[sjn]

The point is democracy only works (in the interest of the people) when certain preconditions are met.

Some points I've personally noticed lacking from my own experiences of voting in the UK:

* the electorate is well informed, capable of critical thought (here the predominant narrative and manufactured consent comes into play)

* candidates represent the views of the voters (Party politics results in candidates representing the narratives of the parties, in a system with inherent structural bias towards the main political parties this results conformity, and over time they converge around the predominant narrative.)

* manifesto promises are kept (Are they ever?)

* media is relatively unbiased, or at least diverse, not owned and controlled billionaire oligarchs (Murdoch et al), or an offical state broadcaster that protects/repesents official state interests (BBC - since the Hutton Inquiry)

* the outcome electoral system should reflect the views of the people. (Is a government formed representing the votes of 10,703,654 out of 49,116,522 potential voters democratic?)

To be clear; I'm not opposed to Democracy, I just don't think many (if any) countries actually are really democratic.

[sjn]

Are the "Arab Spring" states better examples of functional democracy than the UK?

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', 'A')re the "Arab Spring" states better examples of functional democracy than the UK?

[Timo]

Pops, any rise in democracies correlating with the rise in communications technologies doesn't necessarily mean that those democracies are peaceful. For example, how was the Egyptian Spring coordinated? Twitter and other forms of social media. That was outside the venues of traditional print and TV and radio. What's the first thing that any new government seeks to control? Media. Controlling the message is key to maintaining control of the people. New communications technologies makes that goal much more difficult to attain, which is why political stability anywhere is becoming much more precarious. Us Americans are still glued into our TVs, and too gullible to believe those heads who talk at us and tell us what to believe. The rest of the world looks to us with envy, because of our lifestyle.

Stupidity in the extreme, with very dire consequences.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'F')or example, how was the Egyptian Spring coordinated? Twitter and other forms of social media.

[Ibon]

Have we ever considered that as we all become more addicted to digital means of communication this in itself creates a bias toward wanting to preserve the status quo so as not to lose this venue? To what extent is the world wide web dependent on globalization, global commerce and all of us wanting to keep the current paradigm vibrant and healthy. What would be the incentive for governments to keep a free internet intact if the commericial and economic benefits became marginal. Can't everyone find that secret place in themselves that wants the status quo and consumption to preserve enough of globalization so that we can all nestle every day in our chairs and couches enjoying this internet fix.

I can go to Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Panama, US and europe and although the content may vary I see this vast majority of humanity across all cultures and socio economic classes all plugging into the their digital devices each with their own tailored set of favorite sites that often only serve to mirror but not challenge their own points of view. This is what I mean by homogenization. This is insidious. But I couldn't do the project here in Panama without it. We are off the grid but have internet and no cell phone service. We even watch Netflix movies at night after walking the trails in an immense national park looking at howler monkeys. So how cool is that? It's awesome actually. But this truth does not blind me to the greater truth of what the former part of this post is saying.

Digitial communication globally reinforces the status quo more than challenging it. That is my premise.

[Pops]

No doubt, I like many aspects of modern life and of course hope we can keep only the parts I like and get rid of the rest. LOL

Wiki is amazing and blathering on here is quite enjoyable, in fact my entire way of life is also enabled by this tech. A good portion of the disconnect between energy intensity and global GDP if not rising worker "productivity" (read: obsolescence) is due to this tech. But remember, the web just celebrated it's 25th birthday this week.

This isn't BAU, this is the destructive technology of our and perhaps many generations, it's the killer app that can in many ways replace transport and already has in lots of areas.

I really don't think you can argue that we are more insular now than, say, 1950 regardless of how many "channels" are now narrowcast to whatever our particular taste.

The homogenization via communication you are talking about is actually (stick with me here, LOL) the new Tower of Babel. Really. The Christian god in the fable is pissed because with all the humans speaking one language after the Flood they were starting to do big things like build a stairway to heaven (the Tower). He didn't like the fact that he wasn't the center of attention. So like any despot he decided to crack down on communication and made everyone speak different languages and sent them to Siberia ( and everywhere else) to put the kibosh on any human inventiveness. It worked like a charm and humans were dirt poor for eons afterward.

So you see it as homogenization and I see it more as hybridization; mixing genes to increase vigor, develop new and better traits and in the end eliminate unnecessary competition.

How about that for a leap? LOL

.

[Timo]

Net neutrality is about to become a thing of the past. Those who can pay for faster service will do so in order to control a larger segment of the messages being relayed over the intertubes. Those smaller players who can't afford such luxuries, aka equal treatment over the web, will be held back, thus reducing their abilities to speak at the same levels as those with greater control. Yes, I DO want the status quo of net neutrality to continue, but Netflix just broke that paradigm by paying Comcast for faster streaming service, meaning that everybody else is at a competitive disadvantage unless they also pay up for equal service. Money buys votes, and now money also buys free speech. Of course we all know money buys control of everyone else's ability to do much of anything. That's why there have been revolutions throughout civilized history. The narratives are hardening with increased external consequences.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'N')et neutrality is about to become a thing of the past. Those who can pay for faster service will do so in order to control a larger segment of the messages being relayed over the intertubes.

[sjn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'N')et neutrality is about to become a thing of the past. Those who can pay for faster service will do so in order to control a larger segment of the messages being relayed over the intertubes.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', ' ')So like any despot he decided to crack down on communication and made everyone speak different languages and sent them to Siberia ( and everywhere else) to put the kibosh on any human inventiveness. It worked like a charm and humans were dirt poor for eons afterward.

So you see it as homogenization and I see it more as hybridization; mixing genes to increase vigor, develop new and better traits and in the end eliminate unnecessary competition.

How about that for a leap? LOL

.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'T')oday the mainstream media in TV and Radio is about 85% Democrat viewpoint with 10% Republican and 5% Libertarian. If you survey the population the break down is more like 45% Democrat, 40% Republican and 15% Libertarian.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'T')oday the mainstream media in TV and Radio is about 85% Democrat viewpoint with 10% Republican and 5% Libertarian. If you survey the population the break down is more like 45% Democrat, 40% Republican and 15% Libertarian.

[Timo]

Every year is an election year for some office. American's for Propserity has poured millions of dollars at the state levels getting the Tea Party elected to control state legislatures. They've even tried to influence the outcomes of local council elections. They are after control at every policitcal level, and have a very large voice in every level of media. Progressive are more progressive with netroots campaigning. Conservatives still rely more on the traditional media outlets, and that's not limited only to the major TV networks. That also extends to local and regional papers and radio stations. Conservatives are also much more motivated to feed at their traditional info teat than are progressives. Negative emotions and animosity motivate more than mere frustrations or trying to get by. When you see your beloved status quo changing in ways you do not approve, that fuels anger and irrational behaviour, which heavily influences the narratives you choose to listen to, which gives those with control of those narratives more power to influence the actions taken by those who feed off that narrative. Anger fuels anger, and that narrative is hardening at both ends of the spectrum, amplifying the consequences of everyone's actions.

[Ibon]

That hardening of narratives at it source is fear and frustration. That is a potent mix that can be masterfully spun in ways to manipulate the electorate. Demonizing those in the opposition. But all of this has to play out in the field of reality where external consequences don't have party affiliation. This is a common denominator that hits across the political spectrum amongst those becoming increasingly disenfranchised.

The catalyst of consequences should be strong enough to break the polarity one would think. This will be an epic struggle between those who try to control the narrative and those being lead recognizing more and more that their leaders are all fools.

We can see this happening. Don't under estimate the American electorate for being a bunch of sheeples in this regard, especially once external consequences undermine the narrative and expose that the emperor(s) not only have no clothes but that their genitals barely peek out from their fat bellies. This will be the rhetoric we will hear from an emerging populist leader who will soon emerge harnessing the frustration of the electorate who increasingly will recognize the incompetence in leadership.

A populist leader can be a catalyst feeding on the growing frustration. What are the odds a populist leader can be a benevolent wise Ghandi type or a budding Adolf? TIme will tell.

[Timo]

Ibon, i hope you're right, but we're now witnessing the removal of the right to vote from vast portions of the existing disenfranchised community, ie, lower income, older, and darker-skinned Americans. I fear that not only are the narratives being controlled, but also the means to do anything about it in protest, like vote. The Founding Fathers were very protective of the "right" to vote. No women. No slaves. Only educated landowners. We're witnessing a regression is the past 200 years of progress in that arena. It's all about control. Local and state laws are changing to protect those who pay for that control. To be perfectly blunt, we're witnessing the commerrcialization of democracy. Control goes to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, when the masses lose control over their lives and their familes and their future, they resort to violent revolutions. That's the only means at their disposal. World-wide, we're seeing that happening right now.

[Subjectivist]

Even if the new populist leader is as peaceful a Muhatma Ghandi his successor will not be. Low energy societies are almost always very hierarchical in form with very strong resistance to advancement from anyone below unless the lower class do something spectacular for the upper.

If the current 1% are smart they will be finding ways to stay the upper class in the next version of our civilization. When William I conquered England in 1066 those locals who fully assissted him became the lesser nobility and their children married up into the new ruling class. Those who resisted were eliminated and their children who managed to survive either self exiled or became commoner merchant class members of society.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'U')nfortunately, when the masses lose control over their lives and their familes and their future, they resort to violent revolutions. That's the only means at their disposal. World-wide, we're seeing that happening right now.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', '
')If the current 1% are smart they will be finding ways to stay the upper class in the next version of our civilization. When William I conquered England in 1066 those locals who fully assissted him became the lesser nobility and their children married up into the new ruling class. Those who resisted were eliminated and their children who managed to survive either self exiled or became commoner merchant class members of society.

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')n the US we have such a long way to fall to come anywhere near to parity with the rest of the world. Such a challenge for a culture taught to feel entitled to have only the best.