Democracy - Ruled by the masses?

[Enioc]

Recently, in my government class, we learned about Elite Theory, also known as the Power-elite model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-elite_model). It states that in a democratic government, the country is controlled not by the the masses but by a small number (think a couple hundred or thousand) of "elites." It continues on to say that the masses are either apathetic to the political scene or don't have enough influence to make themselves heard over the elites, thus allowing them to retain that power. But is this really true?

As a citizen of a democratic country (the United States, actually), I'd like to think that Elite Theory isn't true. I pay attention and keep myself somewhat informed as to what's going on in the world and I'd vote if I were of voting age, so I'd like to believe that I do (or someday will, when I'm not a minor anymore) have a voice that can be heard in the government. After all, that's the basis of most countries: One person, one vote, one voice.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Angelyne]

The United States isn't a democracy--it's a republic. ;) By definition, this country isn't supposed to be run by the masses.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Since you're younger, you may not have studied this yet, but the US is not a true democracy, it's a representative democracy. The major difference is that we do not get to directly vote on policy in the US, preferring instead to elect people to vote for us. It's the same deal with presidential elections, for which we elect state representatives who appoint electors to give out our state's votes.

In any group of people large enough to progress beyond basic forms of governance (if we're using Jared Diamond of Guns Germs and Steel fame's terminology, anything less than a chiefdom), then it will become essentially impossible to have a true Democracy. The logistics of trying to mobilize (with little chance for abuse) an entire population to vote on each and every issue that concerns the state make it a practical impossibility, and not that idealistic of a system either.

Most countries are not democracies. Most countries do not believe in one person one vote. Most countries tend to restrict the voices of its citizens in varying amounts (the US is no exception to this). It's just the reality of living in a state where the amount of voices is too great to contribute effectively to practical decision-making.

And quite frankly, I am glad that the common man doesn't have a greater voice, as the common man tends to be a complete and total moron when it comes to matters of the state and important decisions.

Idealism is a good thing to have in a society. Overwhelming idealism is not. Keep thinking those positive thoughts, study hard, and try to improve your understanding of the system without losing that idealism. If you're still interested at that point, and still idealistic, push for change in a practical fashion, and I'll be cheering you on (to a point), but speaking from personal experience, that idealism turns to cynicism, and you go off in a different direction.

[Roxie]

electorial college, anybody?

[NERD]

Speaking of the power-elite model- does it still hold true today? You bet. It's been that way for ages.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You're going to have to explain exactly what aspect of the electoral college you're referring to Roxie. And in regards to what point. Is the electoral college the power elite? Evidence that the US isn't a Democracy? Or what?

[Roxie]

As evidence the US isn't ruled by the masses (besides the fact we're a republic with democratic tendencies).

[Darkblade]

i consider it more of a Cashocracy. those who have cash pull the strings.

[Tungtvann]

So called Democracy is normally Capitalism, we have little real power.

[TrendSeven]

The United States isn't a democracy--it's a republic. ;) By definition, this country isn't supposed to be run by the masses.
True... but think if some of your friends... neighbors...

Would you really want them running a country?

[Angelyne]

True... but think if some of your friends... neighbors...

Would you really want them running a country?

Well...they would probably do a better job of running the country than George Bush. ;)

[Trump]

And quite frankly, I am glad that the common man doesn't have a greater voice, as the common man tends to be a complete and total moron when it comes to matters of the state and important decisions.

Amen. Most people are far too easily swayed by a little advertising (even crappy advertising). They would only back up the decisions of the person with the best advertising.

[kyaa the catlord]

My neighbors aren't citizens, do they still count?

[kiev33]

Well...they would probably do a better job of running the country than George Bush. ;)

I completely disagree. After all, I live in Georgia. My neighbors voted for George Bush. :clap:

[slinky]

And quite frankly, I am glad that the common man doesn't have a greater voice, as the common man tends to be a complete and total moron when it comes to matters of the state and important decisions.


I agree. One of my favorite movie quotes of all time:

A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals
-- Agent K

[StormShadow]

It continues on to say that the masses are either apathetic to the political scene or don't have enough influence to make themselves heard over the elites, thus allowing them to retain that power. But is this really true?

As a citizen of a democratic country (the United States, actually), I'd like to think that Elite Theory isn't true. I pay attention and keep myself somewhat informed as to what's going on in the world and I'd vote if I were of voting age, so I'd like to believe that I do (or someday will, when I'm not a minor anymore) have a voice that can be heard in the government. After all, that's the basis of most countries: One person, one vote, one voice.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Remember that although there is an electoral college, the major goal of every political agenda is to become the encumbant. That being said, so long as the masses are not apethetic towards government, voice their opinion, the political leader will have no recourse but to side with the masses, or else they might not re-elect him. You might be saying, 'Well my Senetor voted for this, but my State wanted something differant, what the heck?!' The answer is " The political leader did not feel enough people differed in his opinion for him to side with them. If not enough people care, if they won't not re-elect you, why side with them? If the masses make themselves heard, ie show up en mass, the elites will have no recourse but to listen, yet they cease to be an elite

[setrict]

That being said, so long as the masses are not apethetic towards government, voice their opinion, the political leader will have no recourse but to side with the masses, or else they might not re-elect him.

Absolutely. A major problem we have is that the vast majority of people are apathy in action. We want a voice, but neglect the responsibility that goes with it. We are too lazy to research the facts, and view issues objectively. Instead we rely on external outlets (politicians, news organizations, involved parties) to condense the issues, and present us with a few polished turds to choose from. In the end the majority of us just pick whatever smells the least offensive.

Most of us (myself included) only have a vague notion of the various bills considered by our congress, and fewer still know how our representatives actually voted. Heck, I'd guess that less than 25% can even name all three legislators without a little help from google. Unless you really screw up as a politician, there is almost no accountability to the people, and re-elections come down to a combination of party lines and whoever can spin it to keep the swing voters happy.

I personally believe that there should be a short, simple, multiple choice test on current event and government facts along with each ballot. The pool of questions and answers posted well in advance of the vote. Your vote gets weighted by your score. Say 20 random questions out of a pool of a few hundred. That would be a step toward a legitimate democracy.

[Collapse]

Isn't Socialism ruled by the masses?

That said, Theocracy should return just because. :V

[otro34]

Not at all. Socialism is that everyone has the same rights and things... so equality for everyone... except the one that's in charge :)

And quite frankly, I am glad that the common man doesn't have a greater voice, as the common man tends to be a complete and total moron when it comes to matters of the state and important decisions.

I think the same way. Democray is like a weapon: you could use it in your favor or it might as well kill you. Here in Peru, the government leaves some really really reaaally important state decisions to the people... and what happens??? a complete desaster... i think if we elect someone to guide us is because we think he (or she) is the BEST option as a leader, that he could make the right decisions a will not lead us to a path of total chaos...

That's why, in a way, i think having a dictator who really knows what he's doing is the best thing for most countries... no, i'm not thinking of chavez, or sadam, or stalin or something like that... i think of a person who has the courage to do the right thing when necesary... Like jack bauer... hehehhe XD...

Anyway. Democracy is a tricky thing. it's like an idea that everyone has on their heads and think "wow, that's where i wanna go..." and they really don't know what that place is...

[slinky]

Absolutely. A major problem we have is that the vast majority of people are apathy in action. We want a voice, but neglect the responsibility that goes with it. We are too lazy to research the facts, and view issues objectively. Instead we rely on external outlets (politicians, news organizations, involved parties) to condense the issues, and present us with a few polished turds to choose from. In the end the majority of us just pick whatever smells the least offensive.

THis is too true. I read somewhere a while back that the technology of the issues has outstripped the average American's ability to understand them. That we're not that great in science doesn't help, but some of the things on the ballot (I believe the article was talking about stem cell research) are pretty complex. Yet we vote on them based on sound bites and flashy ads.

I personally believe that there should be a short, simple, multiple choice test on current event and government facts along with each ballot. The pool of questions and answers posted well in advance of the vote. Your vote gets weighted by your score. Say 20 random questions out of a pool of a few hundred. That would be a step toward a legitimate democracy.

On the one hand I completely agree with you here (add some basic science/technology questions if the issues voted on involve those as well). This is one of those things that you would really like to see happen... until you sit down and think about it.

That there's no "right" answer to a lot of current events issues would make this very tough. That the government controls education really slants the test. That people, possibly even the testers/graders could get their information from biased sources as well makes this completely unreasonable.

There is no one that could compose the test so that it wouldn't favor one side or the other. In addition, the ability to tamper with test results would make all subsequent elections suspect.

Fun thing to dream about - impossible to put into practice.

(and that's even without getting into the "back to Jim Crow days" issue.)

[slinky]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Mussolini.


That's why, in a way, i think having a dictator who really knows what he's doing is the best thing for most countries...

[otro34]

hahha, i know it's hard. But when you let everybody in the country do what they want Just because it is supose to be a democracy then we are not going anywhere any time soon...

May be i shouldn't have said dictator... but i didn't know how else to put it.

[Roxie]

:rofl: I think all dictators know what they're doing...the question is, do they care?

[otro34]

Not to defend anyone, of course, but some of them do. Like the former (i think) president of Singapur Lee Kuan Yew... he made of that country what it is now, with better quality of life, tecnology, education and development that many first world countries...

Sure he took really hard mesures to get there (like death penalty for possesion of drugs...) but he had ALL the power and use it for the good of his people.

[General_Admission]

I thought the US was a democracy until I had to say the pledge to the flag. :(

Go libertarians. :clap:

[Jai]

The elite theory? Or the its all a big conspiracy, omgwtfbbq THE ALIENS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!oneoneeleven theory? ;)