Property requirements? Political test, who decides what qualifies as an informed person? Some bloody unelected bureaucrat? The bribed political parties? Whats to stop it becoming a tool to perpetuate the current state of affairs be excluding those who don't believe in the two/three party system? What of the people who consider your political views to be idiocy, should you be excluded if they are in the majority among the "landowners"?

The solution is informed and actively involved people. We don't have any ware near a significant amount as it is, hell I don't consider most people on this board to be very well informed but I don't have a right to declare myself superior and exclude them from decision-making.

The worst thing people can do is don't vote.

I disagree Matthias, the worst thing I think you can do is to vote when you know that all the candidates are a bunch of lying, bought off former lobbyists and part politicians who will jump at the crack of the party whip. The absolute worst thing is to keep putting these people in power. It is much better to not vote at all than to vote for someone you know will not represent you or your country men but instead the interests of those who paid for his election campaign. Otherwise you are party responsible for their actions, as you have empowered them.

[Squiggle]

So you would have us hand the democratic control over to the landowning elite? Property requirements? Political test, who decides what qualifies as an informed person? Some bloody unelected bureaucrat? The bribed political parties? Whats to stop it becoming a tool to perpetuate the current state of affairs be excluding those who don't believe in the two/three party system? What of the people who consider your political views to be idiocy, should you be excluded if they are in the majority among the "landowners"?

I was spitballing with the political test, I wasnt serious. But yes, I'd be fully comfortable in restricting franchisement to the upper class/upper middle class. Thats the only body of the population you can expect to be adequately informed on a large basis, as they're the only body of the population who's genuinely invested in society.

The solution is informed and actively involved people.

That solution can only be met when franchisement is restricted.

[bushbush]

That solution can only be met when franchisement is restricted.

the problem with limited disfranchisement is that the administration will lack legitimacy among the population that couldn't vote. That's a very dangerous path to go down too. Very dangerous. The argument that "only the rich control politics" or "only the whites control politics" are powerful enough to cause a stir today with universal suffrage. If people don't feel that the regime represents their interest, they will eventually disobey, subvert and rebel.

A bad government voted by the people is still better than a good government voted by a few people but hated by the rest.

[Astaroth]

A bad government voted by the people is still better than a good government voted by a few people but hated by the rest.

So true. "You must spread some reputation ..." etc.

Anyway, I think democracy in the modern sense really isn't that much about the people being in charge or anything like that. Democracy mainly has the advantage that it allows for some participation and, most importantly, prevents worse systems from appearing. The system of checks and balances prevents one person or group of people from grabbing power permanently; the Constitution prevents major restrictions of freedom; and the politicians' desire to be reelected and the media's careful watch makes them at least try to do a few good things for the country.

So in the end, democracy is a good system because it allows society to work decently, prevents dictatorships and the likes and gives people the feeling that they can change something (--> social stability).

The Government is run on money, and it aint the poors money. They are invested emotionally/pragmatically in the well running of the society, but not whatsoever into the specifics of the Government. LOL. So naive.

So now you are proposing a vote for rich people only? Are you ing kidding me? What is this, 19th century Prussia?

Whatever happened to "We the people"? You are proposing for it to be changed to "We the rich people"

[Jedi1]

I was spitballing with the political test, I wasnt serious. But yes, I'd be fully comfortable in restricting franchisement to the upper class/upper middle class. Thats the only body of the population you can expect to be adequately informed on a large basis, as they're the only body of the population who's genuinely invested in society.
That solution can only be met when franchisement is restricted.

So just because you don't own a nice house and make six figures your not "invested" in society? I'm sorry but I find this to be an entirely ludicrous idea. The poor are invested too, the poor are just as invested and just as if not more important to keeping society functioning than the middle and upper class. It would not be difficult at all for the poor to be informed on politics if schools taught people about it properly and more importantly if we had honest and reliable media.

[Squiggle]

So just because you don't own a nice house and make six figures your not "invested" in society? I'm sorry but I find this to be an entirely ludicrous idea. The poor are invested too, the poor are just as invested and just as if not more important to keeping society functioning than the middle and upper class.

The Government is run on money, and it aint the poors money. They are invested emotionally/pragmatically in the well running of the society, but not whatsoever into the specifics of the Government.

It would not be difficult at all for the poor to be informed on politics if schools taught people about it properly and more importantly if we had honest and reliable media.

LOL. So naive.

[Dr. Croccer]

I was spitballing with the political test, I wasnt serious. But yes, I'd be fully comfortable in restricting franchisement to the upper class/upper middle class. Thats the only body of the population you can expect to be adequately informed on a large basis, as they're the only body of the population who's genuinely invested in society.

I think the notion that ''having a lot of money = intelligence and competence'' has become quite dubious over the last 200 years.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I think the notion that ''having a lot of money = intelligence and competence'' has become quite dubious over the last 200 years.

Not only competence and intelligence can't be correlated to Social Strata but the principle of legitimacy stating that ''governments are supposed to having the interests of the whole in mind'' is absolutely defeated if only a certain group of social classes get to decide for the rest, and the Law supports it.

On a modern society, where information and knowledge are as distributed and conflicting as they get, legally restringing voting rights to those who can attest earning a paycheck that surpasses A or B amount would pretty much generate an all out Class War... Cartist style. And Class Wars aren't nice, specially due to the fact that they tend to lead to Authoritarian responses.

[xcorps]

I was spitballing with the political test, I wasnt serious. But yes, I'd be fully comfortable in restricting franchisement to the upper class/upper middle class. Thats the only body of the population you can expect to be adequately informed on a large basis, as they're the only body of the population who's genuinely invested in society.
That solution can only be met when franchisement is restricted.

Wouldn't we better off just eliminating voting and any pretense of democracy? Establish a ruling class that the mouthbreathers don't get to talk to or interact with at all.

Meritocracy =/= democracy.

[Matthias]

I disagree Matthias, the worst thing I think you can do is to vote when you know that all the candidates are a bunch of lying, bought off former lobbyists and part politicians who will jump at the crack of the party whip. The absolute worst thing is to keep putting these people in power. It is much better to not vote at all than to vote for someone you know will not represent you or your country men but instead the interests of those who paid for his election campaign. Otherwise you are party responsible for their actions, as you have empowered them.

Trying to get your logic here. So if you don't vote, what happens? Oh yeah, the same parties get into power. You can even write in a vote. Or better yet, if you aren't in the US, vote for some other party. At least vote for the party that you think is best. To say "they're all the same" is just an excuse and lazy. But I get the cynicism and apathy angle is popular.

As for the rest, I gotta say that TWC seems to have a lot of privileged people who are authoritarian types, at least compared to most message boards. It's interesting.

The solution to the problems of democracy seem to be to destroy democracy and hope for the best with some sort of oligarchy or authoritarian regime. Well, good luck maintaining legitimacy and stability in this day and age. Many of you seem to be promoting China's current system, whether you realize it or not. I guess if you get it, you won't be posting here anymore, since, well, you'll be blocked.

[Treize]

I don't believe it is a good thing for the democratic process.

I remember a couple of years ago in my last year at school when the economy teacher asked everyone for what party they would vote. I was shocked by, mainly girls, who wanted to vote for a party only because their parents did the same thing. That's retarded. If I had to do that I would have to vote for Mr. Peroxide.

[Zultra]

Another symptom of democracy failing is a poor education system, if it's poor and the people leave the schools thick as a plank then don't be surprised to have a sheep-like mentality in the voting habits of the masses.

[Dr. Croccer]

The very notion of political parties is a subversion of democracy.

[Prosaic Visitant]

The very notion of political parties is a subversion of democracy.

Interesting case; how so?

I think the idea that democracy is merely voting ever 3 or 4 years is serious subversion of democracy. Effective and truly representative democracy requires that the people keep well informed and engage with their representatives to make sure they are being represented, not "the party". That is one of the core reasons of our present lack of effective government. Of course another problem is the institutionalized bribery that pays for the mess, how can we ever honestly expect to have a government which serves us, that we the people are master of, if we allow our politicians and parties to be bribed, regularly and repeatedly every single year. It is sheer insanity.

^^