What's your alternative?

I'm serious.

(Mine is multi-member ranked voting (NOT IRV)).

Can’t get into details in a forum comment, but I’ll say that whatever we have in most of the Western world ain’t very democratic. It is a spectrum, that currently skews very hard towards plutarchy.

The positive thing about having a king is that there was only one head to cut when things got out of hand.

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44887634

I’m no monarchist, but it’s about time to have a serious discussion about political philosophy instead of hiding behind the “Western representative democracy is the best we can do” cliché.

	▲	nine_k 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> only one head to cut when things got out of hand. History has been showing time and again that it's an illusion. Bad governance structures and corruption get entrenched, and gladly plead allegiance to a new king.

▲

zahlman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Democracy" is the form of government; you are speaking of voting systems, which are an implementation detail, and not in the same natural category. "Alternatives to democracy" are things like despotism, monarchy, communism, fascism etc.

▲

nine_k 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Aristocratic republics have been doing quite well for some time: Florence, Venice, Genoa in the Mediterranean, much of the Hanseatic league and places like Novgorod, and later the Dutch Republic, in the north.

▲

Gud a day ago | parent [-]

well for whom?

	▲	uncircle 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Reading between the lines of your question, I'll pre-empt you: nowhere, not even in our so called democracies are the poor doing better than the rich and powerful.

▲

coryrc 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a spectrum. If we're being pedantic, the US is already not a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

▲

zahlman 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It has always been a constitutional republic by design; its status as a representative democracy is the result of a tradition of electoral college voters deciding to be "faithful" and listen to their constituents (overriding them is to my understanding a constitutional right).

▲

runarberg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don‘t think it is a spectrum either (if we are even more pedantic), or at least no a linear scale spectrum, but rather a system of government where democratic institutions ensure certain rights and privileges to common citizens and residents. So maybe a multidimensional spectrum where if you fail to meet a vaguely defined and constantly evolving threshold you are not a democracy.

The USA today will probably (and hopefully) not be considered a democracy by some future standard. Disqualifications may include:

* limited suffrage,

* limited or unequal access to health care and education for a significant portion of the population,

* convoluted voting system where certain demographics have little to no chance to pursue public office,

* large constituencies,

* non-state territories/districts with little to no representation at the national level,

* unincorporated populated areas, with little to no representation at the local level,

* a lack of clear separation of power between the different democratic institution,

* failure to enact popular policies,

* police violence,

* the death penalty,

* a large wealth gap,

* a lack of consumer protection,

* a lack of worker rights,

* failure to prosecute the rich and powerful for their crimes,

* a large nuclear armed military which constantly engages in imperialist actions,

* failure to respect the sovereignty of other states,

* etc.

I think describing this system as a Democratic Republic offers no insight into whether it is democratic or not (or how democratic it is on this spectrum). Republic just means that there is a president which holds some the executive power.

There is far more insight into calling the USA a capitalistic aristocracy, a two party state, a militaristic imperial superpower, a flawed, unequal, and underrepresented democracy, a police state, etc.

▲

zahlman 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> Disqualifications may include

I don't see why; many of those have nothing to do with what I would understand the concept of "democracy" to entail.

	▲	runarberg 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I am predicting (and hoping) that the concept of democracy will continue to shift towards ever greater inclusion and increased human rights as it has in the past two centuries, and a future vision of democracy would disqualify the current system as undemocratic for some of the points above. Just like how we don’t view pre-civil rights USA as democratic by modern standards. For example, we would never consider a country with legalized slavery to be democratic today. Similarly a future concept of democracy is unlikely to consider a country which practices the death penalty to be democratic by that hypothetical future standard.

▲

shadowgovt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

One alternative that has been tried (and is, arguably, still being tried) is Constitutional Republic.

The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process. That counterweights the populist "half of everyone is below average" effect.

Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment. A city wants to yank guns from people because everyone is panicking about shootings? Second amendment. Disney wants copyright to last forever because they're Disney? "securing for limited Times" phrasing in the Constitution. And so on.

It has its own weaknesses but one advantage is that change comes slower. This can be a problem when the past is on the wrong side of history, but it's a nice-to-have feature when the political temperature turns up and the odds of moving fast (and breaking things) increase.

It's probably a good thing that no matter how dumb any given American is, they can't legally sell themselves into slavery (even if they can get damn close).

▲

ghssds 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment.

Actually the thirteenth amendment explicitely allows slavery to exist in a case a whole bunch of people (maybe even yourself) think is super useful.

	▲	shadowgovt 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I was handwaving around the exception for criminals, but I concede your point: it's an oversimplification to say slavery is strictly illegal. (One can also make some interesting arguments around the notion of the draft).

▲

mullingitover 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process.

Yes, but there's an alternative 'significant process' which is to simply have a political party capture the body which interprets the constitution, and then an elite group of powerful insiders captures the political party, and then you're just an oligopoly but with additional steps.

	▲	shadowgovt 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Definitely. But, for what it's worth, that's a process that takes decades and requires an electorate profoundly asleep at the wheel. Like one that fumbles an election during a pivotal year that decides the timbre of their judicial system for a generation. Certainly not impossible though.