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

[MikeH]

Perhaps you just need Americans in general to be less stupid.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by 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...

Yes, I also noticed that this same rubbish was posted by some OzzyPK in October 2000 shortly before the Gore/Bush disaster. The title was something like 'Why the US is the best democracy on earth'. He was even more thoroughly thrashed than he is now.
I used his post to demonstrate the complete ignorance of the 'average American'.

How sad, because it shows he has learnt absolutely nothing in the intervening years.
As then, he only compares the US system to the British system. Anyone well-informed about this matter would know that these two systems are highly similar!

It is probably a troll, I hope. Otherwise we should abandon ALL prospects for the future...

[Victor Galis]

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

-So you think it's fair that his vote is worth less?

"He must have said that in another thread. I see 3 posts from him on this thread, and none says he wants to get rid of electoral college. Some posts imply he wants to change voting for Senate, and make electoral college based strictly on pop."

-I would scrap the Electoral College, and change the Senate.

"Pure democracy is not a good in and of itself. A constitution that protects minority rights against the majority is a lot better."

-That's not the point of this thread. The title claims the US is the most democratic, we're claiming it's not. Whether or not democracy is good is an entirely different matter.

"I'm quite interested to know what changes are being made for the next election to prevent another highly embarassing disaster like this one?"

-None are being made. The people in power are those who won because of the current system.

"Is it our fault that we forgot to take into account the wishes of the stupid people when designing a ballot? The only thing that I can say in our defense is that we had people standing by to help them. They just didn't want to avail themselves of the help."

-I've heard stories of people being denied this help.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
-I've heard stories of people being denied this help.

Evidence?

[Caligastia]

New Zealand is more democratic than the US because we have proportional representation. Whether thats a good thing or not is up for debate..

[Victor Galis]

"Evidence?"

-You expect me to remember links from 6+ months ago, while trying to study for a test in 15 minutes?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic
Slightly one-sided...
Doing something just 'in the name of the people' isn't socialism. Socialism is doing it for the direct benefit of the people. Also, the first quote depends on you defining 'democracy' - a liberal democracy such as Britain's would have measures in place to protect the third person (the minority) from such abuses of their rights.

Well those measures to protect the rights of the minority aren't permanent. If the UK votes on a measure one year to protect the right of the minority they can just as easily take it away the next year. There is no overruling law like the American Constitution, which is the problem with the British system.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Caligastia
New Zealand is more democratic than the US because we have proportional representation. Whether thats a good thing or not is up for debate..

I would argue it is a bad thing. I think it is the key part of a Parliment system, and one of its key failures. Since it is proportional you don't vote for individuals, you vote for parties. Thus you loose a great deal of diversity. People blame us for havng only 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).

Our system with open primaries and non-proportional voting system makes elected officials more responsive to their districts and to the people who voted for him. A Michigan Representative represents far better the interests of his Michigan district than a Liverpool MP, because the MP owes his loyalty to the national party, not to the voters in any one district.

Thus our system is more democratic because is represents the people better.

[OzzyKP]

In response to the two party system and those calling for proportional representation I have a good solution/alternative. Its called Instant Run-off Voting (IRV). This makes the system much more favorable to minor parties but doesn't over turn our current system. It is slowly starting to catch on here.

How this works is you pick your first, second, third choices for each position. So lets say we go back to 2000, there are many Gore voters who would have voted for Nader if they thought he had a chance to win, well with IRV they could put Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second choice. If after the first round Nader is in last place then that vote for Nader would automatically be transfered to that person's second choice, Gore.

This would make it 'safer' for people to vote their conscious so they don't have to pick the lesser of two evils.

[Stefu]

Since it is proportional you don't vote for individuals, you vote for parties.

While New Zealand uses some weird form of proportional representation called MMP I'm not quite getting the point of, proportional representation doesn't necessarily mean voting only for the party. Finland, and many other countries, use a system where you vote for the candidate, votes of all candidates of each party has are counted together, and who gets elected is determined based on amount of votes party gets and who got most votes inside of party.

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


Dear Ned,

I have no problem with someone defending the idea that the USA is a democracy.
But suggesting that the Roman Republic did in any way resemble a democratic structure, does raise the suspicion that your knowledge about the Roman polity is inadequate.

Two questions:
Which public body was dominant in the Roman Republic?
How was it decided who would be member of this public body?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

The Roman Republic had numbers of institutions that checked one another. 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.

The magistrates were the executive and judicial branches. They had different functions. The consuls commanded the armies and were the highest judges. Praetors were the other elected judges. Quaestors were the treasury. Their were other magistrates such as Censors and Aediles.

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.

The Comita Tributa elected the lower magistrates and approved legislation. The body was composed of elected representative of the people voting as by regional district (tribes).

The plebans elected a number of tribunes who, upon unanimous vote, could veto any act by any other body. They could call for the election of a concillium plebis. The acts of this body, plebiscites, were binding initially only on the plebans, but later became binding on the whole state.

Augustus, by being continuously elected consul and by retaining command of the legions, became commander in chief. The Senate confirmed on him the tribunician power. This really meant that he had to approve all legislation passed by the Senate and the People of Rome (i.e., the concillium plebis, etc.). In later years, of course, the Emperor increasing ruled by edict.

The U.S. president is modeled on the Roman Emperor, but given a set term and elected.

The U.S. Senate is modeled the Roman Senate. It approves the magistrates appointed by the president and also approves treaties. As well its consent is also necessary to approve legislation.

The House of Representative is based on the Comita Tributa, or representatives of the people elected by district.

The U.S. appointed judiciary, for life, is a modern development. Their power to overturn, i.e. declare unconstitutional, the acts of the other two branches of government is somewhat akin to the veto power of the Roman Tribunes.

What is distinctly different from the Roman Republic is the election of magistrates. In the U.S., the president with the advice and consent of the senate appoints them. Thus the practice is more like that of the Roman Empire, which saw appointed Imperial magistrates become the norm.

Does this answer your question?

Ned

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Stefu


While New Zealand uses some weird form of proportional representation called MMP I'm not quite getting the point of, proportional representation doesn't necessarily mean voting only for the party. Finland, and many other countries, use a system where you vote for the candidate, votes of all candidates of each party has are counted together, and who gets elected is determined based on amount of votes party gets and who got most votes inside of party.

Very similar to NZ. We have two votes, one for a person, and one for a party. Hear that Ozzy?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MikeH


Well that idiot wasn't even clever enough to cheat as much as Bush did to win.

Seriously, having a politically appointed court getting involved with the election is ludicrous and having an electoral system where people can't work out how to vote properly like that is just crazy.

I'm quite interested to know what changes are being made for the next election to prevent another highly embarassing disaster like this one?

Mike, let me explain, briefly, what happened. The election was close. Bush won the initial machine count and a recount. Gore asked for manual recounts in selected highly democratic counties. When the issue became "intent of the voter" based on hanging chads, Gore asked for a "totality of the circumstances test." Bush wanted a uniform standard and complained about the limitation of the manual recount to only certain counties. (The accusation was that without standards, the commissioners were actually voting. This was an obvious problem if the commissioner was located in a highly Democrat county.) The Supreme Court of Florida eventually order a state-wide recount, but left the issue of a chad test open. On remand, the lower court adopted Gore's test.

The Supreme Court endorsed the Florida Supreme Court's statewide recount, but required a uniform standard. The only reason it called a halt to the recount was because of the literal impossibility of getting the statewide recount done by a federally imposed deadline. Also the Supreme Court wanted to avoid a constitutional crisis that was impending with the Florida legislature primed to appoint its own slate of electors.

There was no cheating going on. Legal positions were advanced by both sides in court. Gore eventually lost his right of recount because he did not request a statewide manual recount with uniform standards from the beginning.

Ned

[Ned]

Victor Galis, et al., I think Ozzy's initial post said it all. Majority rule, a pure democracy, is a tryanny. His initial post is all about how a constitutional republic with clear separation of power is better.

This thread seems to have denerated into an ASSUMPTION that the only thing that matters is one man, one vote, majority rules. Comparision to the U.S. are being made on that basis while ignoring the real issue: protection of minority rights from temporary or small majorities.

This is best done by giving every different interests groups an effective veto as was done in the Roman Republic. In the U.S., the president has a veto, so does the Supreme Court, and so does each member of the Senate through filibuster.

As well, no constitutional amendment may pass without 3/4 of the states approving.

This system works, and works a lot better than one party dictatorships such as we seen in most communist countries.

The more democratic is the better is a falsehood.

Ned

[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?

"People blame us for havng only 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.

"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.

"How this works is you pick your first, second, third choices for each position. So lets say we go back to 2000, there are many Gore voters who would have voted for Nader if they thought he had a chance to win, well with IRV they could put Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second choice. If after the first round Nader is in last place then that vote for Nader would automatically be transfered to that person's second choice, Gore.

This would make it 'safer' for people to vote their conscious so they don't have to pick the lesser of two evils."

-I agree with this

"Victor Galis, et al., I think Ozzy's initial post said it all. Majority rule, a pure democracy, is a tryanny. His initial post is all about how a constitutional republic with clear separation of power is better."

-The thread title says clearly, "The USAis the only Democractic Country in the World. Discuss." I am discussing the fact that I don't believe this to be the case. I am not trying to threadjack the thread by starting a discussion about the merits of democracy.

"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.