Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Re. the pros and cons of a multi-party system with proportional representational vs a two-party, first-past-the-post, zero-sum system in which winner takes all.

We recently had an election in my state and, because of the complex Hare-Clark system of proportional representation, it took two weeks to get a final result. However, the overall outcome was more or less clear on the night of the election. The conservative government was returned but, again, without a majority in its own right. It has needed to do deals with minor parties/independents to ensure confidence and supply.

That means that the government will not be able to bulldoze it's conservative/right-wing legislative agenda through the parliament. The Greens and the minor parties/independents will demand modifications to legislation to take account of their own environmental and social concerns. Otherwise legislation won't pass. And that's good. That's what the people wanted.

The legislature consists of members from the left of the political spectrum, members from the right and those in between. The system of proportional representation works. And parliamentary democracy still works smoothly, (if a bit more slowly) despite the complexity of the make up of the parliament.

So, I would say that proportional representation takes the hard edges of what might otherwise be a government drunk on its own power. It means we avoid the extremes of the hard-right or the hard-left, but we still get good, effective government.

[Lagayascienza]

I read that in the USA,1% of people hold as much wealth as the bottom 90%. I'm wondering how others feel about this degree of inequality. Is it problematic? Is it good for a country? Or does it make no difference?

[LuckyR]

I read that in the USA,1% of people hold as much wealth as the bottom 90%. I'm wondering how others feel about this degree of inequality. Is it problematic? Is it good for a country? Or does it make no difference?

While true that comment is somewhat misleading. Basically the bottom 50% has almost no "wealth", since that's savings, not income. So actual wealth is owned approximately one third by the top 1%, about one third by the 2nd to 10th%ile,and about one third by the 11th to 50th%ile.

Yes it's problematic, though it's been worse, say in the 1930s. It got progressively better as income taxes were more aggressive until the Reagan tax cuts on the wealthy in the 1980s (remember trickle down economics?), and has gotten worse since then.

[Lagayascienza]

LuckyR, I'm wondering why you want to remove those with no wealth from the equation. If the bottom 50% have no wealth that does not mean they don't exist and that inequality is therefore less. If this is so then, in terms of inequality, the 1% and 90% figures remain very relevant. If such a level of inequality is not good for a country, then I hope the USA returns to the days when income tax was such that inequality was reduced to less than it is today.

[Lagayascienza]

I'm wondering whether, if democracy is in decline, inequality has had an effect on this decline?

[Mo_reese]

While true that comment is somewhat misleading. Basically the bottom 50% has almost no "wealth", since that's savings, not income. So actual wealth is owned approximately one third by the top 1%, about one third by the 2nd to 10th%ile,and about one third by the 11th to 50th%ile.

I agree with the above statement and believe it's more meaningful that the 10%-90% break down.

The U.S. has one of the highest levels of wealth inequality among developed countries and it's getting worse. Wealth is power so it makes sense that the powerful would change laws to make themselves wealthier. A recent Princeton study indicated that the US was an oligarchy and not a democracy or democratic republic. Their study indicated that a vast majority of Americans have no influence on national policy. Our elections are not a lot better than those in Russia. While we have two candidates running for president, both were chosen by the wealthy elite.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR, I'm wondering why you want to remove those with no wealth from the equation. If the bottom 50% have no wealth that does not mean they don't exist and that inequality is therefore less. If this is so then, in terms of inequality, the 1% and 90% figures remain very relevant. If such a level of inequality is not good for a country, then I hope the USA returns to the days when income tax was such that inequality was reduced to less than it is today.

Why? Accuracy and clarity. We both described the statistical reality, but I put it to you that my more detailed description provides more information.

I agree with your wish for a reversion to the previous strategy on income taxation, even though it might not be to my personal advantage.

[Pattern-chaser]

A recent Princeton study indicated that the US was an oligarchy and not a democracy or democratic republic. [...] While we have two candidates running for president, both were chosen by the wealthy elite.

A plutocracy (from Ancient Greek πλοῦτος (ploûtos) 'wealth', and κράτος (krátos) 'power') or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.

???

[Sy Borg]

It's the whole west, which tends to follow the US. Australia and Canada are listed amongst the ten most equitable countries. I can tell you that Australia is a long way from equality and, like other western nations, is becoming ever less equitable.

Africa and Latin America lead the world in inequality.

Personally, I think this ever growing inequality will eventually lead to a species split (cannot give a time frame). Homo machina - augmented by technology - will outclass H. sapiens the way we outclassed other apes.

Consider the situation many millennia ago when humans started to flourish and out-compete their simian peers. The relationship between humans and their peers would have been akin to Belgium's King Leopold in the Congo in the early 1900s. Total disregard and exploitation, worse than any dictatorship.

Nature is inherently harsh, which is why we humans try to "rise above" it with systems like democracy and concepts like morality. Alas, when we are under pressure we tend to revert to our animal nature.

[Lagayascienza]

I don't think we need to be under pressure to do that. It seems that we generally act according to our animal nature, regardless.

If we look at inequality, we might have expected to see some improvement as governance changed post Enlightenment. But we haven't. In the "democratic" West we saw a shift from one grossly inequitable system to another. We went from the Divine Right of kings + aristocracy to rule, to the right of a wealthy oligarchy to rule through elected parliaments.

Inequality decreased slightly in the mid 20thC but is again on the rise. A few democratic countries like Australia have amongst the worlds lowest inequality ratings (although, when you look at the figures, that's not saying much) while other democracies such India and Brazil have amongst the highest. Overall, nothing much has changed.

Seems we can never rise above our animal nature. Greed and the lust for power are perennial.

[Bakka Bhai]

As a citizen of India, I must say Democracy is the only legit system. Sure, monarchy and dictatorship is great but the only way you get free speech is through Democracy. And unfortunately, I have not been seeing the decline of democracy.

[Lagayascienza]

For those of us who have know only democracy, it's probably hard to imagine living under another system. Others seem to manage it though. China, for example. In an anonymous survey, ask 100 random people in the street in Shanghai or Beijing what they think of their system of government and I suspect something like 90% would say it's ok. Some might even add that democracy would be unsuitable for China. It would be hard to argue with them, especially when inequality in the "democratic" USA is worse than in China.

[Mo_reese]

While the discussion seems to be about how a democracy* measures up to other political systems. I believe that most, if not all here agree that a democratic* system is a better system.
I think it's clear that in the US we don't have a system that is at all democratic. We are failing in every factor necessary for democracy. The elections are not fair and free. In the Democratic Party the nomination is made by the DNC and not the people. Our representatives do not listen to their constituents but their major contributors. The two parties are running two of the most unpopular candidates run in our lifetime. The media is under control of a few corporations and they are not independent from the government. Almost 100% of US media helped the government propagandize the invasion and continued war in Iraq. The two parties are supposed to provide checks and balances. While they do argue of issues like abortion, they agree in what they call, bipartisanship on major issues like supporting the current extermination of Palestinians in Gaza. They also agree on giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy as well as subsidies to major corporations.

I see the system getting progressively worse without any ideas of how it can recover. The more power the wealthy gain, the easier it is for them to get more power.

* When I refer to democracy or democratic I mean a constitutionally controlled, democratic republic.

[LuckyR]

I don't think we need to be under pressure to do that. It seems that we generally act according to our animal nature, regardless.

If we look at inequality, we might have expected to see some improvement as governance changed post Enlightenment. But we haven't. In the "democratic" West we saw a shift from one grossly inequitable system to another. We went from the Divine Right of kings + aristocracy to rule, to the right of a wealthy oligarchy to rule through elected parliaments.

Inequality decreased slightly in the mid 20thC but is again on the rise. A few democratic countries like Australia have amongst the worlds lowest inequality ratings (although, when you look at the figures, that's not saying much) while other democracies such India and Brazil have amongst the highest. Overall, nothing much has changed.

Seems we can never rise above our animal nature. Greed and the lust for power are perennial.

The key to decreasing inequality is the rise of the merchant class (the middle class). Which is great for business since you have more potential customers. The death of the middle class in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy harkens back to preindustrial times.

[Mo_reese]

I believe that we've gone way beyond the tipping point of reducing inequality. We are watching the collapse of the capitalist system. As the rich gain more and more wealth away from the non-rich consumers the less there will be to glean. The capitalists will fight for those last few dollars in the lower classes. No more taxes for infrastructure. The richy-rich will have to pay for their own stadiums.