Is democracy all its cracked up to be?

[kojikun]

I've been thinking alot about the who concept of democracy. Much as I love it, it tends to be wholely and truly wrong many times. For instance, a hundred and forty someodd years ago, the government of the US went to war with a handful of union states who had democratically voted to strip black people of their rights.

Now, while we all know the civil war was about dominion not slaves, the consequence of the civil war was that the united states temporarily became a dictatorial government for the sake of ensuring freedom, because the majority was oppressive.

This is similar to whats going on today, in how the US is slowly but surely stripping people of its rights, ofter by vote of the majority.

So do you think that democracy has some major faults, and that in some way we could stand to have limits to what the people can vote on?

[HemlockGrey]

Now, while we all know the civil war was about dominion not slaves

*Bzzz*

Thank you for playing!

[Raptor 597]

Overglorified Mob Rule...

[Faram]

US democracy from an outside perspective

2 parties

One that has as goal to ban abortions and execute all criminals.

The other wants free abortions and no executions.

In every question except those 2 they can change program and none would be wiser…

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

People are idiots. OTOH hand, there aren't many other forms of government better (except of course giving Thrawn total controlism )

[The Dark]

This is similar to whats going on today, in how the US is slowly but surely stripping people of its rights, ofter by vote of the majority.

So do you think that democracy has some major faults, and that in some way we could stand to have limits to what the people can vote on?

Hate to burst the bubble, but we're not a democracy. We're a republic. Slightly different idea in that we don't vote for the President or for (most) issues that the government decides. We vote for electors for the President (there is a difference, electors can break party solidarity), and representatives are supposed to vote the way their people want them to . However, we are not a deomcracy.

[Stormbringer]

Overglorified Mob Rule...

Exactly.

Democracy works only as well as the people in the system. Sadly, in a lot of cases they're idiots. Morons will govern like morons. A smart, educated, and motivated population will govern well.

[Patrick Degan]

Hate to burst the bubble, but we're not a democracy. We're a republic.

Nonsensical Republican drivel.

[Shinova]

For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far).

But I think having a super-smart supercomputer(note that I did not say AI) make all the decisions and people just carrying them out would be best. That way we won't have people with personal agendas making decisions to benefit certain people or such.

[Faram]

Hate to burst the bubble, but we're not a democracy. We're a republic.

Nonsensical Republican drivel.

Bzzz

Wrong answer

Go look here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/us.html

federal republic; strong democratic tradition

[LordShaithis]

For instance, a hundred and forty someodd years ago, the government of the US went to war with a handful of union states who had democratically voted to strip black people of their rights.

Uh.......... what?

The US went to war with a handful of states that announced their SECESSION from the Union, and fired upon US forces at Fort Sumter.

[HemlockGrey]

Yeah...God forbid the Land of the Free go to war to protect the freedom of the people...

[HemlockGrey]

On an off-topic note, I laugh whenever people tell me that a government based entirely on states rights would work.

It was called the Articles of Confederacy, and it didn't.

[kojikun]

--For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far). --

Invalid. You presume that the US is the #1 nation. Does technological superiority make something best, period?

--The US went to war with a handful of states that announced their SECESSION from the Union, and fired upon US forces at Fort Sumter.--

Read my post, dumbass. I said everyone knows that the reason they went to war was to protect dominion.

[Colonel Olrik]

For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far).

Have you ever heard of Northern Europe? Finland, Sweden and alike? Or Switzerland? Their standard of living is way superior to the one of the U.S, they've very functional democracies and they're actually extremelly peaceful and pleasant countries.

The US is the #1 nation (not so far, only since the collapse of the British Empire) in therms of gross product (not per inhabitant), and raw military power (that is useful, no doubt, but hardly a measure of quality of living. The Soviet Union also had a very powerful military)

[Patrick Degan]

Hate to burst the bubble, but we're not a democracy. We're a republic.

Nonsensical Republican drivel.

Bzzz

Wrong answer

Go look here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/us.html

federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Your wrong answer, it seems. The Factbook entry endorses both defintions, and operationally, our system leans far more toward democracy.

Any system in which the people select their leaders and have a say in the formation of the laws is democratic by definition. A republican form of government merely guarantees rule by a council of rulers —and a country can have that without any input from the people at large. Or at all, for that matter.

[data_link]

The biggest problem in the US (aside from the fact that voters are morons) is that political perties are allowed to exist. While I like a good party as much as the next guy, this basically means that with few exceptions, you choices are the liberal idiot, the conservative idiot, or wasting your vote. It has been suggested that giving voters two or more votes each might help allieviate this problem, as people would then be able to vote for minor parties while still having their vote mean something, but this ignores the biggest problem, which is that voters are still forced to choose between parties instead of evaluating politicians on the merits of their individual policies.

Political parties exist for the sole purpose of getting their representatives elected. In order to do this, they need to gain financial and political support on a very large scale, which generally involves making promises to special interest groups. In order to fulfillf these promises, they only support people who act as their pawns instead of people who can actually make decisions for themselves. Therefore, as long as political parties are allowed to exist, the only people who you will even hear about are those who are being ordered to serve special interest groups. This is especially dangerous because in order to hide their dishonesty, politicians have developed the habit of keeping the media occupied with fluff, or issues that are of no interest to the groups backing political parties. Once in a while the media stumbles across something important, and certainly there are important issues that sig's do not control, but by and large most major decisions never reach the general public, or do so only once they have been made. As a result, actual control of the government is a tug-of-war between the two largest sig's - the church and the corporations. This country is a democracy in the same sense as China - we can vote, but all the names on the ballot are being controlled by the same people. And this pattern will continue until one of three conditions is met:

a)Either the church or the corporations attains complete control, in which case we'll be much worse off. The consequences of the state becoming a theocracy are obvious enough - just look at the kind of repression we saw in Afghanistan - that would be our ultimate fate, although we'd get there slowly - maybe just a few "public decency laws" outlawing short skirts to begin with. The corporations taking control would be perhaps a bit more palatable - at worst, we'd end up like Japan.

b)The media gets its act together and starts reporting on the important laws. This isn't likely as the truth isn't as interesting as the fluff, and the media itself is controlled by major corporations.

c)We eliminate political parties. This too, will never happen as the voters would then have to judge politicians on their actual merits instead of voting a straight party ticket, which most of them know they aren't smart enough to do.

[Illuminatus Primus]

For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far).

Have you ever heard of Northern Europe? Finland, Sweden and alike? Or Switzerland? Their standard of living is way superior to the one of the U.S, they've very functional democracies and they're actually extremelly peaceful and pleasant countries.

The US is the #1 nation (not so far, only since the collapse of the British Empire) in therms of gross product (not per inhabitant), and raw military power (that is useful, no doubt, but hardly a measure of quality of living. The Soviet Union also had a very powerful military)

Horseshit. The local per capita income in the U.S. is higher then any other country save Switzerland, IIRC.

The Swedes are racking up impressive debt with their welfare state, and suffer minimal demographics, security, and political issues that U.S. burdens itself with as sole remaining superpower.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The biggest problem in the US (aside from the fact that voters are morons) is that political perties are allowed to exist. While I like a good party as much as the next guy, this basically means that with few exceptions, you choices are the liberal idiot, the conservative idiot, or wasting your vote. It has been suggested that giving voters two or more votes each might help allieviate this problem, as people would then be able to vote for minor parties while still having their vote mean something, but this ignores the biggest problem, which is that voters are still forced to choose between parties instead of evaluating politicians on the merits of their individual policies.

Political parties exist for the sole purpose of getting their representatives elected. In order to do this, they need to gain financial and political support on a very large scale, which generally involves making promises to special interest groups. In order to fulfillf these promises, they only support people who act as their pawns instead of people who can actually make decisions for themselves. Therefore, as long as political parties are allowed to exist, the only people who you will even hear about are those who are being ordered to serve special interest groups. This is especially dangerous because in order to hide their dishonesty, politicians have developed the habit of keeping the media occupied with fluff, or issues that are of no interest to the groups backing political parties. Once in a while the media stumbles across something important, and certainly there are important issues that sig's do not control, but by and large most major decisions never reach the general public, or do so only once they have been made. As a result, actual control of the government is a tug-of-war between the two largest sig's - the church and the corporations. This country is a democracy in the same sense as China - we can vote, but all the names on the ballot are being controlled by the same people. And this pattern will continue until one of three conditions is met:

a)Either the church or the corporations attains complete control, in which case we'll be much worse off. The consequences of the state becoming a theocracy are obvious enough - just look at the kind of repression we saw in Afghanistan - that would be our ultimate fate, although we'd get there slowly - maybe just a few "public decency laws" outlawing short skirts to begin with. The corporations taking control would be perhaps a bit more palatable - at worst, we'd end up like Japan.

b)The media gets its act together and starts reporting on the important laws. This isn't likely as the truth isn't as interesting as the fluff, and the media itself is controlled by major corporations.

c)We eliminate political parties. This too, will never happen as the voters would then have to judge politicians on their actual merits instead of voting a straight party ticket, which most of them know they aren't smart enough to do.

You've got to be shitting me. Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition have tanked and an increasing number of Republicans are over the techno-capitalist brand, not the "good ol family values" brand. The Non-Governmental Organizations/Special Interest Groups/Non-Corperate Lobbies/Unions are the largest non-business political manipulators.

[HemlockGrey]

Vote Cyril in 2018

Liberty, justice, and secularism for all!

[The Dark]

Hate to burst the bubble, but we're not a democracy. We're a republic.

Nonsensical Republican drivel.

I'm an Independent. As far as I'm concerned both parties can just go screw themselves, neither of them are worthwhile.

Go look here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac ... os/us.html

I know the CIA's website quite well. I've used it for analysis of Cote d'Ivoir and Lebanon. Despite what the American government's intelligence agency may say, we are not a democracy. We may have a "democratic tradition," but that is not the same thing as a democracy. Here's a pair of quotes from the 1928 Army Training Manual:

Democracy, n. "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

Not terribly pro-democracy.

Republic:Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights. Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Seems to describe the United States rather well. Just because a commercial dictionary has a different definition does not mean it overrides official government definitions.

Of course, there's also the Pledge of Allegiance "to the Republic," the Constitution which "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," and the Federalist Papers, which state that "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention." America has never been a democracy, but rather a republic.

[Stuart Mackey]

For the human race at our current tech level, US-based democratic republic is the best so far (evidence is obvious, the US being #1 nation so far).

snip

Rubbish the US has the best democratic setup. That the US has the #1 armed forces, or anything else, does not mean a damned thing.

[Stuart Mackey]

The biggest problem in the US (aside from the fact that voters are morons) is that political perties are allowed to exist. While I like a good party as much as the next guy, this basically means that with few exceptions, you choices are the liberal idiot, the conservative idiot, or wasting your vote. It has been suggested that giving voters two or more votes each might help allieviate this problem, as people would then be able to vote for minor parties while still having their vote mean something, but this ignores the biggest problem, which is that voters are still forced to choose between parties instead of evaluating politicians on the merits of their individual policies.

snip.

What you need is proportional representation. NZ had your problem till we got MMP and now we have political competion, now no one party can dominate and act as a 3 year dictatorship in its own right {not garunteed, and this depends on how people vote}, there is a moderating influence brought by coalition government. Also with proportional representation you get a better representaion of the political veiws of the voters.

[Coyote]

"Democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government, except when compared to the alternatives"--Winston Churchill

Democracy is good and the Republic is a Democracy all grown up. The US Democratic tradition has freed people to be wierd and different, because we were settled by wierdos and crackpots that were ostracized in other countries. This means that the stifling muzzle of mass opinion was belittled, allowing the unusual to flourish with their entrepreneurships.

This willingness to accept the unusual (freedom) made America great. Other countries are comparable for their social expectations. But only the US had the ability to 1)feed its people; 2) feed people in other countries; 3) guarantee its defense and that of our allies; 4) provide most people with a house, job, car and TV; 5) and still find enough money to build modern versions of the Pyramids such as moon shots, Space Shuttles, and other frivolous scientific endeavour. The difference is that these mounuments to greatness actually do serve some public good whereas the Pyramids were just really, really big paperweights.

Sweden? Well, I've heard its a great, friendly place to be as long as you're white. Many of the dark-skinned immigrants there feel ghettoized and discriminated against... Not that the US is perfect in this sense, we have a ways to go, but no nation on this Earth right now can lay claim to being the mythical ivory and gold "city on the hill". But the Western democracies in general come close.

[ElBlanco]

We are a republic. It says so in the Constitution:

Article IV Section 4

"The United States shall guarentee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."

I think that out weighs any manual or website.


Also, when the Southern States tried to break off, they broke part of the Constitution:

Article I Section 10

"Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. "