What is a properly functioning democracy?

That is totally inaccurate, agreement is and can be gauged upon a number of things, among those being the persons we associate with, who we select to do business with, who we choose to live among, the actions of those who we shun, etc. The choices we freely make provide a very good and useful gauge of what we agree on, and reducing the number of available choices only forces people to select from the least bad choice, none of which may be the best choice.

In the case of government we are only given the opportunity to display agreement on which candidate will be allowed to hold office in our government, not at all relative to each and every issue on which they will have the ultimate say on how we are to be governed.

 

Where does the consensus stand at present?

 

There is room for improvement.

 

At an impasse?

 

If there is room then we can go around. Personally I pay my taxes to satisfy the real interest
of current government so that they have no interest in me.

 

The key qualifier of that statement being 'current government'?

 

No, if you go back & read The dopes post you will see why I made that response. That deals with your first paragraph.

Yes you are quite right that that has indeed become the case in todays democracies,which is why we see them as dysfunctional. Time was that Candidates & parties produced manifestoes on a wide range of issues so that you knew what you'd get in voting for that Person(s).

Manifestoes also acted as a kind of guide to the person/parties outlook generally. So, even were events,post election,to take an unexpected turn,that was not 'covered' by their manifesto you would reasonably expect the polititans to act in line with the general course of direction they promised.

Beyond the adherence to a manifesto,which is an issue we should insist upon if our aim is to improve on the current situation,I cannot see how else 'each & every issue',in the term of a Government can be addressed,can you ?

 

Try reading the second pargraph of the (my) post you were responding too.

 

Is this the post you refer to?

If so, I tend to agree with the last sentence, which I've boldened.

 

Each party has a platform which defines its stand on a number of issues in broad terms, yet there are so many issues which have varying importance to different persons, a number of small voting blocs who each are voting based on a different issue can result in electing a candidate who would otherwise be unacceptable based on issues which would be beneficial to a greater majority of the people.

I do feel that decentralization is the ONLY way that many issues might be addressed more satisfactorily by the people in a much more democratic fashion. It's been claimed that I am against democracy, while in truth I am against centralized democracy. Small democracies involve the people much more in the decision making process, providing differing solutions to similar problems, which usually results in others making changes based on solutions which have proven to work best.

 

Yes, but then again I will resist institutionalization. Yes about the current government because of the imperatives of the organism/organization.

 

Free and peaceful societies are built on the consensus of the members without need of a democratic voting process. Voting usually comes about due to disagreement when a consensus cannot be achieved, at which time force, through the creation of rules or laws along with punishments, fines, incarceration, or worse become applicable to those who continue to act on their disagreement. Curiously, I notice the drug laws frequently being presented as an example of what I just wrote by those who most often disagree with me.

 

Leaves me wondering what you see as "the imperatives of the organism/organization."

 

Self preservation. No room for innovation because innovation is attacked by the immune system. Innovation is not popularly supported.

 

I see what you're saying & for what its worth,agree with it. The downside of that option though is bigger administration & bigger government depending upon how small (population or geographical size) each local democracy is. My assumption being that these would be connected up to State then to Central Government with corresponding administrative costs.

As Ive mentioned before,in the UK Devolution to Scottish, Northern Irish & Welsh Parliments has been seen as a success. The last Blair Government attempted,via a referendum,to seek public support for devolved regional government (a layer above City & County Councils,that would ,then, feed into central Government). The Regions rejected the proposal on basis of the increased Administration /burocratic costs it would incur.

Concerning the USA, the only other way to look at it,as far as I can see, is Local Democracys virtual independence of central Government,making the Federal State the administrative center. My concern would be that this may create a more inward looking America,more prone to isolationism ,though I know that theres a tendency within Republicanism toward this.

 

Which leaves me still wondering.

 

The concern of the system is to preserve and extend it's influence, not to extend the will of the people. This is not the fault of persons but the inevitable growth of our children so to speak. Our children being the systems we develop in this example. When they are young they are impressionable and full of imagination and we can feed into that, but then they grow up they begin to function on their own and consequently are less eager to hear what you have to say.

 

It should remain a choice of the people as to how much government they wish to have AND are willing to pay for. Democracy works quite well when these choices are made at local levels, where the people are most capable of having their voices heard, and are voting with the knowledge that the costs of giving their consent will be their responsibility. When people are held more directly responsible for providing the means of funding the government programs they want, the decision making process becomes much more rational. 1913 was a major turning point in the U.S. history, in allowing centralization of government power to take place at the Federal level, moving it from the majority of both the people and the States into the hands of a few. I don't see isolationism as something desirable or desired as the needs and wants of societies today cannot be produced affordable in total within any country or State. Perhaps you mean isolation from becoming so directly involved in other peoples and/or nations political disputes?

 

I'll try to respond to your question in the last 4 lines of your post first. In becoming the worlds policeman (whatever the motives for doing so) America has found itself in an increasingly difficult position. The Syrian situation is increasingly unresolvable by any power other than,maybe, the neighbouring middle eastern states. Yet the west looks,more than a little hypocritically, at the USA to take a 'lead' in confronting the crisis. America is damned if it does & if it does not!

I'd like to think that the USA may at last accept that it needs to review,with an intension of changing direction,its global foriegn policy since WWII. I won't 'hold my breath'!

Given that the first 3 lines of last paragraph of my post you've responded to are only a brief estimation,is that the solution you propose that would improve democratic or Constitutional,representation of the people in your country ?

Its not a 'leading' or loaded question,I'm genuinly curious.

 

The boldened text in particular appears to be a correct assumption of how I feel democracy in our Constitutional Republic should work to the benefit of the governed most efficiently as well as fiscally responsible.

You seem to ask reasonable and conversational questions, which I try to answer as best I can, although briefly as I seldom speak English and sometimes have to grope for words that I've not used for decades. Age appears to be a factor, and politics was never much of an issue I had time for until after I retired.