Either way, the actual mechanism by which politicians are given the authority to carry out their policies is not the same as the mechanism they use to determine which policies might attract such mandate. Effecting change on some issue requires action on the latter. So I think when discussing methods for addressing racism its just a false dichotomy from the outset to frame it as elections vs protests, they're not the same kind of thing. — Isaac

:up:

Elections are not a means by which the public expresses their views on specific political issues. They're fully consistent with a representative democracy which does not actually represent the aggregate opinions of the public very well at all (and usually they do not reflect them very well at all).

The argument I'm having with ssu (on my end at least) is regarding the historical failure of representative politics - the changing whims of the state - to make US POCs equal, except when their hands are forced or leveraged by popular movement.

So no, I don't believe that representative politics has a terrible track record. — ssu

Do you believe that representative politics has a terrible track record on race issues in the US? I don't really wanna get into an argument where we're weighing the effectiveness of the Finnish government against the concerns of current uprisings in the US, it seems like a shell game to me.

The question I'm interested in is: does representative democracy in the US actually represent the interests of its populace on issues related to systemic racism? At least 100 years of silence except when hands are forced through popular movement indicates that it does not.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52981634 A politricksters' "Police Fix"? (w.t.f.) C'mon, sheeple.

Only two (4 & 7) make my list. — 180 Proof

Today Governor Cuomo signed police reform measures into law. One of the reforms I've flagged as long overdue (at least since 2014) included on my list (B)

One measure grants the state attorney general’s office the ability to investigate and potentially prosecute incidents when a person dies in custody or after an encounter with a police officer. — NY Daily News, June 12, 2020

One down, four to go.

:strong:

The question I'm interested in is: does representative democracy in the US actually represent the interests of its populace on issues related to systemic racism? — fdrake

Ok. First you shouldn't be so self centered and fixated just on the US. It's beneficial to look at the issue from a wider perspective to notice similarities and differences.

The systemic racism in the American continent derives from the colonial past and shows itself both in the way how a) native Americans and b) blacks and other non-whites are treated. For Latin America it could be described that the bigger segment of the populace is of Native American origin, the bigger the divide between the rich and poor is and the bigger the social problems are. Hence this is a continent wide problem.

To answer your question we first have to ask, which countries on the American continent have had a genuinely well working representative democracy? Do the people think their representative democracy works?

From last year according to pew research:


From the above (which unfortunately not depicting all countries in the continent), usually the answer is "NO" with Canada being the (sole?) exception where the vast majority of the people are happy with their democracy. The polls from Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and the US show that the majority of people in those countries are dissatisfied of their state representative democracy. Now this is actually crucial to your question, as obviously when people are dissatisfied in the system, it isn't working well. A functioning representative democracy isn't just that one can vote every few years...

So how bad is systemic racism in Canada? How many race riots have been there? You can find racism in Canada, sure, but are the problems similar to the US?

Canada abolished slavery in 1833 without a war, you know. I would argue that in a working representative democracy social problems can indeed be solved within the system.

What do you think I'm missing by focussing too much on the US when talking about over 100 years of failure of US "democracy" to represent a good chunk of the US populace, except when the state's hand is forced?

I wrote a broader perspective here a few days ago.

What do you think I'm missing by focussing too much on the US when talking about 100 years of failure of democracy to represent a good chunk of the US populace? — fdrake

Because when you say that "elections don't matter" and representative democracy doesn't do anything at systemic racism, the fact is that you aren't looking at countries were that representative democracy works at least SO MUCH that the majority of the people actually are satisfied with it.

It's not the fault of representative democracy that you have problems in your republic. I do think representative democracies can work and will surely work better than those where power is taken by violence.

Which is? — Isaac

When you say:

Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

They aren't trivial. Elections are a safety valve by which we can change ruinous administrations to others and a way to show that those in power do enjoy support of the majority. If the elections are just an theatrical show, naturally democracy doesn't work. But it can work. Quite surprising to have to say such basics. Just saying.

The argument I'm having with ssu (on my end at least) is regarding the historical failure of representative politics - the changing whims of the state - to make US POCs equal, except when their hands are forced or leveraged by popular movement. — fdrake

That makes sense, so you're not really comparing methods of moving public opinion so much as saying that simply having a representative democracy hasn't historically been enough?

Why do you think that is? Is it entirely down to political gamesmanship (gerrymandering, vote rigging, electoral colleges...) or do you accept a certain extent to which reflecting public opinion isn't enough, that sometimes public opinion as it stands would not deliver satisfactory results either, there's a need to shift it?

Elections are a safety valve by which we can change ruinous administrations to others and a way to show that those in power do enjoy support of the majority. If the elections are just an theatrical show, naturally democracy doesn't work. But it can work. Quite surprising to have to say such basics. Just saying. — ssu

You're missing my point. The election (the actual act) is trivial because it does nothing but reflect public opinion (in a perfect democracy) about who should represent us.

It cannot change ruinous administrations - the public no longer wanting those administrations is what changes them, elections are a bloodless and convenient way of doing that, revolutions being the alternative; but it's the mass of people wanting change which brings about the change, not the election itself.

As a means of creating that change, elections are close to useless. That's why I'm saying that comparing them to protests is like comparing apples to oranges. They're not even the same kind of thing. Protests seek to change public opinion, elections seek to record public opinion. Two different things. If all we did was record public opinion, nothing would ever change.

So we have two possibilities for positive change. (1) Human cultures are all lovely all the time and all we need are better elections so that our nasty politicians better reflect their angelic populace, or (2) Cultures can become unpleasant, in which case they need changing, simply accurately recording their preferences for representatives is not going to get anywhere. In fact it's perfectly possible that a populace might be more unpleasant in aggregate than the sub-class from which it's leaders are
drawn, in which case accurately representing them would be a bad thing.

In the case of (2) (which I think we all agree is the more likely) some action changes public opinion.

Importantly, this happens anyway no matter what we do. There's no neutral position where public opinion isn't influenced by something. Public opinion is influenced by a statue being up just as much as it is influenced by it being down. Leaving it up isn't some kind of default whereby the public are left to make up their own minds. a statue influences them one way, destroying it influences them another.

You're missing my point. The election (the actual act) is trivial because it does nothing but reflect public opinion (in a perfect democracy) about who should represent us. — Isaac

Better that reflection than no reflection. If power only changes by violence, in that society everything surely isn't well.

but it's the mass of people wanting change which brings about the change, not the election itself. — Isaac

And that's why democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agenda to a party that drives these agenda forward. Yet how in the US could even theoretically just two parties, one right-wing (and nowdays populist) and a central left leaning party truly do this? They can't. But what they can do is to divide the people as a way for self preservation. If the voters are deeply divided and tribalistic, they simply won't behave so as above. In their hatred or fear of the other side, they will be totally OK with the "flaws" of their side. If they don't support "their cause", they will lose, so who cares about the flaws and disappointing errors. And this is why populism is bad for democracy.

As a means of creating that change, elections are close to useless. — Isaac

In elections political parties make campaign promises and it's up to the voters activity to check if the parties do hold these promises. The interaction with the political establishment and their voting community is absolutely crucial here.

Protests seek to change public opinion, elections seek to record public opinion. Two different things. If all we did was record public opinion, nothing would ever change. — Isaac

This is quite incredible and actually very sad to hear. What on Earth do you think election Campaigns are about? Oh yeah, getting that "Gotcha"-moment from your opponent, making headlines with either a smart or outrageous comments. Which candidate looks good. As if things like the political agenda of the campaign doesn't matter. Who the f*k cares about policy, it's boring!

Indeed a demonstration protest can focus media attention to something. A tiny group can get things rolling for their cause that way, but usually a demonstration or a protest means that the system hasn't been working well. Yet the real crucible for democracy is if that protest, a media event, can turn into either itself a political movement or a political movement takes the agenda and goes forward with it. That's how democracies should work.

A passionate and eloquent response, not to the question "Why burn down a Target" but "Why don't you give a shit about burning down a Target";

https://twitter.com/Trevornoah/status/1269291643842289666?s=20

I feel the frustration. It's true that, ultimately, those communities will suffer the effects of acting on that frustration, but I come down on the anti-Target-protectionism side, since it's a protectionism of a status quo that keeps that local community in low-paid jobs making profit for rich white people. I think a bare minimum of reparation would be to clear up the mess then invest in businesses owned by local communities. It only costs jobs if nothing is put in its place.

The argument I'm having with ssu (on my end at least) is regarding the historical failure of representative politics — fdrake

I didn't read this before writing my other argument for improving representative democracy but check that out if you're interested.

@Isaac - I loved your last post, kudos. I'm not sure if this is a step forward or back, but...

Elections seem to me to corrupt public opinion, not just reflect it. Imagine every bill had to have a public mandate via a referendum. "Do you want lowers taxes: Y/N?" I'd actually vote N, but most would vote Y. "Do you want to overhaul the racist police system: Y/N?" Racists choose N, everyone else Y.

This would be a slow and expensive way to action public desire. However, what if you had this choice: "Do you want a) lower taxes or b) an overhaul of the racist police system?" I dare sau many who would have voted Y for lower taxes will now vote (b) against them. But a great many more who would have voted Y for a police overhaul will now vote (a) for lower taxes.

Elections corrupt by creating false dichotomies between independent goods. In fact, I would argue they do so inevitably. The most conscientious voter has to prioritise one good over another. And most voters adopt or inherit a political stance rather than actually engage, i.e. given the following choice:

1. Lower taxes;
2. Overhaul of racist police system;
3. Whatever the Republicans say is American;
4. Whatever the Democrats say is American

(2) would now get a paltry showing.

To that extent, elections do not implement public opinion, for which a more interactive mode of democracy, well within our technical capability, would be neccesary. Unfortunately, as the Alternative Vote in the UK showed, people will vote down a more democratic voting system too if the reds and the blues tell them to.

That makes sense, so you're not really comparing methods of moving public opinion so much as saying that simply having a representative democracy hasn't historically been enough? — Isaac

I'm unsure whether representative democracy as a social model is itself to blame. I think that our current forms of it in the political north are prone to co-option by wealthy private interests. It also looks to me that states are on a much more level playing field with corporations in terms of political power now, and we often forget this. Corps are beholden to their shareholders, corps are at least as influential between states as states, and more influential within states than their populace.

Why do you think that is? Is it entirely down to political gamesmanship (gerrymandering, vote rigging, electoral colleges...) or do you accept a certain extent to which reflecting public opinion isn't enough, that sometimes public opinion as it stands would not deliver satisfactory results either, there's a need to shift it? — Isaac

I don't think representing public opinion is sufficient, but something necessary for a representative democracy to function. There should be vents for public opinion that are more easily leveraged into policy than the current blockade between public opinion and policy execution most of us live in.

Our political classes only consult public opinion to the extent it allows them to manage it. And let's be under no illusions here; the corpus of political influence that drives our states' policy advocacy does not come from anything to do with the majority of its people, if it involves public will at all, it arrives from on high as small concessions to the public will while being as accommodating as possible to wealthy private interests. Whenever those small concessions can be scapegoats, so much the easier; "clap for the NHS" - fund them better, etc.

I still think large civilizations require a professional educated class for their management. Our current system is a perverse form of this: to the extent that education is a filter for social capital, and wealth is a strong predictor for social capital, there will be an alignment of the interests of that professional educated class to the interests of the wealthy. To the extent that wealth is allowed to constrain and enforce advocacy, that alignment will be stronger. To the extent that failsafes and checks on such influence are eroded, that alignment will be stronger. It is therefore strongly in the interest of the wealthy to have their interests met as well as possible; it is in their interest to erode failsafes and checks, and it is in their interest to constrain and enforce advocacy.

I don't believe a representative democracy will represent any populace adequately when the interests of wealthy international actors are given much more weight by a state than their populace's own interest, or of the interests of humanity as a collective. The rest of humanity is always an externality to an economic equation. A state's representative democracy, when the populace are doing other things, should still work for them, its hand should not have to be forced by those whose lives must be spent doing other things.

Better that reflection than no reflection. If power only changes by violence, in that society everything surely isn't well. — ssu

Still missing the point. Elections do not cause power to change. Let's say you have a 100% committed Conservative population. You could have an election every day, nothing at all would change because the population is still 100% Conservative and so will vote in the same people. For anything to change one of two things has to happen - either the political class have to change such that they no longer even offer Conservative candidates, or the population has to change such that it's no longer 100% Conservative.

The question here is about what is going to make one or other of those changes. If you reject protest as a method then the alternative cannot be 'elections' because elections are a mechanism for recording, not a mechanism for influencing.

democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agenda — ssu

If we don't have such a populace, how do we go about getting one?

What on Earth do you think election Campaigns are about? — ssu

How do election campaigns differ from protests? If the Conservative's paint a bus with claims about brexit that's a campaign, if protesters paint a statue with graffiti, that's just vandalism. What exactly is the difference in political terms? Why must political parties have the monopoly on protest?

To that extent, elections do not implement public opinion, for which a more interactive mode of democracy, well within our technical capability, would be neccesary. — Kenosha Kid

Do you think elections ought to implement public opinion? I'm not sure they should. Is there no extent to which we'd prefer to be lead by people who take decisions for us, rather than ask us at every turn?

I'm unsure whether representative democracy as a social model is itself to blame. I think that our current forms of it in the political north are prone to co-option by wealthy private interests. It also looks to me that states are on a much more level playing field with corporations in terms of political power, and we often forget this. Corps are beholden to their shareholders, corps are at least as influential between states as states, and more influential within states than their populace. — fdrake

That's a fair assessment, but did something go wrong which representative democracy failed to prevent, or was it some other institution's failure?

There should be vents for public opinion that are more easily leveraged into policy than the current blockade between public opinion and policy execution most of us live in.

Our political classes only consult public opinion to the extent it allows them to manage it. And let's be under no illusions here; the corpus of political influence that drives our states' policy advocacy does not come from anything to do with the majority of its people, — fdrake

I agree with this assessment, but I'm interested in the question of whether anything would be different (and in what way) if public opinion played a more substantial part. Brexit could not have been more direct a consultation of public opinion - no compromise manifestos, nor gerrymandering, no first past the post - just a simple measure of public opinion. It didn't go well. So I can't help feeling that we'd just jump from Orwell to Kafka if we did involve the public more in national politics?

Whenever those small concessions can be scapegoats, so much the easier; "clap for the NHS" - fund them better, etc. — fdrake

Completely off topic, but had to just scream at how cross this made me (the thing happening, not you mentioning it). Yeah, don't fucking clap them, pay them!

I don't believe a representative democracy will represent any populace adequately when the interests of wealthy international actors are given much more weight by a state than their populace's own interest, or of the interests of humanity as a collective. — fdrake

Which do you think came first, representatives who favoured the wealthy or a populace who prefer such representatives? I mean, we could vote them out in an instant if we don't like them. I get the problems with gerrymandering, wealthy campaign funding etc. But none of that is insurmountable if we really wanted change, or is it?

Do you think elections ought to implement public opinion? I'm not sure they should. Is there no extent to which we'd prefer to be lead by people who take decisions for us, rather than ask us at every turn? — Isaac

No, ha ha! The argument was merely in terms of best implementing public opinion. Sometimes, like with the current BML protests, the zeitgeist is bang on, and would be best acted on with urgent reformative zeal. Sometimes, like with Brexit, the zeitgeist is just a bunch of xenophobic, generation-gapped stuck-in-the-muds fuelled by right-wing media and opportunistic Trumpalikes who are too old and selfish to care about the damage thirty years down the line.

Democracy isn't just orientated around the election day, you can demand for an elected government to start doing a better job on an issue and make it clear that things aren't good enough. That's really what a protest is about, it's about trying to get change to happen as opposed to convincing people to think like them.

It's also important to note that you don't need a majority to enact change in a democracy and just because the majority want something that doesn't mean it will happen. Protests apply more pressure per person on the government to change things than people who stay silent on the issue - obviously.

How do election campaigns differ from protests? — Isaac

Campaigns usually ought to give more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. That is the power of organized movement than a demonstration: if you take large protest the consensus is about that something is wrong. If you start asking what actually people want and what policies would work, you don't have instant consensus.

Let's say you have a 100% committed Conservative population. You could have an election every day, nothing at all would change because the population is still 100% Conservative and so will vote in the same people. — Isaac

Right on! If there's NOBODY ELSE than conservatives, what fhe f* is your problem?

I only would point out that this wouldn't happen and if it did, then I guess this population would have differences in their consertavism and still have a lot of things they disargee about. Or is your problem that your society is made up of WRONG kind of people? What's your "final resolution" to that?

democracy needs an active populace: not only voters that don't tolerate corruption or dismal performance or those in power breaking the law, but genuinely voice their concerns and their agend — ssu

If we don't have such a populace, how do we go about getting one? — Isaac

You won't get one by simply declaring that "elections don't matter" like fdrake, because people will read that literally and believe the age old lie that someone or some movement will solve it by force: just give somebody dictatorial powers and he will solve it. It never happens like that, it never has.

The will of the people simply has to be heard and be reflected in the policies implemented. It is the only way that people will agree that voting matters and their democracy works. As I said earlier, the majority in the US, in Mexico and Brazil etc. don't think their democracy works, so this is a genuine problem in the American continent.

The solution is first to be totally honest and objective of the reasons why the representative democracy isn't working. Is there voter suppression? Is there suppression of opposition parties? How much is there corruption? Are votes bought and are politicians bought? Is this corruption legalized? Can people choose freely who they vote or are they harassed to support those in power? Is the security complex and the military under civilian control, or is it vice versa? How much is there transparency in the system? Are the elections free and fair or simply a sham and window dressing for the ruling power elite? Is it democracy in name only?

Then you start fixing all the issues one after another. And never think that if you succeed in doing that, that the populace will then agree with your ideas and objectives. It likely won't: in a democracy far and few issues will gain overwhelming support, and those that do likely you will ignore them as self-evident things that are taken as granted and hence are non-issues. They actually aren't.

Democracy isn't a cure all, it's just something that works best than anything else in larger societies where you simply cannot talk about one singular community.

Democracy isn't just orientated around the election day, you can demand for an elected government to start doing a better job on an issue and make it clear that things aren't good enough. — Judaka

And there should be enough competition in the political sphere that if the ruling parties themselves don't notice that the people are unhappy about something, then another political party would milk that dissatisfaction and make start advance the issues. There's something wrong in a political system where a lot of people are dissatisfied with something and there's absolutely no response from any political party or actor.

A well informed electorate is crucial to a representative form of government.

That's what's missing.

Campaigns usually ought to be more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. — ssu

But one could simply say that protests ought to be some thing or other. I can see the advantage of proffering a solution along with your complaint. I can't see any mechanism which ensures political party campaigns do this and prevents protests from doing so.

Right on! If there's NOBODY ELSE than conservatives, what fhe f* is your problem? — ssu

I didn't say I had a problem with it. I'm demonstrating how the mere existence of elections do not bring about change. Something else is required to change the population. Elections don't do that on their own.

just give somebody dictatorial powers and he will solve it. It never happens like that, it never has. — ssu

This is not the point I'm making because we're not talking about the force actually effecting the change directly. We're talking about the force demonstrating the degree of anger. Notwithstanding that, it absolutely is the case that force has been necessary to bring about positive change. Its been required almost every time.



What you're missing is that sometimes the majority are wrong. In such circumstances, elections (even when completely fair) will just reflect this wrongness. What do we then do about that?

I'm demonstrating how the mere existence of elections do not bring about change. — Isaac

And I've stated right from start that with mere elections you don't have a functioning representative democracy. Stalin's Soviet Union had elections too.



A representative democracy is much more than just elections. I think this is basically clear to everyone.

Notwithstanding that, it absolutely is the case that force has been necessary to bring about positive change. — Isaac

Has it absolutely?

In many cases it surely has been so that the political system has found itself in a dead end. But are functioning democracies in a dead end? I argue that they indeed can solve problems without violence. Demonstrations, sure you can have them, but huge changes can happen even without them.

Last time the Swedish revolt against their rulers was when they ousted their Danish King and elected Gustav Vasa as their king in 1523. After that, there hasn't been ANY revolution or large revolt in the country. I think Switzerland has had one small revolt in it's long history. So why do you claim that force is necessary? The fact is that democracies can bring peace to a society, where as authoritarianism is in the end founded on violence and fear.

What you're missing is that sometimes the majority are wrong. In such circumstances, elections (even when completely fair) will just reflect this wrongness. What do we then do about that? — Isaac

If that would be true, I guess those people in that country had it coming and deserve their misery. If you Isaac are right yet all of your companion citizens are wrong and total asses, well, tough luck for you.

Yet I personally don't believe that anytime the majority is "simply wrong". That view is extremely arrogant and shows the utter hubris of the person saying it. If people are conservative, old-fashioned or even superstitious and reject something that will only later become accepted, I wouldn't judge them to be "wrong" and thus voting "wrongly". Besides, what usually has happened in a situation where the majority chooses "wrong" or simply bad policies is that the political discourse has been poisoned in the country and the political system has simply poured gasoline on to a fire. And that surely can happen. Many political ideologies can and will do this, populism and communism etc. come to my mind, where not only do the ideologies divide the people to "us" and "they" right from the start, but also they promote violence and portray your fellow citizens as the enemy. I can guarantee that nothing good comes out of that juxtaposition.

Hence for a democracy to work, it has to have the ability avoid these rabbit holes or vicious circles which erode social cohesion, alienate groups from each other and disrupt the ability of the system to seek a consensus. Beliefs and views can change peacefully. Modern day political tribalism leads to a sorry state. Perhaps we don't understand just how fragile the system is and just how close otherwise unthinkable violence is as we have enjoyed rather peaceful times for long.

A representative democracy is much more than just elections. I think this is basically clear to everyone. — ssu

It never ceases to astonish me the nature of the discourse. If it's basically clear to everyone, then why have you not interpreted my posts under that presumption. Is there something about my presentation that's given you cause to think I might be so utterly stupid that I'm unaware of something which is basically clear to everyone?

The comment I initially responded to was...

As if elections don't matter. — ssu

...to which I replied...

Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

...and was told I'd missed the point. Rather that...

Elections are a safety valve by which we can change ruinous administrations — ssu

At no point up until your most recent posts did you even mention election campaigns. Which are not the same thing as elections. I've been clear throughout that it the the mechanism I'm talking about, not the general activities carried out during it. Elections are a mechanism for recording public opinion about which representatives they prefer in government. It cannot bring about change, it can only record that a change has taken place.

With regards to the use of violent protest, riots, looting, defacing statues. We cannot compare their merits with elections because the two are not the same type of thing - that's the point I was making. If we compare their merits we must do so with other mechanisms for creating change in public preferences. Broadly speaking - political campaigning, media presentation, debate, speech by cultural leaders, advertising, and the lived experience of political decisions (not a complete list).

It seems from your recent posts that what you really mean to compare protests to is political campaigns (which can take place in association with election, or not), so we can start again from there.

Firstly though.

Yet I personally don't believe that anytime the majority is "simply wrong". That view is extremely arrogant and shows the utter hubris of the person saying it. If people are conservative, old-fashioned or even superstitious and reject something that will only later become accepted, I wouldn't judge them to be "wrong" and thus voting "wrongly" — ssu

So how would you characterise my position here. You certainly seem to have some quite strong contrary opinions and are using emotive rhetoric in an attempt at persuasion. You give me whatever term you'd use to characterise my view here and the fact that you'd clearly rather I thought differently, and we'll use your term, if you're not comfortable with "wrong".

I don't want to get into a massive debate about relativism, but those that seem wrong to me are "wrong" up until any time I change my mind about them. That all "wrong" means as far as I'm concerned, so it's not hubris, it's just relativism. The point is that there are, without doubt, things which one would prefer were different and in order to change them one must persuade others. If you're rejecting that very premise then we've nothing further to say.

So the question is, how is it best to present one's feelings about what should change in order to best persuade people to make that change? The point @fdrake originally made was that leaving it to election campaigning and debate has not effected the change that many people would like to see with regards to the status of minorities. Given that minorities are treated deplorably by the US (and many other countries), it is an incontrovertible fact that these methods of effecting change have not worked. Protest, on the other hand seems to have had an absolutely demonstrable success.

No one is suggesting we replace election campaigning with protest as a means of effecting change. No one is suggesting we no longer measure the effect of such change using elections. So exclaiming the merits of these methods is useless, they are not mutually exclusive, we can do both.

Rayshard Brooks, d. 27

:death: :flower:

At no point up until your most recent posts did you even mention election campaigns. Which are not the same thing as elections. I — Isaac

Wrong.

On an earlier comment before my last one:

Campaigns usually ought to be more thought not only showing that something is wrong, but a specific answer what to do about it. That is the power of organized movement than a demonstration: if you take large protest the consensus is about that something is wrong. If you start asking what actually people want and what policies would work, you don't have instant consensus. — ssu

And even before that:

In elections political parties make campaign promises and it's up to the voters activity to check if the parties do hold these promises. The interaction with the political establishment and their voting community is absolutely crucial here. — ssu

And since these were both answers TO YOU, Isaac, all I can deduce from that you don't bother even to read what I say. And before that I replied to fdrake that democracies can indeed avert social problems and there's a great historical reference of this from countries where representative democracy WORKS. But that of course, I cannot ask you to have read as there's so much up on PF every day.

No, my basic disagreement with you was this:

Elections are utterly trivial in political terms because they are just a snapshot of what the electorate think at that time. — Isaac

They aren't utterly trivial. Period. And it's YOU who is forgetting that democracy isn't just elections and campaigns and basic political activity of the populace is an adamant requirement for there to be true democracy.

I'd be happy to continue the discussion and MAYBE something interesting can come out of it, but one ought to read what the other one says. Enough with the strawman arguments against imagined stereotypes.

So a guy can have his business burn3ed to the ground and you dont care about him either. He didnt do anything to deserve this. Why should anyone take your views seriously when you are so obviously hupocritical? Its almost ridiculous it even has to be stated. — ernestm

I didn't say I didn't care, nor can you derive that from what I said. I said that prioritising the lesser concerns of the white Wendy's owner over the greater concerns of black people dying at the hands of racist white cops is a niche way of thinking, more suitable for right-wing radio jocks than mainstream media.

I understand it would have been more convenient for you if I'd said I don't care about the Wendy's manager's hardships. I also understand that there are a certain class of people who prefer to pretend they heard what's convenient rather than what's real. I also understand that they don't tend to think as far as "other people can see what the guy actually wrote". I understand you, Ernest. I just don't understand why they named you Ernest. The irony!

Wrong.

On an earlier comment before my last one:... And even before that: — ssu

Those were the 'most recent posts' to which I was referring.

it's YOU who is forgetting that democracy isn't just elections and campaigns and basic political activity of the populace is an adamant requirement for there to be true democracy. — ssu

I haven't even mentioned democracy. Elections are not democracy. Elections are a single event within a democracy. All the stuff you're talking about as being a necessary part of democracy is exactly the same stuff I'm talking about as being that which we should be comparing in terms of it effectiveness. The actual election is irrelevant to the question at hand, it's plays a trivial part in the question at hand. That is not equivalent to a claim that elections are trivial in any context, or that the whole democratic system is entirely pointless, which are the straw men you're attempting to make out of what I'm saying.

My main contention is that you are setting up a false dichotomy which casts a purely rhetorical aspersion over protest movements. You set them up as being opposed to 'elections' when in actual fact they are means of shifting public opinion. Which is not even the same kind of thing as an election.

To make a fair comparison we must compare them to other means of shifting public opinion, like political campaigns, pamphleteering, debates etc.

. Elections are a single event within a democracy. — Isaac

Which according to you are utterly trivial.

That is not equivalent to a claim that elections are trivial in any context, or that the whole democratic system is entirely pointless — Isaac

That's not what you said earlier, if I've read your posts well. At least now you say that. If you say something is "utterly trivial", sorry for understanding that you mean something is utterly trivial. And on the other hand, then you say...

. The actual election is irrelevant to the question at hand, it's plays a trivial part in the question at hand. — Isaac

So if candidates promise police reform that is utterly trivial?

I've said again and again that likely the only country in the American continent where the majority of the people are happy with their democracy is Canada (might be some Island nations there too). Being unhappy with the system is a clear sign it doesn't work. Yet to say the democracies are inherently incapable of dealing with things like systemic racism or use of excessive force by the police isn't true.

That's not what you said earlier, if I've read your posts well. — ssu

I said "Elections are utterly trivial in political terms" as in the political task is over by the time of the election, the dye is already cast the election is just to see what colour the cloth turns out.

I suspect you're a Conservative and I'll interpret any ambiguity in your comments according to that prejudice. I might be wrong, but it would be to the extent that you're actually centrist, or possibly liberal socialist. You seem to have decided (without any prior reason) to have interpreted ambiguity in my comment from the presumption that I'm probably a totalitarian dictator. Seems a bit uncharitable.

Anyway...

So if candidates promise police reform that is utterly trivial? — ssu

Firstly, candidates offering something is not an election, it's a political manifesto. An election is the collection of votes for a range of candidates. Two different things. Candidates could feasibly not offer anything and there still be an election.

Secondly, I think it is relatively trivial, yes. If there's no support for such a policy among the populace, then the candidate's offering it will get nowhere. Them merely offering it is unlikely to change the views of the populace. The populace demanding it, however, is far from trivial. If it doesn't directly get it done, then it will likely persuade one (or all) candidates to offer it as a policy. So if the two - candidate manifesto vs public demand - candidate manifesto is a fairly trivial way of bringing about change.