posted on November 7, 2003 12:44:35 PM new
Is the United States a Democracy?
If so, is it a true Democracy?
I don't expect a lot of answers, this is triggered by another thread, in which a poster inferred that 'Germany, in a sign of Democracy in action' I paraphrased that, it is not a direct quote, please NOTE that
So gotta go out for a bit.
I'd like to know your thoughts, or your answers on this question.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 7, 2003 01:56:42 PM new
In agreement with davebraun, this is a democratic republic, not a true democracy. If it were, you-know-who would not be president.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 7, 2003 04:29:20 PM newYou-know-who IS President, and still would be Pres. in a TRUE democracy, because he won the ELECTION with VOTES. Period.
You are mistaken, if this were a democracy, President Bush would still be losing money for investors somewhere.
here's the link to the Federal Register's vote count first:
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 7, 2003 04:33:33 PM new
In a true democracy, the half million more votes that Gore received would have counted for something. In our system, Bush is president by virtue of 5 proxy votes and judicial fiat.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 7, 2003 05:19:28 PM new
Near:
You'll notice that nobody mentioned chads, or florida, or anything about dubious votes but you. So the answer to your question "how long did it take to bring up Florida?" is...it took until you brought it up. I merely posted you the Federal vote record, and stated my opinion that in a true democracy, one in which the direct will of the people is used to elect officials, President Bush would have lost. This isn't a democracy, and as a result, the President is the President by virtue of judicial decree and an arcane and antiquated system proxy votes, rather than by virtue of public opinion. I stand by my statement.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
[ edited by profe51 on Nov 7, 2003 05:21 PM ]
posted on November 7, 2003 05:25:39 PM new
Which highlight the true nature of the system. The electoral college is an archaic institution which was designed to enhance the position of some of the smaller less populous states. It circumnavigates the will of the people.
The curious circumstances surrounding the 2000 vote highlight the inherent weakness of our system. It seems in the context of this discussion you wish to ignore simple facts. In that case I apologize for taking up your time with reality. You may resume your right wing fantasy diatribe.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 7, 2003 05:34:26 PM new
profe, my reading is worsening of late, age and all
You 'answered' my question this way:
[i]In agreement with davebraun, this is a democratic republic, not a true democracy. If it were, you-know-who would not be president.
(the bolding is mine there)
So you brought up the President, and how in a true democracy, he would not be.
But if the courts had ruled to allow recounting (after they had been recounting) and let it go on... and say OK, Gore wins, after an upteenth time of recounting, then the electoral college would have worked fine?
Then there would be no problems?
Gimme a break!
Yes I've seen the fact sheet.
What do I think about the electoral college?
I don't know, was it not started to give those states that were less populated, more 'say' in the whole election process?
It may be archaic, but I guess you will say that the Constitution is also?
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 7, 2003 05:50:55 PM new
The system works well the way it is. IMO, if we went to the popular vote, CA, NY and maybe FL would be making all the decisions for the rest of the country.
This way....candidates must try to please us all and not just the most populas states.
posted on November 7, 2003 06:08:55 PM new
Exactly Linda. If it were only the popular vote, the candidates would go only to those places to campaign. That would sure turn off the small midwest states.
But back to my original question, I really didn't want to get into the you know who president
If we were a true democracy, there would be 'mob rule'. (not a term that I'm using in any negative way here)
Well, yeah, it would kinda go along with the popular vote... (thinking out loud here)
The populace would be voting on every single thing whereas the way a Republic is, we elect people (Congress) to represent us.
If we did have 'mob rule' everything from the Constitution could get totally erased.
Where everyone is given the opportunity to participate in making all policy decisions (which sounds good and well when you start to look at it that way) but it would be cumbersome and inefficient. No decisions would ever be reached.
(or so goes the theory)
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 7, 2003 07:42:01 PM new
If mob rule IE Democracy is so terrible then why do we long for it so for those living in the middle east? Shouldn't we be trying to make them into Republics??
posted on November 7, 2003 07:51:46 PM new
um, ok, I'll try
Democracy is a 'generic' term.
We try and have a Democratic Republic , and yes, the media, people, all say 'a Democratic society' or 'A Democratic Government'.
With the middle east peoples in agreement, then it would be based on a Republic, a body of governing peoples (like Congress, I don't think they will call it that) representing the population, by election
We base our own gov't on the Roman gov't, as everyone knows that is where the term 'Senator' comes from, as it was a body of people, 'for the people'. Similiar to what we have to now
I hope I said that right
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 7, 2003 08:30:55 PM new
Near: No, I don't think that if the recount had been allowed, and all the contested votes counted, that the electoral system would have "worked fine", regardless of the outcome of the count. That wasn't my point, and I certainly didn't say or even allude to that. The Federal record is the Federal record. Gore won the popular vote according to it. He lost the electoral vote, by 5 votes. My entire point is, we do not live in a true democracy. The proof of that is that someone other than the people's choice is now president.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 7, 2003 08:42:25 PM new
profe - If you might know. How many times in our national elections has this happened since the early 1800's.??? [Where a president won the popular vote but not the electorial votes]
I think this is only the second time it's happened in my life time. [And no...I wasn't born in the 1800's
posted on November 7, 2003 08:47:03 PM new
And Bunz....I'd like to add to NTS's statement by saying that Iraq is only about the size of CA. A lot different that the area of our whole country, where values are much different in one region to another. [liberal CA vs. Bible Belt,say]
If we held elections by popular vote the people in the midwest, south, wouldn't have their voices heard, politically.
posted on November 7, 2003 09:03:54 PM new
I do know how big Iraq is.
The way our elections work now not all people are represented anyway. There are people in the midwest that voted for Gore..not every person in every state that carried Bush voted for him any more than every person in every state that carried Gore voted for him. You can say that the smaller states would not be represented but they would be...they would be by virtue of each and every person single vote counting for something. I believe part of the reason so few vote anymore has a lot to do with feeling like your one vote does not count.
Aren't people supposed to elect the leaders of the country ? We let the states do it.States elect their own leaders. We as individuals are supposed to elect the one we want to lead us as a nation and yes, the majority should rule.
A Democracy is not just a generic term.There are democracies and there are republics.
posted on November 7, 2003 09:11:27 PM new
Bunz - I believe part of the reason so few vote anymore has a lot to do with feeling like your one vote does not count. It's true fewer are voting, but I don't agree it's for that reason. There were a couple of initial changes that were made to how the electorial system worked...but I believe the last one was made in the 1800's.
You'd need 2/3 vote to change it to the popular vote, and if memory serves me [and it might not] but the last time we discussed this on these boards there have been approx. 16 times people tried to change it. It didn't pass.
posted on November 7, 2003 09:21:52 PM new
No, it isn't the only reason people don't vote but it surely is one reason they don't. I hear it frequently around here.
As for the other..well it's just a dream I have. I'd love to se the electoral college go away and the every vote counts system installed.
Got go go now Linda. I promise to come back and argue again soon. Take care. All religions are equally right
posted on November 7, 2003 09:39:45 PM new
Linda, I'm not sure, and too tired to dig for it now, but I don't think it's happened often. Twice might be right.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
this is a Republic.
