• ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Read what I said carefully. I said the breakdown of democracy was due to polarization. I did not say what the cause of the polarization was. The American system of democracy, and to a large extent our system, is based on an adversarial winner-take-all, loser-maybe-next-time system. An election simply determines who will be the authoritarian dictator for the next election cycle. But now, the two sides have completely vacated the middle, leading to a complete polarization (no middle ground) of their policies. Thus, no matter who wins, democracy loses, because it is no longer governance of all the people, for all the people, by all the people, but governance of the winning side, for the winning side, by the winning side. The ideals, goals.ideology of the other side are completely ignored.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Okay I see what you’re saying on the electoral system, and I don’t disagree, but do you really think that the winning side are actually representing the voters of the winning side? Cause it looks to me (and I think there a good reasons for) that not only the winning side are not representing the losing side, they’re no longer representing the winning side’s own voters. I don’t know if you agree with this but if you do, don’t you think that’s a more fundamental break in the democratic system than the side-wise representation problem?

      • ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 minutes ago

        It is said that humans are essentially a herd animal by nature. The followers of the winning side are just that - followers. The herd leader determines the direction. Steve Jobs was once reportedly asked if he used focus groups to determine what features to include in his products. The story goes that he responded with a resounding “Never. People do not know what they want until I tell them.”

        I believe that the herd instinct is based on genes, but more importantly that whether these genes are expressed or not depends on the environment of the individual, particularly the socioeconomic and educational environment. There is a reason why the ‘entitled’ faction implement every policy they can to denigrate the importance of education. I posit that the more uneducated a person is, the stronger their herd instinct, and the stronger their herd instinct, the more blindly their devotion to their leader. There is also evidence that, especially related to cult behavior, the amount and type of protein in the diet is a factor. Google “cults and the limitation of protein”.

        So yes, I believe that many political leaders today look upon the voters as ‘election fodder’ and consider them simply as a means to get elected. Also that the politicians in our current system that are best adept at mobilizing the ‘herd’ have the best chance of getting elected. This is particularly evident in America, where the education level of the population tends to fall into the lower tiers.

        Our concept of the ‘Party System’, Party Loyalty, and blind obedience to the whims of the Party that the voter identifies with is all part of this.

        It must be remembered that the original form of ‘democracy’ in the American constitution was limited to white male landowners, who would be less inclined to conform to a ‘herd mentality’.