The USA. Too big for it's own good?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Right, having just read that Chuck Norris is seemingly advocating armed rebellion against the current administration (existing thread to discuss this) I had a thought.

Now, before I continue, this is not a criticism of the USA in any way. Instead, it is a discussion on the limits of democracy in terms of population.

Essentially, is the USA too big to be a happy Democracy?

Now to explain it in more depth. You see, the USA has a massively varying demograph, which comes hand in hand with such a large population. Add in the two party system, and no matter who is elected, there will be a lot of people feeling unhappy with the administration. Now to the USA's total credit, this hasn't stopped them thus far from making democracy work. So hurrah on that one!

But this Chuck Norris stuff makes one wonder, whether the USA would be happier should there be a split. You see, from my perspective I get the distinct impression that no matter who is charge, a large amount of people in the US are constantly unhappy with the way the country is being run. But hey, thats how Democracy works. The whole thing only breaks down when the minority aren't catered to at all, as that is the antithesis of Democracy, and is closer to Fascism (no, I am not implying the US is close to a fascist state!).

So, say the USA splits, North/South, straight down the middle, into two seperate jurisdictions (but not countries). In doing this, the two main parties would be able to campaign on a more local level. For example, something promised to please say, the Corn Growing Populace, isn't likely to appeal to Detroit Car factory workers and so on. So having more regional governements, with equal powers, might be a good idea. They would have the option of vetoing laws they didn't like (like the Abortion issue, purely as a suitably hot potato example). With free switching between these Regions, people could move to where they felt more comfortable. Tax raised in each region would be spent in each region. Thus, your Region might want Stem Cell Funding banned, but my Region allows it, and again, so on.

Not entirely sure this makes sense, but have a read and tell me what you think.

This was intended to be impartial, so I shall reiterate the core of the subject. The USA is being used purely as an example here. What I want to discuss is whether or not you feel Democracy has it's limits, beyond which it becomes increasingly unworkable.

**BloodofOrks**

I prefer that people disagree, but work together. I don't think the cultural divide between different groups of Americans is all that wide to be honest. America is strengthened by its diversity of opinion, not weakened by it. As for the idea of regional government, we already have that to a good degree through state and local governments which I think satisfactorily allows different regions to set their own laws (within limits of course.) I don't know, I just think that the very small percentage of people who's ideas are actually "shut out" from government are probably better left out. (I'm talking about extremists, not any group in particular, just to be clear.) Conservatives will come back into power at some point in the future. They're just unpopular right now, so they scream exclusion. The left went through the same thing during the Bush years. The right will reorganize and return.

**BloodofOrks**

Also, if America were split straight down the middle, North/ South, wouldn't the North come out the winner due to major financial centers like New York City And Chicago which would give them a larger tax base?

**Orkeosaurus**

I think we already did.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I dunno. I'm not that up on how the USA is run, other than your electoral system baffles me

Also, do remember the USA is mainly just an example. Given a country with a better distribution of wealth centres, do you think there would be an inevitable split in populations to maintain democracy?

**Lordhat**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno. I'm not that up on how the USA is run, other than your electoral system baffles me

It baffles everyone I know as well, MDG. We have the technology to ensure that the popular vote is accurately counted, I don't understand why we don't use it.

**Shrike78**

Democracy, like all forms of governments, has it's inherent weaknesses. The current, most obvious one currently is that minorities get disenfranchised (I mean people who are in the minority, not "minorities"). But to say that this will cause a collapse of government, or should lead to a geographic divide along what are considered party lines is a bit over the line I think...

Just look at the difference between states won in 04 vs 08. One has a LOT of red, and the other has a LOT more blue...

I don't think that the solution you propose would solve problems, only exacerbate them...

**Orkeosaurus**

Well, as I already said, India has more people than America.

Plus, it has like 20 different languages, tons of different ethnic groups, two major religions that have a long history of conflict, and the remnants of a caste system.

Based on that, I don't know that a democracy is necessarily likely to buckle under stress with any particular ease.

**BloodofOrks**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, as I already said, India has more people than America.

Plus, it has like 20 different languages, tons of different ethnic groups, two major religions that have a long history of conflict, and the remnants of a caste system.

Based on that, I don't know that a democracy is necessarily likely to buckle under stress with any particular ease.

Excellent point.

**Orkeosaurus**

Well, I'll give the caveat that India does have a hell of a lot of problems, too. Extremely inefficient government. Poor infrastructure. Lots of poverty.

Nonetheless, it is able to remain a whole nation.

**sexiest_hero**

The issue is people have found it's profitable to cause divisivness, media monopolies make sure that whole states only get one slant of the political facts. This one side is un-american, while vexing isn't new. We'll hold together. That said I think bipartinsanship won't ever happer...ever.

**JohnHwangDD**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Essentially, is the USA too big to be a happy Democracy?

What I want to discuss is whether or not you feel Democracy has it's limits, beyond which it becomes increasingly unworkable

First off, the USA isn't a "democracy" - it is a semi-representative Republic by and for the elite, both at its founding and as practiced today.

Secondly, I'm not all all convinced that American "democracy" works at all. But it's not the worst thing out there, and it muddles along adequately. At least for the short term (1 or 2 years).

From a conceptual standpoint, American democracy is good, but in as far as life goes on the ground, I don't see much difference here relative to anywhere else in the world. And that includes non-democratic places like China, which are terrible on paper, but very livable in practice in terms of government intrusiveness and opportunity.

In any case, American democracy is expensive. And quite frankly, considering how much gets spent, I don't see why those campaign dollars wouldn't simply be better spent buying votes directly. Nobody needs more TV ads, but everybody can use a free breakfast.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I believe Churchill made a typically witty remark about Democracy being the worst way to run a country, apart from all the others.

So, coming further away from just discussing the USA, do you think there will come a day when, due to size, a democracy will collapse under it's own weight? Sure, it happens time to time in less developed countries. But say a Western Country, Britain, France, Germany, USA, Australia, were to have a major boom in both population and diversity. Could it crumble?

**JohnHwangDD**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, I'll give the caveat that India does have a hell of a lot of problems, too. Extremely inefficient government. Poor infrastructure. Lots of poverty.

Nonetheless, it is able to remain a whole nation.

*After* a civil war that split the country permanently in twain, yes.

**Shrike78**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
From a conceptual standpoint, American democracy is good, but in as far as life goes on the ground, I don't see much difference here relative to anywhere else in the world. And that includes non-democratic places like China, which are terrible on paper, but very livable in practice in terms of government intrusiveness and opportunity.

I sure hope you aren't talking about standard of living...

**JohnHwangDD**

I look at Democracy as an efficiency question. Democracy is *extremely* inefficient, with a lot if inherent delay and backtracking. And it has horrible tendencies to pander to the populace with social entitlement programs that lead quickly to socialism / communism.

As modern (i.e. American) Democracy is barely 200 years old, and only successful in:
- the richest country in the world,
- with truly abundant national resources,
- trivially-secured borders,
- vast, unrestrained expansionist opportunity at inception
Given these conditions, it is hard *NOT* to have a successful outcome. So I don't know that it makes sense to pat oneself on the back in self-congratulatory / masturbatory celebration just yet.

As for modern countries crumbling, I think it will come as a natural consequence of an unchecked welfare state obliged to supply an ever-increasing amount of bread and circuses to decreasingly-productive population (due to the relative aging). That is, you cannot give benefits without limit beyond your production.

Worst of all, I fear this to happen during my lifetime.

**Orkeosaurus**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, I'll give the caveat that India does have a hell of a lot of problems, too. Extremely inefficient government. Poor infrastructure. Lots of poverty.

Nonetheless, it is able to remain a whole nation.

*After* a civil war that split the country permanently in twain, yes.

Eh? What war is that?

**JohnHwangDD**

Shrike78 wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
From a conceptual standpoint, American democracy is good, but in as far as life goes on the ground, I don't see much difference here relative to anywhere else in the world. And that includes non-democratic places like China, which are terrible on paper, but very livable in practice in terms of government intrusiveness and opportunity.

I sure hope you aren't talking about standard of living...

For the same number of people, in China vs. the US, you live better because there are a lot more very hungry people beneath you.

If you're top quintile in the US, then you're top 60 million. In China, with over 4x the population, top 60 million is top 5%.

Top 5% in China, you will live very well, as any expat.

**JohnHwangDD**

"civil war" was an obvious exaggeration, but I'm talking about the partition of India into India and Pakistan at the cost of roughly a half-million Indian lives.

**Orkeosaurus**

Ah, true, that's a bloody conflict.

Something like that in Sri Lanka too.

But like I said, India has quite a few problems, but considering the composition of the country that's no real surprise.

**Platuan4th**

Lordhat wrote:We have the technology to ensure that the popular vote is accurately counted, I don't understand why we don't use it.

Because, sad to say, the Popular Vote only really still exists to make the population at large think that what they say counts. Anyone who knows anything about the Electoral System can see how pointless the popular vote actually is since there is nothing(legally, that is) other than the fear of losing their position in future elections to really keep the Electoral College from voting however they damn well please. Note, I'm not saying any of them WILL do so, just that they are fully within the power to do so if they so wished.

Also, when only slightly more than half your population even votes(and in some states[Louisiana, for example], the proportion of voters is more than those who pay taxes, despite that you actually have to pay taxes to be able to legally vote), a popular vote is not truly effective as an electoral process.

**Orkeosaurus**

Eh. You could just as easily say:

Anyone who knows anything about the U.S. Congress can see how pointless the popular vote actually is since there is nothing (legally, that is) other than the fear of losing their position in future elections to really keep the Congressmen from voting however they damn well please.

**Platuan4th**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Eh. You could just as easily say:

Anyone who knows anything about the U.S. Congress can see how pointless the popular vote actually is since there is nothing (legally, that is) other than the fear of losing their position in future elections to really keep the Congressmen from voting however they damn well please.

Yes, but Congressmen DO that frequently, unlike anyone in the Electoral College.

Of course, I could be cynical and burned thanks to Louisiana politics...

**sebster**

Right now in the US one of the parties is going through a particularly crazy time. Probably starting with Gingrich (who wasn’t crazy, just really aggressive), the Republican party has steadily moved from conservative to nutbar. This culminated in Bush being power.

During the Bush in power period, it was kind of surprising to note how restrained the protest was. There was certainly a fair amount, but compared to how bad the presidency was...

Now the other side is in power, and the nutbars are really freaking out about it. Not because there is any kind of irreconcilable differences or any of that culture war garbage going on, but because they’re wingnuts and freaking out over nothing is what wingnuts do.

It isn’t that big of a deal. Political parties reform themselves, and they do it very quickly. Barring something very extreme happening, I expect the Republicans to continue their poor numbers come the 2010 and 2012 elections, and then get the idea that they should stop being crazy.

There’s nothing there that justifies any kind of radical change, let alone breaking the country into pieces.

**warpcrafter**

Countries and forms of government come and go. It is a function of cultural evolution and everyone thinks that whatever level they are at at a certain time is the highest state of their society's development, and at that time they are right. Trying to guess that will happen is pointless, as the recent economic disaster has proven. It is best to simply try to do the best that we can in the context of our own lives and not get too worked up about the big picture, because everybody is too self-involved to really see the whole of the big picture anyway. Now it's nap time for me. I would recommend a nap for all Dakkaites too, maybe we'll all delve into the collective unconscious and return with an epiphany that will fix everybody's problems.