Why the current euroatlantic democracy is farce!?

Define what you mean by "euroatlantic". Also, explain what you mean by "elitist plutocracy".

The label "euroatlantic" refers to the western "democracies" of Europe and North America, derived from the historical affiliation of european neoplatonists to the atlantean and european mythos, maybe less used term but far more logical than the "western world", to which additionally can be added other adjuncts like euroatlantic determinism etc., also as term is used by the balkan countries for their eu-nato integration i.e. euroatlantic integration tho my emphasis is on the historical niche so would remind on the western neoplatonism as base for the current 'western' political order ...

... order where we can see continuation of wealthy ruling elites (i.e. clans) which directly or indirectly control the political decision making i.e. seemingly independently elected political leaders on west are following "their" agendas and not election promises and programs thus we get plutocrats and plutocracy!, plain example for this would be the establishment enterprise in usA [1][1] that follow specific agendas which were not selected by popular vote but delegated by some elites behind closed doors eg. Agenda21 [2][2][2]

Post Merge: 9 months ago

... hm, I've offered broader explanation about plutocracy but should had have used simple one [3][3][3] practically we are witnessing merger of political and scientific elitism [4][5]  i.e. now plutocracy and technocracy have upper hand above democracy usually manipulating the masses by propaganda means, and eventually to this can be added the military elites and their geopolitical agendas [6] more than less as such predetermined yet again by scientific buffs as extension arm to the western oligarchs which will never leave stratocracy to take the lead above "their" power share and agendas!, unless current modern empires wipe each other out and some military lab a.i. nested in some generals brain!?

... sorry for these digressions but it could help to answer why citizens democracy is just mirage or fable mids the "western" statism!, anyway this logic asks for chasing solutions how People would take the power back in their hands, for what Direct Participatory Democracy could be the tool, but that could hit stiff resistance and perfidious psyop so the current plutocratic reality would survive the day, or we can expect ww3 spin so further would be suspended the citizens rights and imposed plain instead like now covert authoritarianism, even I expect it could reach level of full blown western totalitarianism if masses reach up to mass citizen disobedience by Jin Sharp blueprint so the euroatlantic determinists would be forced on withdrawal with "their" wrong utopianism!

The problem is that most voters, the vast majority of them, do not know this. Knowing that they can vote for their favorite political candidate to represent them is enough to drive them to vote, as least for local/domestic matters. What happens geopolitically is outside the hands of most elected officials, as you pointed out.


It is not a mirage; votes do have consequences. For example, electing a mayor that proposes higher property taxes will actually work towards making it happen. However, what voters have less control of is how the politician will/can handle foreign affairs. Most voters are OK with that anyway, hence why they don't consult the public when making such decisions

International affects domestic politics and vice versa, so when some crucial decisions are made then logically citizens should be consulted by referendum if not else what in these interactive times could be achieved easily!, why that is not upgraded as Participatory Democracy obviously its due to the plutocratic nature of the current system that favors the interests of particular  elites, altho in same time in place is huge acting of democratic equality, but if blueprint is athenian or roman "democracy" from antiquity then we could say the current trends are compatible coz just the influential and wealthy citizens could vote (tho this is simplification of their "democratic" processes coz in various time there was different way of decision making in their systems) practically now the senate or the assemblies are more like roman altho acting athenian alike election [1][1] yet even in athenian agora not all were equal to vote like women or slaves [1] thus the question that arises is why "they" are acting an champions of democracy when defacto have plutocracy!?, and some more difficult process for explaining is how so its expected all the rest to follow democratic principles while "they" as ea-determinists are skewing enmasse the same!?, tho what is behavior noticeable in other areas under "their" control [2][2][2] but to be even worst now looks like that there is already inertia towards technocracy when even more openly will be rigged the current plutocratic reality but also suspended the right of the citizens to question anyhow "their" expertise and agendas, what waits just on the day for next global economic depression (coz whatever global catastrophic reasons political or natural), 1984 comes to mind!

Yes they do, but not immediately, especially in countries that are resource rich (Canada, USA, Russia). People living in a small town, for example, voting to elect a mayor usually only care about local issues. If joblessness is an issue due to foreign affairs (say due to high energy prices), but the mayor offers a solution to the problem, people will vote. Why should a mayor running for a city care to talk to about foreign affairs if he/she have no control over it anyway?

Those looking to be elected are usually driven by a genuine desire to serve their community, state, or country. They believe that by running for office, they can make a positive impact on society and contribute to the betterment of their constituents' lives. Serving as a representative provides a platform to shape and influence policy. By introducing and supporting legislation, they can on behalf of those that voted him/her in to office, address important issues that concern the people they represent. Why does this have to have sinister motives as you're implying?

Needless to say but I imply per'se plutocratic elitism in state politics, altho clannish emergence is not rare occurrence in local politics, simply the process of decision making how is now executed eg. in usA or eU by legalized corruption through the lobbying process defacto favors oligarchs and oligopols or whatever sinister force behind the scenes!, the citizen interests in the euroatlantic realm are low ranking if not inferior regards the chance to have true representation and/or give consent for important local or state issues, for what as I've mentioned referendums should be effective direct democratic tool that would be evoked quickly in these e-times coz the chance of biometric verification, but there are also other open gov. means that can help out in case of transparency and lesser chance for manipulation or misuse of the power by the elected representatives ...

Hm driving force and prime motives for politicians should be to be citizen servants but in reality mids the current "western" neoliberal capitalism what we see are servant of lobbying corruption and whatever elitism that have grip over the economy or military and geopolitics and/or particular needed social order by the very same elites that seek to stay in control as longer "they" can with aim even to upgrade "their" power share as rivaling factions among the euroatlantic determinists!. thus only effective way to be stopped "their" covert authoritarianism is opening of the system by eTOS environment ,,,

There are problems with holding referendums every time the country is in crisis. This is why we elect represents to do the bidding for the people. I am not saying referendums are bad, but organizing a nationwide referendum involves significant logistical challenges and is expenses. It requires setting up voting systems, educating the public on the issue at hand, and ensuring a fair and transparent process. These factors make it impractical to hold referendums frequently, particularly on non-essential matters. Also, it is easy to saw the vote when there are referendums. All you have to do is buy up all the commercial ads to persuade the older people into thinking one way over the other.

What is an "eTOS" environment you mentioned?

Such problems would be typical for the past century but in this one when exist means for online voting with 2fa or 3fa biometric verification exist [1] even various encryption + extra secured by offline voting terminal [2] thus now think if wanted or needed its way more easier to be organized regular referendums, the problem tho lies in the fear of the elites that with such Direct Participatory Democracy will have far harder job for selling "their" fog and stay hidden when "their" plutocrats mess up something big, when actually it will be harder for "them" to secure whatever wrong agenda "they" have!, tho hacking could be issue even then altho by repeated process eg. voting three different times in the day for same question by same voter to be extra secured the referendum process ...

eTOS is mine abbreviation for Electronic True Open Society [1][1][1][2][2] as practical interactive opening of the system so by constant dialog which now dont exist (or its spilled in agitprop mode through tv or vlogs) to be reached as wider as possible transparency and accountability but also right meritocratic evaluation of all experts politicians or citizens that are engaged in politics, and also like that consequently rewarded or downgraded for their achievements as servants of the citizens i.e. in such circumstances would be more factualy seen who is who among the engaged (read devoted and knowledgeable) altho this could be also skewed by a.i. bots [2] but if the intentions for such opening of the system are coz reaching greater democratic vibe then even debating a.i. bots could be beneficial as check&balance of the experts and their knowledge!, in a way it would be security measure against wrong future technocratic imposition by the elites when all concepts laws and agendas will need to be elaborated publicly and widely through debate so would be seen how who compiled what mids the system!, also it would be fast way for detecting lack of mechanism for implementation of some process or eventual need for upgrade or dismissal,

... in essence eTOS would be opening of the system by Public eForums, ideally institutional + ngo + party ~ eForums, but it could be started with mandatory ngo eforums as public leverage towards greater thematic and expert debate and transparency unburdened from cheap propaganda hype!, with hope that will be recognized by the rest and employed as practical O'Gov approach for system maintenance what eventually is here and there in some form seen as needed [3][3] but defacto eForum as eTool is the missing link for True Open Society ... probably for euroatlantic elites its better things to stay concealed and choked as they were coz many wrongness corruption and ideological fallacies that are regularly thrown under the rug could suddenly pop up and reexamined by mass factor of public compacted and archived expertise, yet either "they" will stop act democrats or "their" plutocracy will eat "them" alive once the system went in debacle mode coz whatever reason!, anyway this would be extra mean for restart also as eTOS vibe coz wider and effective engagement among all in politics altho if emf weapons are used in whatever next global war thing would be bit slower around the infrastructure, hm one pc unit per hood will do the job then

 

Post Merge: 9 months ago

... try not to become borgs tho ... What I find interesting is that as direct democracy vibe such eTOS will be beneficial for the elites themselves coz would easily spot which experts have effective will (if You like stamina) in particular field at particular time i.e. the system will be at full charge regards ideas and solutions for particular problems!, thus as elites eventually will have neatly lubricated intellectual force!, ideally citizens as society will have greater benefit from such e-vibe, and if not else with 24/7 expert debate frustrations will be exhausted in right manner by right means instead like now waiting to burst in street rioting and cushioned in commissions behind closed doors!, essentially many now willing to help but not tied to the administration citizens could and will help with their reasoning evaluations and proposals!

On the bad side like this will surface all the mediocrity that now resides in the system as rooted nepotistic tissue of "intelligence" and "effectiveness", what could have bitter taste around the societal perception in context of quality of administering the "western democracies", what eventually can fire back as apathy if things dont get better, altho by default whatever opening of some cancerous organism choked by pride  materialism or laziness will bring awareness for the needed therapy and potentially will for righteous change ahead!, for what foremost needs to be addressed corruption and lawlessness that think it could be achieved by another interesting tool of proposal for reporting crime [4][4] yeah who where to report elites in "their" misbehavior, hm what could be also leverage for blackmail, eventually like this making from "them" paranoid androids!

... somehow think  concentrated thematic debate like this on institutional party and ngo eforums will bring for sure various ideas worthy for exploring till reaching concept and project or law framework, but who where to stir such e-social-hype, logically smaller countries or in larger on local level, yet somehow everyone waits on some Bukele alike revolutionary on west what by all means could had have been Trump as opportunity yet ge was instantly swayed to follow "their" personality attack and implanting cult smash through the hijacked maga by right wing extremists actually controlled by "them"!, hm maybe now can be from help whatever independent presidential candidate or party by opening public party eforum for expert members to polish the electoral platform in front of all citizens and that would be also good start of showcase how effective etool are eforum ~ if and only if have clever moderation and less than more agitprop vibe mids whatever digressing!

Voting online!? That's ridiculous, would lead to so many problems involving scams and fraud. All voting should be done in-person, unless you're deployed in another country due to war. Even mail-in-voting shouldn't be allowed, let alone having people vote online for major issues.


Doesn't that sort of force people to spend more time online? People who work 8 to 12 hours a day could careless about the issues being presented on an online forum, don't you think? Also, what about the illiterate, who are new to the country and don't speak the native language well enough? Personally, I do not think this is a solution.

And from experience, people who expressive their opinions online usually try to sound smarter than they actually are. In real-life, they wouldn't stand a chance debating the real issues. Reason for this is because online interactions lack the physical presence and direct eye contact found in real-life situations. This absence of face-to-face interaction sometimes leads to a reduced sense of empathy and emotional connection with the target, making it easier for individuals to engage in hurtful behavior without directly witnessing the immediate impact on the victim. This is why it's easier to be a bully online than in real-life

If e-banking is not issue altho dont have biometric verification then e-voting should also be secure process, even more if it is additionally reinsured as I've propose with three time revote so would be evaded hack attacks, depending on what risks are exposed the states it could be arranged further measures eg. palmsecure etc. [1] finally if that process is regular then it could be evoked for the same question repeated referendums thus eventual risks will drop by large extent i.e. it would be hard whatever falsification skim to executed again and again!

About online debating, first on eforum there should be rules and moderation thus far less chance for wrong or derailed discussion, but also if on those institutional party and ngo eforums the membership is tied to the academic profession then the benefits will be unimaginable due to the nature of online debate unconstrained from place and mood for debating in person, plus if nicknames are mandatory definitely will be evaded biased debate or egotripping!, surely having chance 24/7 some question to be polished by various experts will speed up the narrowing of the choices of solutions and agreement upon their implementation monitoring and evaluation!

Its quite interesting why eforums are abandoned etool altho have most compact and effectively archived potential, hek its useful for any researcher to have dedicated e-community that will polish his work. good example would be JPF as alternative history researcher [2][2] altho his eforum lacks neat categorization of his books and topics but also has loosen moderation thus looks more like widened blog space, yet kudos for his effort to share extra dedicated space where anyone can debate his works online!, hm imagine every natural science project or study has eforum where researchers from all world will debate the findings or results and like that bringing more awareness about the possibilities or mistakes!, even better as compact knowhow will be from benefit to the future collogues as loud collaboration of debate database!

Let's stay on topic here with the original intent of this thread. You asked (paraphrasing here), what's the point of having a democracy when our politicians, regardless who gets voted in, are limited to what they can do given the plurocratic agenda. I think all countries need representatives so that they don't personally have to do the work. Take for example a home owner who wants to make changes to their home. Most homeowners would much rather hire a handyman than to do the work themselves. The same applies with representatives that are elected democratically via votes. We vote in people that we see are capable of keeping the law of the land in check because we are too busy to do it ourselves. Your premise is that they don't have a lot of influence due to plutocrats running the show. I don't think plutocrats care so much about local matters than we're giving them credit for.

Such oversimplification cant excuse the fallacy that the political representatives of the citizens are actually becoming representatives of those enough powerful to lobby out own interests above the majorities will ~ again [1][1] eg. immigration favors the corporative need for exploitation but that has negative impact on the minimum wage lever in usA or eU aside that even the basic cultural rights of the immigrants are not respected so deceitful spin about the openhearted intentions [2][2][2] in essence political representatives didnt obtain consent for anything but collected votes by propaganda promises and in the end usually delivering completely different policies, what gives mirage of democracy an farce an circus an illusion of rightful representation thus at best wrong bragging how the euroatlantic realm is champion of democracy while at worst by trickery peddling the masses towards plutocratic elitist agendas without any consent by the voters eg. about euroatlantic globalization i.e. the path towards merging of usA eU and Canada what is done in plain site but without any wide debate or sincere weighing of the pros and cons [3]

Do you think elected officials have no influence or power at all? If not, what in your opinion are they capable of where they are not controlled by those higher up in the hierarchy?