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

[Roland]

"that for some votations they need 2 majorities: the # votes majority AND the canton majority (don't ask me how it works). "

Pretty simple. A 50 % majority of all votes, AND a 50 % majority in 50 % majority of Cantons (Ständemehr).

So if you have 52 % yes votes, but win only 10 Cantons, the mation does not pass.

"Bull**** crap."

Oooh... that has to hurt.

[MikeH]

Yes. I'm going to kill myself later.

[Victor Galis]

:lmao: at thread title

[Akka]

The very title of this thread hints for a utterly lack of any knowledge about the rest of the world, a completely biased opinion, and what is sadly the caricature of the American : ignorance and misplaced self-praising.

I would advise Ozzy to get at least some informations before chest-banging himself and claim that his better-than-others country is the only democracy in the world. His conclusions will still be stupid, but at least perhaps he would appears a little less like a complete cretin.

Oh, and about democracy : "democracy" comes from the greek and just mean "power to the people". A republic is a democracy, a direct democracy is a democracy, a constitutionnal monarchy where the power is hold by the people is still a democracy.

[Saint Marcus]

This is the case in all democracies I know.

hardly, since in many nations the popular vote is the only vote.

Stupid American boasting here, as usual. Of course the US is the only democracy in the world...by it's own standards. The term democracy however, wasn't an American invention. And after the last elections, with banana republic style fraud, it's hard to call the USA a democracy at all.

[Arrian]

.5/10 Ozzy. Thank you SOOOO much for backing up the stereotype of ignorant, arrogant Americans.

I happen to like our system (though I think the electoral college needs to go - I thought that when I was first taught about how it works). My Dad grew up in Britain and is rather fond of their system. We've debated it a few times, and I think there are pros and cons to each.

The way I see it, a system of government which is close to ideal for one country may not be for another. Aristotle came to that conclusion in his survey of the city-states of his time. He felt Athenian democracy was the best system for Athens, but not for Sparta. I think he was right. Each society needs to evolve its own system in order for that system to work properly... in order for it to feel right. Britain's government, and by extension the governments of her former colonies, didn't just pop up out of nowhere. It has slowly developed over time.

So to claim that "our way is the bestest!" without an exhaustive study of each country (its history, its demographics, etc.) and its government is just plain silly. And annoying.

-Arrian

[Jack_www]

There are no true democracies in the world today. In some really small towns in the USA and other countries people of the town go to a town metting and vote on all kinds of stuff, that would be a true democracy. Allmost all countries in the world are a republic, people in the government represent the people of what ever country you are looking at. Some coutries elect the representivies through popular elections, others like in China the communist party decides who will represent the people. All governements have flaws and problems with them, the reason is that humans are imperfect and do bad things all the time, there is corruption in all governments, the degree of that corruption would vary to being limited in one hand, to very bad on the other.

[OzzyKP]

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.

Also the deffinition of 'democracy' is a sticking point it seems, this is a quibbling point, but ok, i'll address it. I didn't say the US is the only democracy I said it is the most democratic. 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".

"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.

Demagougery is much more difficult in the United States because of our solid structure and well thought out system of checks and balances and sepperation of powers. A demagouge like a Hitler could easily rise again in a parlimentary country like the UK.

As some noted this thread grew out of another thread that asked if democracies should be able to democratically throw away their democracy to a dictator. This is very possible in a "true democracy" and thus is dangerous, so I am very glad the US is not a "true democracy".

Now, as for criticisms of the American system.

The 2000 election was a mess, of course. Is this a sign of a weak democracy? Does this show a failure of our system? Not at all. The Electoral College isn't quite as terrible as many people make it out to be (it sure ain't peaches and cream either), it is important to prevent large jurisdictions from dominating the country. Having this system in place makes sure that the President represents the entire country, not just the big cities and the coasts where all the people are. If we had a straight popular election then no one would ever give a damn about South Dakota for example. This is unrepresentative.

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.

As for charges of corruption... gimmie a break. Anyone who followed the story knows that the problem was senile old folks in Florida who couldn't handle a simple concept of punching a hole through a voting card without screwing it up. If they couldn't tell the difference between Pat Buchanan and Al Gore, then its their own fault.

Finally, money does not run Washington. The charges of corruption are vastly misunderstood and overblown. I fail to see the problem with "Special Interests" People only complain about "special interests" that aren't their "special interest". Everyone has different opinions and views on politics, so they join together in voluntary organizations. Whether it be the Sierra Club, NAACP, NOW, NRA, Christian Coalition, etc. They are all citizens groups who represent common folks. In a democratic country, this is how it should be, i wouldn't have it any other way.

Also what is the problem with giving campaign contributions? Everyone can contribute to politics in their own way based on their own talents and attributes. Should fat middle aged men be very upset that good looking young women dominate public relations and media jobs? Do attractive young women have an unfair advantage because they are better able to communicate their candidate's message? No, they just bring different things to the table. If I have lots of time to spend on a campaign I'll go down and help volunteer for many hours doing Get out the vote to help my favorite candidate, that would be my contribution to the campaign. Someone else who isn't attractive enough to do stuff in front of the camera, or doesn't have enough time to volunteer may have some money saved up to contribute, that is just their way of helping out. Why is it any more invalid than anyone else's way of helping a campaign?

[Victor Galis]

The Senate is undemocratic, and by extent the electoral college is to a lesser extent (aside from the other issues with the electoral college).

The House of Representatives is also undemocratic because of the way districts are drawn. I'd elaborate more, but I don't have time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MikeH
Did the supreme court decide the election?
Yes
Is that democratic?
No.

CASE CLOSED!

Mike, If you and many others outside the U.S. actually believe your characterization of the U.S. election, I would just like to point out that not even Gore would agree with you.

Ned

[Provost Harrison]

Believe it or not Ozzy, there is a damn big country beyond your borders. I recommend that one day, you take a peek, you may be amazed at what you find.

[KrazyHorse]

The US is the least democratic country in the world. Discuss.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Believe it or not Ozzy, there is a damn big country beyond your borders. I recommend that one day, you take a peek, you may be amazed at what you find.

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.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Arrian
The way I see it, a system of government which is close to ideal for one country may not be for another. Aristotle came to that conclusion in his survey of the city-states of his time. He felt Athenian democracy was the best system for Athens, but not for Sparta. I think he was right. Each society needs to evolve its own system in order for that system to work properly... in order for it to feel right. Britain's government, and by extension the governments of her former colonies, didn't just pop up out of nowhere. It has slowly developed over time.

So to claim that "our way is the bestest!" without an exhaustive study of each country (its history, its demographics, etc.) and its government is just plain silly. And annoying.

-Arrian

I agree and I disagree. I never claimed that the American system works for all people in all cases at all times. I agree with you that some systems work better for different people. But on the other hand when one believes in universal notions of human rights and dignity it is very hard to say that Germans work best under Facism because thats just the way they are.

I personally find it hard to justify tyranny for any country or people. You may assert that tyranny may go over better in some places than others, but I don't think systems of oppression and tyranny are acceptable to any human, and the thirst for freedom is universal to humanity. Thus the best way to protect against tyranny is the American system of government.

My initial assertion was bold, brash, and perhaps unwise, but do not distort it into things it wasn't.

[Sandman]

Pah. You just don't want Islamic countries electing Islamic governments.