Is true democracy in the US is dead?

It makes sense. Remember when Obama posted on that tracking site the jobs he created in districts that don't exist. I'm guessing they probably are located in those other states. Its probably populated with all the dead people that voted for him. Its his fairy land run by Barney Frank.

So in your situation where a population deliberates the multiple options and come to the point of choosing an option, how would the vote be conducted and what would be the requirement an option being selected?

You don't need to necessarily vote. The process is similar to a group meeting at work where you're making a decision by consensus.

Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy#Cohen.27s_outline)

Its his fairy land run by Barney Frank.

:lol:

You don't need to necessarily vote. The process is similar to a group meeting at work where you're making a decision by consensus.



Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy#Cohen.27s_outline)

Well, let me just add a note from your quote in the link:
Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule) is used.

So, when rational people debate, and cannot achieve a consensus or "something near enough" (i like that term) then it reverts to 50%+1. Since many important topics are likely not resolvable even between rationally motivated entities, your deliberative democracy falls back to 50%+1.

But beyond that, I believe we were discussing practical definitions of democracy, not a theoretical - and imo unattainable - democracy. Unlike your local vulcan council, humans have frailties, foibles, and emotional irrationalities that can bring down the best deliberative body, regardless of what country it is located in.

It would however be interesting to see how often 300million people could come to a consensus, or something "near enough".

That sounds similar to the theories of one my favorite political theorists. Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Well, let me just add a note from your quote in the link:


So, when rational people debate, and cannot achieve a consensus or "something near enough" (i like that term) then it reverts to 50%+1. Since many important topics are likely not resolvable even between rationally motivated entities, your deliberative democracy falls back to 50%+1.

But beyond that, I believe we were discussing practical definitions of democracy, not a theoretical - and imo unattainable - democracy. Unlike your local vulcan council, humans have frailties, foibles, and emotional irrationalities that can bring down the best deliberative body, regardless of what country it is located in.

It would however be interesting to see how often 300million people could come to a consensus, or something "near enough".

When I was president of a local Jaycees club my board was 100% women. They could not agree on anything. Hell they would debate for an hour on what color cups to use for beer at our annual oyster roast. I'd just crack open a beer and watch them go at it for a sometime then call for a vote. Then start with a new topic and open another beer. I decide just to use that 50% +1 rule or we would have never agreed on anything.

The club I'm in now we loose interest after 10min so we can agree on stuff pretty quick.

When I was president of a local Jaycees club my board was 100% women. They could not agree on anything. Hell they would debate for an hour on what color cups to use for beer at our annual oyster roast. I'd just crack open a beer and watch them go at it for a sometime then call for a vote. Then start with a new topic and open another beer. I decide just to use that 50% +1 rule or we would have never agreed on anything.

The club I'm in now we loose interest after 10min so we can agree on stuff pretty quick.

Well to be fair, Saden's deliberative democracy does need rational actors. LOL

Well, let me just add a note from your quote in the link:


So, when rational people debate, and cannot achieve a consensus or "something near enough" (i like that term) then it reverts to 50%+1. Since many important topics are likely not resolvable even between rationally motivated entities, your deliberative democracy falls back to 50%+1.

But beyond that, I believe we were discussing practical definitions of democracy, not a theoretical - and imo unattainable - democracy. Unlike your local vulcan council, humans have frailties, foibles, and emotional irrationalities that can bring down the best deliberative body, regardless of what country it is located in.

It would however be interesting to see how often 300million people could come to a consensus, or something "near enough".

This country and its people lack sufficient altruism required for a true democracy

Majority rule is a last resort fail-safe. I don't believe deliberative democracy is unattainable, it simply requires the willingness of individuals to give in order to get. If the U.S. representative democracy is possible anything is possible as long as there are willing individuals.

In my office we use

In my office we use

Sadly it appears from the sudden end to that post that Saden has fallen victim to the Roman political model.

Et Tu Brutus.......

Sadly it appears from the sudden end to that post that Saden has fallen victim to the Roman political model.

Et Tu Brutus.......

I got distracted...so many battle fronts going on at the same time.

In my office we use it and even though we have diverse opinions we are unified in our objective...find the best solution that's satisfactory to a problem.


Side note...it just so happens we currently have two bugs opened by two different clients...the solution to one bug introduces the other bug and vise versa. The question is how do you address both bugs and still satisfy all clients?