[WS:] parliamentary democracy aka proportional representation aka consensus democracy, which as Lijphart convincingly argued is better for divided societies http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:_Patterns_of_democracy
In other words, 'consensus democracy' is less likely to exhibit the main problem of the US model, which is the tyranny of the majority as deTocqueville aptly observed.
Of course, this is purely speculative as no real change is possible here. Congressional shysters and their business cronies built a very efficient patronage racket here, a goose that lays them golden eggs, and they will not allow to kill it.
But more importantly, consensus democracy is not immune to right wing demagoguery, so additional measures limit the so called free speech would have to be implemented. I would have no problems with regulators imposing heavy fines and revoking broadcasting/publishing licenses for hate speech loosely defined and holding broadcasters liable for damages produced by their smear campaigns. Basically, one should be able to sue - or better yet, prosecute - for defamation and prevail only by showing that any publicly uttered message about him/her is derogatory and the broadcaster fails to demonstrate that every word of that message is true.
Wojtek
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [WS:] I am not quite sure where your argument is heading. Are you
> trying
> > to sell me the old trite leftist canard of the US as "the oppressed
> > people?"
> >
>
> I certainly do not believe such a preposterous thing.
>
> >
> > Democracy is not a set of abstract principles but the working of actual
> > political institutions. the US did not inherit the ruling class from
> > Europe, it created it sown by democratic means. In fact, every single
> ugly
> > aspect of US politics from slavery, to racism, to imperialism to
> capitalism
> > and anti-labor laws were a product of democracy - in the deTocquevillean
> > sense - as the tyranny of the majority.
> >
>
> Every single aspect of US politics was a product of the working of actual
> political institutions, yes.
>
> >
> > The fact that Roosevelt and a bunch of other progressive reformers were
> > democratically elected is irrelevant, because it is impossible in this
> > country to get into the office in any other way.
>
>
> Well, yes, so I don't see what the citation of elections with bad
> outcomes proves.
>
>
> > What matters is what one
> > does after one gets into the office - you either pander to popular
> > prejudices (racism, homophobia, anti-communism and general bigotry) as
> most
> > so called elected representatives do, or you are trying to institute
> some
> > reforms despite mob prejudices (as a few progressives did.)
> >
>
> Define "mob." How are anti-racists, homophiles, communists not mobs?
> Certainly their opponents have not refrained from characterizing them as
> such.
>
> >
> >
> > Do not get me wrong - I am not against the idea of democracy. I am
> > against
> > the particular instituional arrangement of democracy as it exists in the
> > US. In the same way, many people were not against the idea of socialism,
> > but they opposed its instituional arrangement in the x-USSR.
>
>
>
> What set of institutional structures would you prefer?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>