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

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Ned,

Thanks for answering my questions!
I agree with your anwers about the Roman Republic.
Yet you did forget to mention some details which make all the difference!

The Senate was composed of ex-magistrates. Their position was for life. The Senate advised on matters of foreign policy and finance. It nominated the magistrates, including consuls, for election by two other bodies.

Officially the Senate was an advisory council.
Yet by tradition the Senate reigned supreme, because it controlled the Treasury, foreign affairs and warfare. During civil emergencies the Senate could override ALL other bodies of government by passing the Senatus Consultum de republica defendenda -its 'ultimate decree'. This amounted to a declaration of martial law.

Membership was for life and was determined (and/or taken away) by the censors. Only ex-magistrates or their descendants were eligible. And since the 'nobiles' -a few dozen of aristocratic families- monopolised all magistrates, the Senate was completely dominated by this same aristocracy.

The Comita Centurita elected the higher magistrates, declared war and approved legislation. This was a representative body elected from the military, which in the Republic, was limited to landowners.

True again. But the Comitia Centuriata was not democratically organised at all!
All Roman citizens were on the basis of their property divided into two 'ordines' and five classes by the censors. About a third of the population was disregarded and considered to be 'proletarii'; they formed only five centuria. 'Equites' (18) and the first and wealthiest class (80) together formed a majority in this Assembly over the combined vote of the other four! As a rule only their votes mattered.

The power of the assemblies was diminished by the claim of the Senate to ratify (patrum auctoritas) all acts (legislation etc.) of the Comitia. The Senate had gradually acquired the right to assign duties to the magistrates, to determine the provinces entrusted to the consuls, to prolong a magistrate's period of office, it controlled revenue and expenditure.

Within the Senate itself hierarchy was crushing. Patricians always preceded plebeians; not all senators were allowed to speak.
Actually it was inconceivable that low-ranking senators would defy the prestige (dignitas) of ex-censors and ex-consuls.
The Roman Republic was completely dominated by a small oligarchy.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Ned]

Yes, S. Kroeze, but the lower class did acquire a lot of independent power through the Tribunes. As well, men of lower rank could and did become Consuls. Example, Marius. Marius was powerful enough to reform the state all by himself.

Ned

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
"Since it is proportional you don't vote for individuals, you vote for parties. Thus you loose a great deal of diversity."

-So having more than two choices is a lack of diversity?

You must understand how the system works in the United States. Nothing is black and white. Parties are not monolithic voting blocks. A Democrat from Texas can likely be more conservative than a Republican from Massachusetts. There are pro-choice Republicans and gun rights Democrats and labor rights Republicans and big business Democrats. There is so much diversity and variety within the parties. In a proportional system you may have 8 parties, but that is only 8 choices. In our system each representative is different.

Originally posted by Victor Galis
"People blame us for havng only two parties (which is no doubt blameworthy) but there is more diversity within each party than in any party in any country with a proportional parlimentary system (most of them)."

-Which means you vote for a lot of stuff you don't like just to get the stuff you want.

huh?

Originally posted by Victor Galis
"Thus our system is more democratic because is represents the people better."

-What about the people who voted for the other guy? If 51% vote Republican and 49% vote Democrat, that's a lot of people that are very poorly represented.

The system is incredibly flexible this way. If an election is that close then it is incredibly unlikely the two candidates are polar opposites. If the electorate is that centrist as to split 51% 49% then the candidates for both parties aren't too far apart and represent the whole fairly well. In 2000 its not like the election was between Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, it was Gore and Bush, when it really comes down to it they aren't incredibly different. Dispite what the party propagandists say they are both solid centrists, not extremists.

Originally posted by Victor Galis
"As well, no constitutional amendment may pass without 3/4 of the states approving."

-Which is just downright stupid. States should be nothing more than administrative units.

No they shouldn't! Should Europe eliminate the government of France and make it just some 'administrative unit' no, of course not. Centralized government is a terrible way to go.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Ned
Yes, S. Kroeze, but the lower class did acquire a lot of independent power through the Tribunes. As well, men of lower rank could and did become Consuls. Example, Marius. Marius was powerful enough to reform the state all by himself.

Of course, Marius' method of reform had more to do with the sword than the nature of the system he was in. Here is Plutarch's description of Marius' first political victory ...

He [Marius] sought, and by the assistance of Caecilius Metellus, of whose family he as well as his father were dependents, obtained the office of tribune of the people. In which place, when he brought forward a bill for the regulation of voting, which seemed likely to lessen the authority of the great men in the courts of justice, the consul Cotta opposed him, and persuaded the senate to declare against the law, and called Marius to account for it. He, however, when this decree was prepared, coming into the senate, did not behave like a young man newly and undeservedly advanced to authority, but, assuming all the courage that his future actions would have warranted, threatened Cotta, unless he recalled the decree, to throw him into prison. And on his turning to Metellus, and asking his vote, and Metellus, rising up to concur with the consul, Marius, calling for the officer outside, commanded him to take Metellus into custody. He appealed to the other tribunes, but not one of them assisted him; so that the senate, immediately complying, withdrew the decree. Marius came forth with glory to the people and confirmed his law, and was henceforth esteemed a man of undaunted courage and assurance, as well as a vigorous opposer of the senate in favour of the commons.

[Victor Galis]

"You must understand how the system works in the United States. Nothing is black and white. Parties are not monolithic voting blocks. A Democrat from Texas can likely be more conservative than a Republican from Massachusetts."

-Which means, that really if I were living in Texas I would have no choice whatsoever. You as a voter, pick one of two men. You have two parties to chose from as they appear in your state. Doesn't matter what they are like in other states.

"There is so much diversity and variety within the parties."

-This sucks very much.

"In a proportional system you may have 8 parties, but that is only 8 choices. In our system each representative is different."

-Yes, and you get to pick from a list of two candidates. Doesn't matter what the guy from say the 7th district in MA is like, because he's not your representative.

"huh?"

-Pro-gun democrats. If I lived in a certain area, I could not vote for an anti-gun candidate. I would have to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils at all times.

"The system is incredibly flexible this way. If an election is that close then it is incredibly unlikely the two candidates are polar opposites. If the electorate is that centrist as to split 51% 49% then the candidates for both parties aren't too far apart and represent the whole fairly well."

-Yes, and no.

"In 2000 its not like the election was between Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, it was Gore and Bush, when it really comes down to it they aren't incredibly different. Dispite what the party propagandists say they are both solid centrists, not extremists."

-To me, Bush is the Anti-Christ. Gore is a decent fellow, because of a lack of a better choice. Harry Browne better represents my views than Bush (I have previously referred to Browne as the Devil). My vote, had I had one would have not counted either way. If I ever end up getting a vote in the district I currently reside in, my vote in local elections would be irrelevant. Maybe my vote would matter for Representative and Senator... maybe.

"No they shouldn't! Should Europe eliminate the government of France and make it just some 'administrative unit' no, of course not."

-France is a nation-state; Alabama isn't.

"Centralized government is a terrible way to go."

-Nonsense. Centralized government can be credited with most of the progress our society has made.