How democratic is america really?

How democratic is america really?
Surely the vast economic power of corporations and various other stakeholders would sway the system more than the masses do.
Is America catering to its people or its international business first?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html
opensecrets.org/pres16/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-democracy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's not democratic. Democracy is shit anyway.

Not very, but still more than most "democracies." We don't have large scale vote fraud, and you can insult elected leaders all you want without getting in trouble.

whose at the helm?
Is Hilary vs trump a false dichotomy or would the votes actually make a difference?

This.

We should return to the rule of aristocracy/monarchy.

It's the only system that works and isn't fucking degenerate.

i didnt imply anything to warrant a reddit tier "this"

I asked a question about the current American system, I'm not concerned with fixing it until we figure out what the actual problem is

It's a post-democratic society. Elections are still being held, and the facade and rhetoric of democracy are still all around, but the inside machinations of the system ensure all real decision-making is being down by moneyed interests.
Most legislators spend most of their time mingling with the disconnected high life of the elites instead of doing their job. All the actual legislating is being done by nameless staff working beneath the congressmen. There are entire bills that are being drafted by interest groups and corporations now.
It's virtually impossible to reach any high office without soliciting the support of lobbyists. Both major political parties are deeply corrupt on a fundamental level, and despite many talking points back and forth, both have actually shown incredible bi-partisan silent agreement on almost all issues that actually matter. Both parties are undemocratic private organizations that have ensured their rule (and by extension - the rule of lobbying groups that more often than not give money to BOTH parties) will be left unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Go look up things like ballot access laws and the way the National Debate Committee works.
And while Congress has been making itself comfortable drinking expensive wines inside a lobbyist's ass, more and more practical power has been delegated to the presidency, which has now become a temporary quasi-dictatorship. Did you know, for example, that the president now has the power to kill any American citizen for any reason at any time - even on USA soil?


Anyone who still thinks there's ANY democratic rule within the federal government (looking at you, ) is fooling themselves. The USA fast approaching European Union levels of undemocractic corporatocracy. And just like in Europe, no one seems to care or even notice.


We already ARE living in an aristocracy.
I hope you're enjoying it.

>We already ARE living in an aristocracy

"Aristocrat" doesn't just mean "a guy with a lot of money", but nice meme though.

Corruption was far greater in the past so relatively speaking the US is more democratic than usual.

Comparing the US to other countries in the present would break the 25 year rule.

Comparing the US to a utopia where somehow corruption doesn't exist would be a nirvana fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

> that the president now has the power to kill any American citizen for any reason at any time - even on USA soil?

source on this? sound believable but lets try and keep it factual.

Also is this to imply that the president has more power as an individual than anyone else? Isnt the president of all people at the complete whim of any business or investor that got him or her into the white house?
This is also implying that they presidential candidate requires the blessing of big business before they can run, how true is this statement?

Corruption is far worst now than it has been 25 year ago. The difference is we don't call it "corruption" anymore because it doesn't fit within the narrow Gilded Age legal definition of corruption. Instead, thanks to Citizens United, we now call it "free speech (by the way of money)".

>source on this?
Quickly google "obama drone citizens on us soil".
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

>This is also implying that they presidential candidate requires the blessing of big business before they can run, how true is this statement?
No special "rich committee" exists to go over even candidate and give out a 'yay' or a 'nay'. It is simply the nature of the system that no person can be elected without:
A. Going through the corrupt system of either of the two major parties
B. Raising hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money
Instead of filtering people based on their wisdom or leadership capabilities, our current system is most predisposed towards promoting the people who are best at fundraising. Every step of the way you must demonstrate that you are both willing and able to raise funds and act upon the promises you made when raising these funds.


For more information about all of this, check out www.opensecrets.org.
Specifically, for the current 2016 presidential election:
opensecrets.org/pres16/

You don't live in a democracy, you live in a constitutionally repbulic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-democracy
>The term post-democracy [...] designates states that are conducted by fully operating democratic systems (elections are being held, governments fall and there is freedom of speech), but whose application is progressively limited. A small elite is taking the tough decisions and co-opts the democratic institutions.

Seems kind of like a moot point that the American Government can kill American citizens, I'd imagine its been happening for a long time.
The fact that they are saying it really doesnt really change anything besides the faith of people who believed in the idea of a sympathetic Government.

It is an example of the undue and unaccounted power the president has accumulated over the years.

Is the president really the one making the decision or is he just the man responsible for the acton taken.

Thanks to ever-increasing government obscurity and secrecy, it's hard to tell. We just don't know how these decisions are being made, since it's all regarded as military actions.

The government can only kill citizens who make war with the united states, as in the civil war. They would have to commit an act of war on behalf of a power that we can war with.

This, cannot stress this enough.

relevant meme

But transparency in government is increasing.

You can make freedom of information requests on any document that's not related to defense or foreign policy.

isnt the problem that almost all documents are related to defense or foreign policy?

it's not, it only exists as a way to quell revolutions like how when a child asks you to do something you say "we'll see"

divide the people and redirect them at each other

>like how when a child asks you to do something you say "we'll see"

Such an apt description.

So what do we do about it comrades?

Any government is just a system that humans use to coordinate information.

The secret is to create political organizations that exist outside of the existing system of corruption, and allow voters to coordinate and try to get things done.

The Tea Party did a good job of this, albeit I disagree with their politics.

How does the impact of this compare with other changes like increased transparency?

Maybe corruption was set to increase or decrease a little from 1 January 1991 to the 21 August 1991 and over the next few decades, but not significantly. It doesn't compare to literacy tests and Nixon.

The overwhelming influence moneyed interests have on our democratic processes is no secret. It is a phenomenon that stretches back to at least World War 1, where the great business interests of the day had a strong hand in dictating the policy of Wilson Administration in the effort of bringing the US economy on war-footing. Representatives from big business were courted to sit on the many new councils & organizations that were created to direct the economy for the war effort. The influence amounts to, at the very least, a dampening of effective 'democracy'. When small groups wield disproportionate power over much larger groups that is by definition 'undemocratic'. Like explains the channels of power in the US have in large measure been co-opted or subverted by those able to lavish & withhold crucial amounts of money that are all but required in running a successful bid for office.

Apart from the actual electoral processes. It's also no secret in the immense and undue power that big businesses often exercise over the UN-ELECTED regulatory bodies that are meant to police them. In effect, perverting the organizations meant to serve the public at public expense and directing their energy & attention to serve private interests directly.

Fukuyama writes that the US Government is in decline and operates on now mainly on "Clientelism," essentially the trading of votes and political support for individual benefits rather than programmatic policies.

It's also worth mentioning that things like Gerrymandering & the electoral college depress the value of individual votes even more so. For many Americans, the votes they cast will never matter on a state or national level due to the way the districts in which they live are drawn up.

I guess in answer to your question... "not very". Depending on who you talk to the lack of genuine power held by voters can be either good or bad.

>2 parties
>2