The USA is the only Democratic Country in the World. Discuss.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by OzzyKP



Must you resort to attacks? While my initial comments were inflamatory I believe I provided a good basis, now lets hope you have a few intelligent things to say in opposition.

The rebuttals have already been made. Now defend yourself. How many times have you left the US, and where have you been, if so?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


The rebuttals have already been made. Now defend yourself. How many times have you left the US, and where have you been, if so?

I have been to France, Italy, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Canada (if that counts, hehe) Mexico, the Bahamas, and the UK very briefly.

[Provost Harrison]

I bet you went down a storm there calling their countries 'dictatorships'. Did they boo you out?

[Victor Galis]

"This system has in place an absolute law which is contained in the Constitution."

-Which is a dictatorship by a piece of paper.

"Also our system has the incredibly important system of checks and balances and seppertion of powers. These are integral to the stability of our system and I am amazed more countries don't have it."

-It's absolutely integral to slowing down the decisionmaking system to a crawl.

"Not only is the UK autocratic because it only has one body which makes decisions, that one body isn't very democratic. The executive in this system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair in this case. He is in charge of enforcing the law and in most cases he and his cabinet proposes most of the law as well. Between 85% and 97% of what the Prime Minister wants the Prime Minister gets. This my friends is nearly a dictatorship. Why is this?"


-But it's an elected one. Elected directly by the people. George Bush wasn't elected by the people.

"It is because of the pluarlist (is that right?) system in the UK. Rather than voters voting for an individual candidate they vote for a political party. So the party apperatus decides who gets to be the canidates, and surprise surprize the party picks those people who are the most likely to follow the directions of the party leadership and least likely to think and vote independently."

-It also ensures that third and fourth and etc. parties can get some people elected, unlike in the US.

"Now lets say there is an election and Labour gets 51% of the vote (if that would happen), well until the next election the Labour party has a dictatorship over the country. 51% of the MPs are in Labour, and all those MPs were hand picked because they are least likely to disagree with the party leader. Who is the party leader? Well its Tony Blair. (I sure hope i didn't mix up party names) Who does the House of Commons pick for Prime Minister? Well with 51% of the vote, the Labour party picks Tony Blair. So if Tony Blair decides he wants to propose law A, well the very loyal 51% of the parliment votes to approve law A."

-Now, let's suppose that 51% of voting Americans vote for a Democrat. It is still entirely possible that both houses of congress would end up controlled by a Republican. That's worse than having an elected dictator.

"Can you imagine 97% of every single piece of legislation proposed by George W. Bush becoming law? That'd be insane!"

-Someone would finally get around to assassinating him.

"Remember folks, democracy is something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

-Bad analogy. The sheep always outnumber the wolves.


Look at relection rates for the House and Senate. In the past couple of years, over 90% of candidates running for reelection won. That's very close to an aristocracy I would say. There are only two parties, so this country is run by a small group of men who run these parties.

Now, look at the last election: Bush got fewer votes than Gore, yet became president. Is that democratic?

[VJ]

"True Democracy" is mob-rule, which is dangerous and harmful to the people. This is part of the point I was making, sure the US is less of a "true democracy" than other countries, and that is precisely the reason why our system is more stable and democratic and respectful of the wishes of the people.

Brief note : It would be dangerous in the US, where you're education system
has ensured that this mob (ordinary citizen, anyone?) is completely stupid.
The fact that you confess this and then speak for dictatorship,
rather than suggest a education reform, makes me worry.

[Ned]

I think most here assume that the more "democratic" the government, the better. In this respect, Athens is the prototype of a direct democracy. The UK is the prototype of a representative democracy. By definintion, it is assumed, they are superior forms of government than a constitutional republic such as the U.S. because they are more "democratic."

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution, however, made a deliberate effort to establish a government of checks and balances, with multiple institutions representing different interests that had co-equal rights, and a Supreme Court that prevented any one of them from assuming ultimate power.

They did this because it was clear from their experience with England that with the entire power in one body, unchecked, that that body was, in effect, a tryanny, a one party dictatorship.

It is not surprising that we have tyrannies all over the world that are based on one party rule. Once in power, these tyrannies can and often do stay in power by corruption, lies, suppression of opposing parties, the lack of secret ballot and other forms of rigging elections. Liberty is not secured by an unchecked, democratically-elected, all-powerful legislature.

The U.S. form of government is essential, IMHO, to maintain and preserve liberty, civil rights, freedom of speech and religion, and the security of ownership of property.

Ned

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Asher
Somebody seems to have forgotten about Canada as usual.

america jr.

[Illyrien]

Ozzy
Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy. As you might quess from that we have a constitution just like the US.
We have a parlament with 179 seats. And lots of parties, what ever coalition of parties can amass 90+ votes form the government for 4 years.

Please tell me how this is un-democratic? Atleast we have more then 2 parties.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Illyrien
Ozzy
Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy. As you might quess from that we have a constitution just like the US.
We have a parlament with 179 seats. And lots of parties, what ever coalition of parties can amass 90+ votes form the government for 4 years.

Please tell me how this is un-democratic? Atleast we have more then 2 parties.

Most so-called "Constitutional Monarchies" are phonies. They all can be abolished by the legislature. The legislature is the one and only power.

[Stefu]

Hehehe, well I guess my title did its job. Obviously my title wasn't a calm plantive statement about world democracies. It was a purely inflamatory statement, and it got you all worked up and here. Which was the point.

In other words, it's a troll, and you admit it.

Surely I know that the US could be more accurately described as a Constitutional Republic, but I would argue that the US model is more democratic than any "true democracies".

Yaargh. "US model is more democratic than any "true democracies"" is not the same as "The USA is the only Democratic Country in the World." Let me spell it out for you: True. Democracies. As. You. Describe. Do. Not. Exist. Most. Countries. Have. Figured. Out. Need. For. Checks. And. Balances. All. By. Themselves. US. Is. Not. I. Repeat. Not. The. Only. One. Fancy. That.

A demagouge like a Hitler could easily rise again in a parlimentary country like the UK.

'Again'?

Anyway, I await with baited breath how many countries you can tell us where 51% of people could vote for nation to become dictatorship overnight and that's that.

If we had a straight popular election then no one would ever give a damn about South Dakota for example.

Considering that South Dakota votes Republican with 99% likelihood and if it happened to vote Democratic election would be Democratic landslide in such epic proportions it wouldn't matter either way anyhow, I'd say no-one will ever give damn about South Dakota anyhow.

That's what I find odd in these 'Electoral college is good for small states' arguments. Most small states (Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Idaho) are locks for either party, and therefore neither party cares about them. Electoral college is good for small number of swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania) control of which decides the election.

All this means is that Al Gore's appeal was slightly more consentrated into fewer areas, while Bush's appeal was spread slightly more evenly across the country. I based on this view and this rationale, Bush is indeed the candidate who represents the country best and should have won.

Ie. "Gotta find some rationale for candidate with less votes winning'.

American conservatives (and conservatives all around world) seem to think that city folks are somehow lesser than country folks and thus should have their vote count for less.

"Remember folks, democracy is something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Yes. Instrumental part of democracy is Wolves Inc. donating billion or so to candidate promising (at least after the donation!) to deregulate the sheep industry to allow for tasty wolfie snacks.

[OzzyKP]

Considering that South Dakota votes Republican with 99% likelihood and if it happened to vote Democratic election would be Democratic landslide in such epic proportions it wouldn't matter either way anyhow, I'd say no-one will ever give damn about South Dakota anyhow.

Actually the most powerful Democrat in the country, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is from South Dakota.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Quote:

Considering that South Dakota votes Republican with 99% likelihood and if it happened to vote Democratic election would be Democratic landslide in such epic proportions it wouldn't matter either way anyhow, I'd say no-one will ever give damn about South Dakota anyhow.

Actually the most powerful Democrat in the country, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is from South Dakota.

you call him "The most powerful democrat" i call him "The great obstructor"

[Boris Godunov]

Of course it leads to problems of a split popular vote and electoral vote like we saw in 2000. All this means is that Al Gore's appeal was slightly more consentrated into fewer areas, while Bush's appeal was spread slightly more evenly across the country. I based on this view and this rationale, Bush is indeed the candidate who represents the country best and should have won.

What?!

You're comparing the number of votes of Gore to the AMOUNT OF LAND for Bush. Land doesn't vote, nor should it. It's the votes of people that should matter. And one person's vote should matter just as much as the next. But the electoral system means the vote of Joe Schmoe in S. Dakota is worth a lot more than mine here in N.Y. How on earth is that Democratic?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by UberKruX


you call him "The most powerful democrat" i call him "The great obstructor"

I don't think anyone was more obstructionist than Bob Dole or Trent Lott. Daschle will have a waaaaaays to go to get that bad.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


What?!

You're comparing the number of votes of Gore to the AMOUNT OF LAND for Bush. Land doesn't vote, nor should it. It's the votes of people that should matter. And one person's vote should matter just as much as the next. But the electoral system means the vote of Joe Schmoe in S. Dakota is worth a lot more than mine here in N.Y. How on earth is that Democratic?

Not, land, states.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But the electoral system means the vote of Joe Schmoe in S. Dakota is worth a lot more than mine here in N.Y. How on earth is that Democratic?

It isn't Democratic. However, it is democratic.

Anyway, how does making your vote more valuable than mine (living in MS) as youy propose make it more democratic?

[Seneca]

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but the exact same thing was posted a year or two ago - either this is cut-and-paste from some freeper-type website, or the same guy is trying his luck again...

[Stefu]

Actually the most powerful Democrat in the country, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is from South Dakota.

I was talking about presidential elections, you big silly.

Anyway, how does making your vote more valuable than mine (living in MS) as youy propose make it more democratic?

How does it make his vote worth more than yours?

[Urban Ranger]

Because of the electoral college.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What?!

You're comparing the number of votes of Gore to the AMOUNT OF LAND for Bush. Land doesn't vote, nor should it. It's the votes of people that should matter. And one person's vote should matter just as much as the next. But the electoral system means the vote of Joe Schmoe in S. Dakota is worth a lot more than mine here in N.Y. How on earth is that Democratic?

I'll expand upon Ned's brief statement. The US is a Federal system. We aren't one unified country like France, we are more like the EU. A collection of initially independent states. Let me make the analogy with the EU. If it were a straight popular vote (not that that is terrible, i'm just presenting the other side) then small states like Beguim and Luxumberg and the Netherlands would get get ignored. National politiciatans would only focus on big areas like Germany, France, etc.

And yes, one person one vote is important, but when dealing with a Federation like the US or the EU it is key to respect each state involved. Most states (with good reason) fear being swept away into some powerful centralized government, the Electoral College is at least one way of maintaining a degree of states rights. The EU will go through all this drama when the EU gov't starts taking power away from the member states.

[Sandman]

small states like Beguim and Luxumberg and the Netherlands would get get ignored

What makes you think that there is a Belgian or Dutch 'voice'?

[Victor Galis]

"They all can be abolished by the legislature. The legislature is the one and only power."

-This is actually more democratic than having a non-directly elected President and an Appointed Supreme Court.

"Not, land, states."

-What happened to the concept of one man, one vote?

"I'll expand upon Ned's brief statement. The US is a Federal system. We aren't one unified country like France, we are more like the EU. A collection of initially independent states. Let me make the analogy with the EU. If it were a straight popular vote (not that that is terrible, i'm just presenting the other side) then small states like Beguim and Luxumberg and the Netherlands would get get ignored. National politiciatans would only focus on big areas like Germany, France, etc."

-So what you're saying is that it's ok to disenfranchise massive swaths of the population as long as it's for a good cause

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Stefu
How does it make his vote worth more than yours?

New York's population is about 7 times greater than that of my home state of Mississippi. Without somesort of counterbalance to the power of the large states, the small states would have effectively no voice in Presidential elections.

[Ned]

The United States Constitution was originally stuctured to have three independent, co-equal branches, but with the Supreme Court really more equal than the others. The Legislature was composed of two branches: a directly elected House of Representative with each representative representing roughly the same population; and a Senate composed of two Senators from each state, appointed by their legislatures. The president was elected by electors appointed by each state in a manner determined by each state's legislature. Each state was accorded a number of electors equal to the total number of senators and representatives.

In the beginning, the state legislatures actually appointed electors without a popular vote. Later, some legislatures appointed electors according to a popular vote. Some alowed a state-wide election for the two "senate" votes, with the other electors elected by congressional disctrict. At times, states would apportion the number of electors according to the popular vote. But today, almost all states award the whole slate of electors, as did Florida, to the winner of the state's popular vote, even it is by only one vote.

One can see an evolution here from a system dominated by state legislatures to one dominated by a popular vote; but each state still tries to maximize its own impact by according all of its electors to the candiate that wins the vote in the state.

The result of this system is that the election is really conducted in "close" states. Gore was well ahead in New York. I seriously doubt if he spent very much money there at all. However, Florida was close. It was clear that whoever won Florida would win the election. Where was Gore on the day before the election? Florida.

Each presidential election is different from every other election because the states that are close are different.

But our whole system of electing a president has never been based on "one man" "one vote." It has been based on winning states.

Ned

[Victor Galis]

"New York's population is about 7 times greater than that of my home state of Mississippi. Without somesort of counterbalance to the power of the large states, the small states would have effectively no voice in Presidential elections."

-Which is how it should be. Why should someone's vote in a smaller state count more? Why should state lines even matter in a Presidential election?

"But our whole system of electing a president has never been based on "one man" "one vote." It has been based on winning states."

-This makes it far less democratic than other countries.

Heck, if the number of electoral votes each state got was strictly proportional to its population, Gore would have won even that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
-Which is how it should be. Why should someone's vote in a smaller state count more?

The important question you have to answer is why should my vote count for less than that of Boris from NY?

[Victor Galis]

Yours counts more as is.

Every vote should count equally.

[Lung]

Congratulations, Ozzy. All you've succeeded in doing is to highlight the flaws of your own system Of course, that's what happens when you talk out of your arse

Please show further ignorance by commenting on the Australian system of government. *casts bait into water*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The important question you have to answer is why should my vote count for less than that of Boris from NY?

Seems like standard misconception...

Boris' vote doesn't count for more, because his vote has less impact on way his state's votes in electoral college go. This exactly offsets the fact that his state gets more votes in electoral college, as long as they're based strictly on pop. (or eligible voters, whichever). By giving equal voice in Senate to MS and NY, though, you've made his vote less weight there...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Boris' vote doesn't count for more, because his vote has less impact on way his state's votes in electoral college go.

He wants to get rid of the electoral college, KH. Comparisons based on the cuurent system don't wash in this instance.