Timeline for What electoral mechanisms might prevent the rise of a demagogue?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
47 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 5:22 | comment | added | goldilocks | ...This is a critical problem of democracy, which to twist Churchill a little, isn't a good idea because it is more likely to produce the best outcome, but because it is less like to produce the worst. Of course we elect demagogues; people yearn unconsciously for a strong father figure to venerate, lol and free them of responsibility. But that responsibility comes back anyway every four years kind of thing. Defangs dictators; they're rotating fads. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 5:22 | comment | added | goldilocks | I was being a bit ignorant. I actually did google before I wrote my first (deleted) comment, but it was for "Founders"; I lived for a while in the U.S. and didn't think I'd seen it quite that way before. Which still does seem a bit Freudian, veneration wise (a cigar is never just a cigar but "that hadn't occurred to me"). It's a good question though with good answers... | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 1:45 | comment | added | jez | @delicateLatticeworkFever I sort of see what you mean. But as an outsider I just tend to copy the conventions I see—in this case imprecisely, because the phrase is really "Founding Fathers" but either way, yes, a few clicks past a google search convince me that capitalizing is the convention. I suppose you could think of it as quasi-religious veneration (that does seem to happen) but not necessarily—until you mentioned it, that hadn't occurred to me any more than it does when someone talks about the Big Four accounting firms or the Treaty of Versailles. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 1:38 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2017 at 20:45 | comment | added | goldilocks | @jez I apologise; this is not at all an appropriate format for inserting stuff like that. It's just something that alarms me too, but part of what I see going on is people saying, "We play the game like this, in this box", then they are shocked by (what seems to me) completely predictable results, but still do not want to draw into question the nature of the game or the box. There's that definition of insanity (keep doing the same thing over and over each time expecting a different outcome). | |
| Jan 28, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | jez | @delicateLatticeworkFever Assumptions abound on this site. You're making a few. | |
| Jan 27, 2017 at 9:40 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | Re: "legislative experience"; I am not at all convinced that this is the best requirement. From what we see currently in the US-Mexico "fight", experience in economics could well be better, and given the growing role of technology, a good understanding of computers/new technologies would also be very valuable. And I am afraid this points an important flaw: the candidates cannot be all-knowing, so they should be humble enough to accept guidance from experts. | |
| Jan 27, 2017 at 8:08 | answer | added | Glen O | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 23:51 | comment | added | David Foerster | Not exactly an answer to this question but a highly relevant mechanism to mitigate the damage by any government, led by demagogues or not: after WWII the allied powers imposed a so called “streitbare Demokratie” on Germany and Austria that renders the suspension of and deep semantical changes to some parts of the constitution illegal (even by a unanimous ratification by all chambers of parliament), most importantly those that guarantee basic human rights, the division of power between democratic branches, and free elections. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 21:50 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 124 characters in body
|
| Jan 26, 2017 at 21:43 | comment | added | jpmc26 | "The most objective way to do this is to require legislative experience." This would give career politicians a decided advantage, no? That may or may not be desirable, depending on your opinions. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2312 characters in body
|
| Jan 26, 2017 at 15:02 | comment | added | Luaan | How do you tell a populist from someone who changes public opinion? How would you rate the candidates on a "populist scale" to see who is less populist? Any political power requires political support, which ultimately means some level of populism - it's a lot easier to use the term to deride one's political opponents than to actually give it significant meaning :) Even the most brutal autocrats were still necessarily populists - even outside of a democracy, you still need some popular support to rule. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 13:54 | comment | added | jez | @gerrit I agree—I removed both Donald-trump and united-states tags for this reason, but the US one got reinstated, presumably due to the focus on existing US mechanisms. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 12:54 | comment | added | user4012 | @gerrit - because the original question was a bit of a anti-Trump rant (not a bad one, compared to overall average recently). imho the tag can be safely edited out without losing anything. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 11:54 | answer | added | gerrit | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 | answer | added | gerrit | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 11:33 | comment | added | gerrit | Why is this question tagged united-states? The question is of general interest globally. | |
| S Jan 26, 2017 at 9:19 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Jan 26, 2017 at 9:19 | comment | added | Philipp♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 5:59 | answer | added | Loren Pechtel | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 2:51 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 26, 2017 at 0:53 | answer | added | R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 23:43 | answer | added | user11699 | timeline score: -3 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 23:29 | answer | added | Bill K | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 23:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/824397081456558080 | ||
| Jan 25, 2017 at 22:50 | answer | added | Peter M. - stands for Monica | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 20:01 | answer | added | George Soilis | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 19:23 | answer | added | user9790 | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 19:16 | answer | added | T.E.D. | timeline score: 34 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 18:01 | answer | added | dannyf | timeline score: 25 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:57 | history | edited | Philipp♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
This doesn't add to the question.
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:43 | answer | added | Joël | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 17:21 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 752 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 16:05 | answer | added | Joël | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:53 | answer | added | Philipp♦ | timeline score: 31 | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:49 | history | edited | Bregalad |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:46 | history | reopened | Philipp♦ | ||
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:44 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 624 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:35 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 149 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:24 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:49 | |||||
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:13 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 676 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 15:06 | history | edited | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 676 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 14:43 | history | closed |
Panda indigochild David says Reinstate Monica Bradley Wilson Drunk Cynic |
Opinion-based | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 14:23 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 25, 2017 at 14:43 | |||||
| Jan 25, 2017 at 14:21 | history | asked | jez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |