The USA is not democratic - Democracy is rule by the people

[honest intellectual]

How can the USA claim to be democratic when the only political power the ordinary person have is that every 4 years they get to pick which one of 2 virtually identical parties they want to govern them?

[Tkinter1]

It's a democratic republic.

[Goldfinger]

so is north korea.....

[DisruptiveBehaviour]

It should be a anarchistic society.

Honest Intellectual: You're right. They claim to be the voice of the people, but once of the leaders are in, what the HELL are you going to do about what they do? It doesn't matter anyways, the Yankee public is very much brainwashed. Notice how on CNN, they only show certain things. If they're talking about the 'war' on Iraq they will only show people with one side of the current goverment's beliefs? Also notice, no cappies have ANY objection to what your saying?
Thank god for the inernet. Or I'd still be a brainwashed cappie too.

[Tkinter1]

Actually North Korea is authoritarian socialist.

[Goldfinger]

I know, but the government still calls it a democratic people's republic....

[Tkinter1]

The people elect officials, those officials represent the people. If the people feel that official is unjust, the people kick them out. So its a little of both democratic, and republic. No one is claiming a pure democracy HI.

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 6:22 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
It's a democratic republic.
That's a helluva strong argument ya got there

(Edited by honest intellectual at 6:47 pm on Nov. 9, 2002)

[Tkinter1]

I wasn't arguing with you... but i slightly elaborated farther down.

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 6:39 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
If the people feel that official is unjust, the people kick them out.
Example?

[Tkinter1]

Luckly their aren't to many examples, but some presidents wrong doings have been uncovered and they resign from office to avoid being removed from office. Nixon is a big example.

Heres an old one for ya.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/daybyday/07-30-001.html

The fact is, if an offical isn't doing his job to the peoples liking or is completley unjust, that official is removed.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 7:00 pm on Nov. 9, 2002)

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 7:00 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
The fact is, if an offical isn't doing his job to the peoples liking or is completley unjust, that official is removed. I can't agree with you there. There are countless examples of Us politicians who haev committed the most egregious war crimes and injustices without retribution.

[antieverything]

These threads are stupid. We all know that there are some serious problems with the American political system but to say that we have no say in our government or to compare our government with that of North Korea is simply ridiculous.

[Guest]

new democracy here posting as guest(means that he is too lazy to log in). honest intellectual, this is not why the USA is undemocratic. it is because the corporations run the show. in 1,954 the president of guatemala threatend the interests of american corporations and for this the CIA overthrown him and replaced him with an oppressive puppet government that was the right thing for american corporations. in 1,973 the CIA overthrow allenda because he threatend the interests of the american corporations and supported pinochet. just show you how the american government is working for the rich. i don't see how exactly the u.s calls itself democratic while most of the corporations that make people in the third world slaves(and some of those people are children)are there, and the heads of those corporations never get punished. here is an interseting story about the subject: a few years ago a Massachusetts people's movement got a law passed restricting state officials from buying goods or services from corporations trafficking with Burmese dictators. Corporate directors did not like this public assault upon their "rights." But they did not have to summon the WTO into action. Why? Because men of property in the USA have long relied on the federal courts as their very own safety net. So they expected federal judges to nullify this law. And these judges did not disappoint, saying simply that it was beyond the authority of the Massachusetts people to legislate such matters. very democratic.....

[Tkinter1]

"There are countless examples of Us politicians who haev committed the most egregious war crimes and injustices without retribution."

Example?

[Guest]

i took this story from: http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/grossman.htm .

[Tkinter1]

Oh i see what your saying. Your talking about things that could be construed as injustices.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ppl it seems that the greatest part of the western world is stupid and believe anything that comes on tv.
We are way out numbered.They just wont see that america has total world domination and that they dont listen to the ppl. A few months ago i had a arguement about this with a friend of mine. he is one of the stupids. I needed 1 whole hour to explain that the american attack on iraq isnt justified. And there are numerous things that i had to explain to him. Like why has american companys world domination.

U wanted a example??The murder of Jhon F Kennedy by the CIA. Probaly cause he didnt like the CIA and wanted to lower their budget.

Did you all notice something almost all presidents of the US since1945 had something to do with the CIA. Like the current monkey.

[American Kid]

Actually, DisruptiveBehavior, the network talkshows are actually quite full with arguments from both the right and the left.

Like Phil Donahue. And Chris Matthews. And Hannity and Colmes. etc....... I mean, seriously, CNN doesn't show just one side of the story. That's preposterous.

And lookit, I'm not for the war, but I'm just saying, what you wrote is woefully inaccurate. C'mon dude.............
-AK

[Mephiso]

the usa is a REPUBLIC, no where in the constituition do they name democracy except in a statement where they say that democracy leads to chaoos.

[American Kid]

First post. Welcome aboard.

How is everyone?

I'm the Kid.

And you are......................?

.................................................. ...................................Satan????...... ..................?
-AK

(God bless us all)

(Edited by American Kid at 7:33 am on Nov. 10, 2002)

[honest intellectual]

Oh i see what your saying. Your talking about things that could be construed as injustices.
Not just that, I'm talking about major illegalities that they had no legal right to do. Like supporting genocide (Cambodia, Indonesia). Like overthrowing democratically elected governments (Chile, Nicaragua). Like pre-emptive military actions (Cambodia, Iraq).

[Guardia Bolivariano]

More people voted for Gore than Bush,but George is running the country.That alone says a lot.

[DisruptiveBehaviour]

Your all wrong!
The USA is a dictatorship!
Anti-everything is right, these threads are stupid, we all know there's a lot of serious problems in the U$ goverment, that's why we have this site.

[American Kid]

lol..................another anarchist.........

Why don't they ever use proper grammar or sentence structure.........?

Anyway, fuck em. Including this kid.

"dictatorship"........? You're a pussy, dude.

-AK

(it's not never-never land, that's for sure...............but "dictatorship".........? )

lol, meanwhile on planet Earth....................................

[antieverything]

I refer everyone to my origional comment.

[Tkinter1]

"Your all wrong!
The USA is a dictatorship!
Anti-everything is right, these threads are stupid, we all know there's a lot of serious problems in the U$ goverment, that's why we have this site."

How is the US a dictatorship
How is this thread stupid
How is this site solving serious government problems?
How are we all wrong, and what are we wrong about?!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from honest intellectual on 6:10 pm on Nov. 9, 2002
How can the USA claim to be democratic when the only political power the ordinary person have is that every 4 years they get to pick which one of 2 virtually identical parties they want to govern them?


Actually, HI, the definition fits perfect to the americn system:

(from dictionary.com)

de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2.A political or social unit that has such a government.

3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4.Majority rule.

5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


Also, there are many more than 2 parties to choose from, but most are considered by the public too extreme of unfounded in their views to be given creedence.

The american public usually whittles down the 2 most moderate and sensible parties out of the group. It is not in any way a true 2 party system. It is a system of as many parties that want to throw in an election bid.

That, my friends, is a democratic republic, elections for representative, as well as direct votes on specific issues at state and local levels.

[Jaha]

how do we know we live in a democracy? in other countries, we send observers to make sure they are democratic. in the U$, we observe ourselves.

why dont foreign observers come here and make sure we are democratic? who is to say the ballots arent rigged? do you trust your fellow brainwashed cappie american to tell you who won the elections?

[TheLesserof2Evils]

Hey Apocalypse When,

I don't think north Korea is a domecratic republic, South is. North Korea is nothing but a GIANT fu#$'n army.

[guerrillaradio]

A democracy is run by the people, for the people. America is run by big business oil and the CIA. Where do you think all the funding for these glorious campaigns come from?? Do you think it's just coincidence that the vast majority of the Bush administration have strong links with oil corporations?? In fact, when you think about it, is the Bush administration a political force or just another corporation??

Let's look at the 2000 election then. Have you looked at a map of American voting districts lately?? Rather odd shapes the borders are, aren't they?? What's that?? Oh, they're chosen by the Congress representative for that area?? Well doesn't it strike you as strange that these borders are constantly changing into more bizarre shapes?? Maybe, just possibly, the representative alters the borders to incorporate the most supportive districts possible?? What a way these politicians have with manipulating the people.

And the American voter's choice: great isn't it?? Bush Snr vs Clinton, Clinton vs Dole, Gore vs Bush Jnr. Five men with near identical policies. Sure, so the Republican Party's marginally to the right of the Democrats, but what's the difference?? They are all from the privileged class (with the exception of Clinton), and therefore they all represent the privileged class. Some democracy you have...

So CI, democracy is defined as the choice between two men, from the same class, with the same policies, once every four years?? You sure about that?? I thought democracy included the people somewhere??

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 7:16 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
A democracy is run by the people, for the people. America is run by big business oil and the CIA. Where do you think all the funding for these glorious campaigns come from?? Do you think it's just coincidence that the vast majority of the Bush administration have strong links with oil corporations?? In fact, when you think about it, is the Bush administration a political force or just another corporation??

Let's look at the 2000 election then. Have you looked at a map of American voting districts lately?? Rather odd shapes the borders are, aren't they?? What's that?? Oh, they're chosen by the Congress representative for that area?? Well doesn't it strike you as strange that these borders are constantly changing into more bizarre shapes?? Maybe, just possibly, the representative alters the borders to incorporate the most supportive districts possible?? What a way these politicians have with manipulating the people.

And the American voter's choice: great isn't it?? Bush Snr vs Clinton, Clinton vs Dole, Gore vs Bush Jnr. Five men with near identical policies. Sure, so the Republican Party's marginally to the right of the Democrats, but what's the difference?? They are all from the privileged class (with the exception of Clinton), and therefore they all represent the privileged class. Some democracy you have...

So CI, democracy is defined as the choice between two men, from the same class, with the same policies, once every four years?? You sure about that?? I thought democracy included the people somewhere??

go back and read my last post, the answer is in there. it is not just a 2 party system

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:59 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
go back and read my last post, the answer is in there. it is not just a 2 party system

The system is whittled down to two parties primarily cos they receive the best funding for the best, most varied and furthest travelled election campaigns more than anything else. Where does this funding come from?? Oil companies?? Well isn't that cynical of me... :angry:

You gonna reply to anything else in my post??

[abstractmentality]

in response to the two party thought here, i must back GR in saying that it is basically a two party system. if you look at the money being spent on campaign stuff, the winner of the presidential election pretty much coincides with who ever spent the most. that doesnt seem too democratic to me. also, in order to get government funding for campaign stuff, you have to recieve X percent of the vote, which is hard to do when you have no money in comparison to the two major parties.

also, you have to look at the structure of the electoral college. In order to recieve anything that matters on the national scale (electoral votes) you have to win over an entire state. if you dont win an entire state, and dont recieve the previously mentioned hard to acheive X percentage, then you get nothing. you start over the next time around, with the same mountain to climb. now, the electoral college is structured to keep out third parties. just look at the era in which it was made. the people making this system, for the most part, did not trust the people, hence, the electoral college. the people not actually voting for the president, but the people voting for electors that will in turn vote for the president (and these electors are not forced to vote accordingly, as there have been electors who have voted differently in the past). In my old high school government text book, when describing the system, it said something to the effect of this: the electoral college does not stop third parties from forming, it just stops them from winning. and that is the truth.

and as far as GR's writing on Gerrymandering (sp, it's been a while), i personally think that to be a horrible thing the state legislation does. the voting districts can be manipulated so easily, creating many safe districts for the party in control, while creating as few as possible opposition strong holds.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 2:30 pm on Nov. 15, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

but the voting pamphlet packages that go to every single registered voters' doors and mailboxes are free and uninfluenced, and they list every single party and their respective stances on key issues, even parties like communist or peace and freedomhave equal footing

so, every registered voter has access to every party candidate,and their relative ideologies and stances on issues. each party and their rep gets equal spacew for wording and ideological dissertation

that is what voters should be using to make their decisions

your arguements have more to do with individual voters than the system

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:18 am on Nov. 16, 2002
but the voting pamphlet packages that go to every single registered voters' doors and mailboxes are free and uninfluenced, and they list every single party and their respective stances on key issues, even parties like communist or peace and freedomhave equal footing

so, every registered voter has access to every party candidate,and their relative ideologies and stances on issues. each party and their rep gets equal spacew for wording and ideological dissertation

Once again, you're missing the point. Does the US Communist Party get as much funding as the Republican Party?? Obviously not. Therefore, is their campaign as good?? Stands to reason that it won't. Therefore, will they get as many votes as they would do if they had the Republican Party's funds?? I don't think so.

I'd also appreciate if you covered the rest of the points in my post.

[BOZG]

4.Majority rule.

You just contradicted yourself. Majority rule in non-corrupt terms means that the person with the majority of public votes gets elected not the one with the minority.

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:18 pm on Nov. 15, 2002
but the voting pamphlet packages that go to every single registered voters' doors and mailboxes are free and uninfluenced, and they list every single party and their respective stances on key issues, even parties like communist or peace and freedomhave equal footing

so, every registered voter has access to every party candidate,and their relative ideologies and stances on issues. each party and their rep gets equal spacew for wording and ideological dissertation

that is what voters should be using to make their decisions

your arguements have more to do with individual voters than the system



ok, these things are sent out, but you have to look at, as GR has said, the funding that is given to the two parties. that money is then turned into campaigning. seeing a name on the television, or around town, and so on and so forth makes a huge impact on voters. just look at college campuses during election time. my school just went through one. the students that put more money into their initiative had these fancy little signs (to help the students remember the YES part of the sign), and chalked everywhere on campus (also erasing other peoples chalkings that were against the initiative). they won by 700 votes. I also have a friend at Berkeley, that knows all of the people in student government offices, and has helped them get there. the first time i met him, he told me about chalking, and the massive effect just seeing the name over and over again like that does. thats the issue im trying to speak of.

another issue is the very structure of the electoral college. one person from the smallest state has, i think, twenty some odd more weight than that of the largest state (CA). why should their vote count more than mine? that is not a democracy.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 7:05 pm on Nov. 15, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

CI...one pamphlet...wow that will really inform voters

Look at the presidential elections...Nader had like 2 commercials Bush and Gore ahd ten times as many

Bush and Gore had like two debates only those two.

Come on you can't say that the people are really informed.

Most people in this country don't even understand enough about socialism to vote for it or even give a good arguement against it.

They simply compare it to Stalinist Russia.

it's a two party dictatorship simple as that.

No other parties recieve funding at that level.

Mainly because Democrat and Republicans are rich..ateast the ones donating to the aprty.

All because they serve a system which keeps the rich richer.

How many rich communists are there? It contradicts it's self.

[MaxB]

In actuality, the U. S. has a Communist party, and a Fascist party, and other social deviants that put up themselves for election. The only thing is that nobody is stupid enough to vote for them. Yes, it's a DEMOCRACY.
Maybe you should do some research before you post your rant and diatribe. We have freedom of speech and all that good shit that you Leftist misfits hate.

[abstractmentality]

In actuality, the U. S. has a Communist party, and a Fascist party, and other social deviants that put up themselves for election.

yes, we have established this already.

The only thing is that nobody is stupid enough to vote for them.

i doubt this. and you probably have nothing to back this up.

Yes, it's a DEMOCRACY.

so the thought of one vote of a person has the same amount of weight as any other individuals is not a part of democracy? if you do not think it is, then i wish to add it to the theory of democracy.

Maybe you should do some research before you post your rant and diatribe. We have freedom of speech and all that good shit that you Leftist misfits hate.

i have done my research. i know the electoral college, i know the history of the making of it, i have made speeches on it. it appears to me that through your posting, of almost nothing that we have already established, and everything else with no support what so ever, that you need to do research into the thought of democracy. you should look into some of the american writers of democratic theory like Walter Lippman, who writes of the revolution of democracy in order to manufacture consent, since according to him, the true interest of the public elude them (they dont know whats best for themselves).

when did i say i hate freedom of speech?

you also didnt answer or reply to anything about the huge differences in funding, in the problems of the electoral college, or in the counting of one vote more than others. maybe you just havent done the research for these things though...


(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:34 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)

[abstractmentality]

^^^^ that quote shit aint working for me right now, but i think you can tell what im writing, and what was previously written.

EDIT: okay, got it working somewhat.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:35 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from MaxB on 7:07 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
In actuality, the U. S. has a Communist party, and a Fascist party, and other social deviants that put up themselves for election. The only thing is that nobody is stupid enough to vote for them. Yes, it's a DEMOCRACY.
Maybe you should do some research before you post your rant and diatribe. We have freedom of speech and all that good shit that you Leftist misfits hate.


Do me a favour and read a thread before you piss on it. We've covered all those points already.

And thanks, I take pride in being a "misfit".

[Moskitto]

while MaxB claims to be democratic (well an anarchist so he says) his ideology (Objectivism) is extremely absolutist deriding all contrary ideas as being illegitimate, maybe MaxB should read the stuff he quotes.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 2:02 am on Nov. 16, 2002

4.Majority rule.

You just contradicted yourself. Majority rule in non-corrupt terms means that the person with the majority of public votes gets elected not the one with the minority.


the electoral college does not negate the definition, don't split hairs with me!

BTW, what you leftists don't seem to understand is that bush still had the majority popular vote anyway

all this crap abut gore being robbed is the most pathetic display of sour grapes and lies i've seen in an election!

[Capitalist Imperial]

this is just a never-ending argument by leftists, that the US in "not really democratic".

this is just not true, we (USA) meets every definition of democracy

[abstractmentality]

my memory isnt the greatest, but i could have sworn i remember Gore having the majority of the popular votes nation wide.
lets see what some of the election people have to say: http://www.evote.com/elections2000/results...summary2000.asp (http://www.evote.com/elections2000/results/electionsummary2000.asp)
yea, they agree with me too.

[abstractmentality]

CI:
does one person deserve to have more of a voice (in terms of voting weight) than another in a "real democracy?"

(Edited by abstractmentality at 2:28 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)

[BOZG]

abstractmentality,

No it was a conspiracy theory put out by us "misfits" that Gore had the majority of the popular votes.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 10:26 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
CI:
does one person deserve to have more of a voice (in terms of voting weight) than another?

the electoral college is designed to compensate for individual states' rights, which is part of the "repulic" constituent of americas' system. it is designed so that not only large, powerful states will dictate elections, but smaller states will retain their say. it protects states' rights, which has always been fundamental to the United States' government ideology

[BOZG]

It protects state's rights but not individual rights. And they say communism destroys individuality.

[abstractmentality]

you didnt answer my question.
but you did answer the typical answer for the reasons behind the electoral college. if you read a lot of the representatives writings, they made the electoral college because they didnt trust the people. i dont know why they made one "untrustworthy" persons vote worth more than another, but they did.
please, answer my question. do you think that a person from the least populated state deserves to have 20 some odd times more weight to his vote than yours?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 10:35 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
you didnt answer my question.
but you did answer the typical answer for the reasons behind the electoral college. if you read a lot of the representatives writings, they made the electoral college because they didnt trust the people. i dont know why they made one "untrustworthy" persons vote worth more than another, but they did.
please, answer my question. do you think that a person from the least populated state deserves to have 20 some odd times more weight to his vote than yours?

if a large, powerful state has interests that would contradict a small states, then yess, their has to be compensation

[abstractmentality]

im not talking about states. im talking about your vote from CA (i think i remeber you being from CA, as i am as well), being worth less than another person from the least populated state. thats it, your vote compared to theirs. is their vote worth more than yours?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 10:35 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
It protects state's rights but not individual rights. And they say communism destroys individuality.


it does protect individuals rights in smaller states id is actally a somewhat socialist policy, and you as aleftist should appreciate it

the electoral college has come into play somethink like 2 or 3 times in history. as soon as it is an issue, leftists jump all over it

you liberals should appreciate the electoral college, as it looks out for the little guy

[Dan Majerle]

CI,

This policy of having larger weight on some people's votes then others reminds me of the Estates General in France 1789 where the minority 1st and 2nd estates just like in US with the minority lesser populated states had double representation and more weight on their vote to balance out the populous 3rd estate or in this case the populous states in America. Now i do not agree with that and neither did they as that sparked off a revolution because this denies the majority of people the right to vote and vote for policies which effect them entirely. In pre-revolution France this policy allowed the elites to maintain power and rule over the 3rd estate and i assume that in America it prevents the truth voice of democracy being heard. 1 person = 1 vote. It is as simple as that really.
Also using the current process in America, what if the least-populated states with the most votes become in a few years time the most populated states. Does that mean reform in the system to balance it up again?

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 2:28 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
abstractmentality,

No it was a conspiracy theory put out by us "misfits" that Gore had the majority of the popular votes.


LOL. i just barely noticed this. damn those conspiracy theories we make!

[Som]

I like to call the U.S. system a consented plutocracy.

The reason a third party doesnt win, is not because people dont want it, theres a few reasons to it.

Its not that most are too extreme and americans want moderate parties, its that the majority havn't heard any other options. Plenty of people say that the democracts being too moderate cost them the last elections.
It's this vast ignorance of the peoples options where money comes in. The republicans and democrats bring in and spend millions of dollars on each and every campaign, they buy commercial time, arrange appearances, but votes from certain groups, have debates where they exclude third parties, they fund their touring around the country, so on and so forth.
No other party is able to even compete to this massive amount of dollars, and things put forward to them. Its a giant marketing campaign, not necesarily the showing the peoples will.

This near monopoly on distribution brings in the second, probably even more damaging part. Voter attitude. Since the other parties are muted out, people dont vote their concious, they vote for the lesser of the two evils. The idea that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away, as well as the idea of splitting the vote for your side, many didn't vote for nader because they just didn't want bush more, so they voted for gore.
While there are a vague few in these parties who would like to help the third parties, through the campaign finance reform bills, the two parties still generally work to cut them out. They refuse to have third parties in their debates after letting in ross perot, with him quite a few votes.

Also, Bush didn't have the majority, i dont know where you'd get an idea like that CI. Gore had something like 300,000 more votes than Bush.

The electoral college doesn't help the little guys at all, giving the smaller states a power, thats not really any sort of power at all. It merely misrepresents and the electoral college makes getting a third party candidate in even less likely. It also makes this messy little buisness when the majority doesnt win.

[Stormin Norman]

Jesus Christ, never in my life have I witnessed such a pathetic display of ignorance. Apparently, many of you have absolutely no idea about what constitutes a democratic form of government. I guess I have to take it upon myself to educate those with absolutely no clue, once again. Why do I try? I don't know anymore, because it seems as though nothing I ever say gets through to those with crap in their ears. Never mind, Fuck it! Think whatever misguided bullshit that you want. With the views many of you hold, you'll never have a chance to initiate significant change anyway. Therefore, my ability to change the minds of anyone visiting this site is unimportant, and not worth the time invested.

[BOZG]

Apparently, many of you have absolutely no idea about what constitutes a democratic form of government

For starters representative democracy is not true democracy but that is beside the point for the moment.

Normally in a "democracy" the person who gets the most votes wins the election. Did this happen in AmeriKKKa?

[Stormin Norman]

U.S. Constitution

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



U.S. Constitution

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

------------------------------------------------------

If you do not like the way the law is written I suggest you find a way to change it. However, I must warn you that it is virtually impossible to amend the constitution if there is not a sufficient reason. In addition, restructuring this system would require you to change election laws in all 50 States.

Critics of the system often point to such events as the 2000 presidential election as reason to scrap the institution. Conservatives who understand the reasoning behind such a system sight these events as justification for such a complex system. If you look at the demographic breakdown across the country to see how many districts went to Bush, you would notice a prodominance of States favorable to Bush in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. Therefore it can be said that Bush represents a wider range of America's interest. That is beside the point. If the presidential election were to be conducted by the popular vote alone those in populated areas would have greater control over the Executive Branch. Furthermore, election fraud in these areas alone would allow for the undemocratic election of the president. Under the Electoral system it remains far more difficult to tamper with the extremely important presidential election. By keeping this system, a party would have to devise an organized system for defrauding the voting population in many hetrogeneous areas, each with different systems of conducting elections. This fact makes election fraud in the the presidential election virtually impossible.

Many would simply look at Article 2 of the U.S. constitution and recognize its undemocratic nature. In reality this system was designed for a large country with a very simple media network. It was borrowed from Roman times and altered to fit the precarious U.S. situation, and appease states who were suspicious of federalism. What isn't written directly under Article 2 is how much lattitude the states have when it comes to choosing their respective electors, and setting up the rules of the game. I think you will find that principle under Article 4, regarding State's rights. Over the years all the states have move to the direct election of electors, thereby making this system even more democratic. Most states have a winner take all statement in their election statute; though some split the electors by districts. Most states bind the electors to the choice made by the people, though not all are obligated. Even so, traditionally they vote by the popular consent of the people.

As much as I have studied this system, in its present form, nothing would lead me to conclude that it is undemocratic. My conclusion is quite the opposite. This complex, hardly understood system has helped save this country from some terribly destabilizing situations, thus protecting the integrity of our democracy. When investigating the electoral college, one can only marvel at the genius by which such a system was devised. Let me think about whose logic I respect more, the leftist on this board, or great men like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. That's a tough one.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 5:41 am on Nov. 18, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:38 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
U.S. Constitution

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



U.S. Constitution

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

------------------------------------------------------

If you do not like the way the law is written I suggest you find a way to change it. However, I must warn you that it is virtually impossible to amend the constitution if there is not a sufficient reason. In addition, restructuring this system would require you to change election laws in all 50 States.

Critics of the system often point to such events as the 2000 presidential election as reason to scrap the institution. Conservatives who understand the reasoning behind such a system sight these events as justification for such a complex system. If you look at the demographic breakdown across the country to see how many districts went to Bush, you would notice a prodominance of States favorable to Bush in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. Therefore it can be said that Bush represents a wider range of America's interest. That is beside the point. If the presidential election were to be conducted by the popular vote alone those in populated areas would have greater control over the Executive Branch. Furthermore, election fraud in these areas alone would allow for the undemocratic election of the president. Under the Electoral system it remains far more difficult to tamper with the extremely important presidential election. By keeping this system, a party would have to devise an organized system for defrauding the voting population in many hetrogeneous areas, each with different systems of conducting elections. This fact makes election fraud in the the presidential election virtually impossible.

Many would simply look at Article 2 of the U.S. constitution and recognize its undemocratic nature. In reality this system was designed for a large country with a very simple media network. It was borrowed from Roman times and altered to fit the precarious U.S. situation, and appease states who were suspicious of federalism. What isn't written directly under Article 2 is how much lattitude the states have when it comes to choosing their respective electors, and setting up the rules of the game. I think you will find that principle under Article 4, regarding State's rights. Over the years all the states have move to the direct election of electors, thereby making this system even more democratic. Most states have a winner take all statement in their election statute; though some split the electors by districts. Most states bind the electors to the choice made by the people, though not all are obligated. Even so, traditionally they vote by the popular consent of the people.

As much as I have studied this system, in its present form, nothing would lead me to conclude that it is undemocratic. My conclusion is quite the opposite. This complex, hardly understood system has helped save this country from some terribly destabilizing situations, thus protecting the integrity of our democracy. When investigating the electoral college, one can only marvel at the genius by which such a system was devised. Let me think about whose logic I respect more, the leftist on this board, or great men like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. That's a tough one.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 5:41 am on Nov. 18, 2002)


You know how people say communism is a good idea in theory but it doesn't work?

I think the same can be said for the US

[Stormin Norman]

Tell me then. Where have you seen the breakdown occur? Where did the electoral system fail to operate as designed?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:36 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
Tell me then. Where have you seen the breakdown occur? Where did the electoral system fail to operate as designed?

simply by the fact that it doesn't go with majority rule like democracy is supposed to.

Not to mention the unfair advantage that the two major parties have...of course this has nothing to do with the constitution so I wont count it.

[abstractmentality]

I still contend that if one persons vote is worth more than anothers, then it is not a democracy. Bush winning more votes in the midwest and Rocky mountain regions does show that he "represents" more from that region, but shouldnt the president "represent" the majority of the nation, not the minority?

although, in certain terms, a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:22 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
I still contend that if one persons vote is worth more than anothers, then it is not a democracy. Bush winning more votes in the midwest and Rocky mountain regions does show that he "represents" more from that region, but shouldnt the president "represent" the majority of the nation, not the minority?

although, in certain terms, a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

very true my boy very true

[Kehoe]

A majority does not establish justice no more than a house of fools establish wisdom.The majority being motivated by greed votes to maintain a capitalist society in which they are at liberty to compete,manipulate and thus gain the advantage over all others ... whereas,a small minority cry out in vain for equality in distribution ... theres your democracy and you can have it.The Nazis,as the majority in Germany carried out horrendous crimes against humanity,and dont attempt the argument that this was the result of the Nazi hierarchy only and not of the German public, for they were willing instruments of that hierarchy.The German people took full part in the spitting and name-calling,in mocking and ridiculing Jewish people as they were turned out into the streets,the ghettoes,and eventually sent to the death camps.Among the greatest contributors to evil are good men who do nothing,and the greatest expression of a majority is generally nothing more than mob violence.Capitalism has prevailed to this day,not because it is the better system,but because it intoxicates a politically ignorant populace with ambition to succeed by dominating others through financial cunning and thus become lords living in opulence with a divine feeling of superiority.Confucius believed that the meaning of life was to transform oneself and society based on selfless love of community ... to live a meaningful life.The one basic ethic essential to mankind is simply kindness ... human compassion,a quality that is lost in self-serving materialism.Confucius also believed that those having boats and carriages should be afforded no occasion to ride in them and were they to possess expensive clothes they should have no occasion to wear them ... simple food,plain clothes,modest living quarters and no cause that select members should display possessions unattainable to others.U.S.democracy is a sham and those that support it do so in hope that the masses will continue to believe in this grand illusion.

(Edited by Kehoe at 5:26 am on Nov. 18, 2002)

[abstractmentality]

Kehoe:
I recognize the the tyranny of the majority, just in case you didnt see that. i am also writing most of this stuff about defending democracy with a basis that a true democracy is the absolute final, and best system. Although, after reading Robert Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism, i see the underlying conditions of the individuals autonomy and legitimacy of the state, and recognize this.

but Confucius is an interesting case that you also bring up. i dont feel like writin a lot right now, but didnt he believe that we should respect the structured institutions that we have been born into, and sort of know our place in the whole skeme of things?

[tocayo]

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!? BUSH AND GORE ARE THE SAME PERSON (from a political point of view), they just represent different companies......

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:42 pm on Nov. 17, 2002

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:36 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
Tell me then. Where have you seen the breakdown occur? Where did the electoral system fail to operate as designed?

simply by the fact that it doesn't go with majority rule like democracy is supposed to.

Not to mention the unfair advantage that the two major parties have...of course this has nothing to do with the constitution so I wont count it.


the electoral college has come into play like 2 or 3 times in hstory, every other time it has been straight majority rule and, the electoral college is mere an "adjusted majority" in the interests of fair representation for the states

so, sir, the american system does follow the majority rule system

ever since bush/gore, many leftists have jumped all over the american electoral system, basically ignoring the 200+ years before this past presidential election

[abstractmentality]

CI, are you going to answer my question yet? or are you going to speak around it still?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yeah, your right, America is run by the corporations, not the people. Every election year, Americans vote on either one party or another. The parties are nearly identical and attempt to draw attention to really pointless issues. Ex: Abortion, even though it is on the constitution and the court says it's alright, they still ask every politician his views on abortion. Other examples include death penalty, smoking laws, defense budget, immigration laws, and other issues that don't really make much of a difference at all! These pointless issues draw attention away from the real enemy, the very system under which America is based on, Capitalism. 'Democracy' is a way to prevent people from feeling repressed yet still make money for the couple of hundred bussinessmen who run America and the world.

[Stormin Norman]

Apparently Victorcommie has never heard of a two party system. Of course, most educated people would recognize this system to be the result of the very democratic single-member district plurality election rule (first past the post) method of voting. In this system the person with the greatest amount of votes wins the election. Contrast this with proportional representation, which is more prevalent in small European countries. The proportional system, where a % of votes for a party equates to a percentage of representation in the legislature, happens to result in a multi-party system. The correlation between the types of party-systems and election law is known by political scientists as Duverger's Law. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but both systems are forms of democracy.

[apathy maybe]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:40 pm on Nov. 26, 2002
Apparently Victorcommie has never heard of a two party system. Of course, most educated people would recognize this system to be the result of the very democratic single-member district plurality election rule (first past the post) method of voting. In this system the person with the greatest amount of votes wins the election.
this means that if there are 10 candidates and 9 got 9% of the vote and the other received 20%, that person would win. Democratic?

Contrast this with proportional representation, which is more prevalent in small European countries. The proportional system, where a % of votes for a party equates to a percentage of representation in the legislature

Which means that if there was 10 candidates and the same number of votes as above (9 x 10 + 20) probably each candidate gets in. Thus enabling each group a voice. An example of this which may interest some of you is the Tasmanian system. This has proportional representation using the Hare-Clark system and Robson rotation. However, the two major parties joined to change the number of seats from 7 to 5 in each electorate (for a total of 25). For proportional representation to work you need enough seats per electorate.
Links.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/hare.html
http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/info...ohareclark.html (http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/infohareclark.html)

(Edited by apathy maybe at 9:38 pm on Nov. 28, 2002)

[Tkinter1]

Some people still fail to see that the US is a Democratic Republic, and never claims to be a pure Democracy.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 7:43 pm on Nov. 28, 2002)

[honest intellectual]

It's interesting that in this thread no one has actually made a concerted effort to claim that the US is democratic.

[timbaly]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:38 pm on Nov. 21, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:42 pm on Nov. 17, 2002

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:36 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
Tell me then. Where have you seen the breakdown occur? Where did the electoral system fail to operate as designed?

simply by the fact that it doesn't go with majority rule like democracy is supposed to.

Not to mention the unfair advantage that the two major parties have...of course this has nothing to do with the constitution so I wont count it.


the electoral college has come into play like 2 or 3 times in hstory, every other time it has been straight majority rule and, the electoral college is mere an "adjusted majority" in the interests of fair representation for the states

so, sir, the american system does follow the majority rule system

ever since bush/gore, many leftists have jumped all over the american electoral system, basically ignoring the 200+ years before this past presidential election


A majority is a majority, there can be no adjusted majority. Therefore the Bush/Gore election did NOT follow the majority rule policy. The electoral college is an insult to democracy and because it stole the election from Gore it should be brought up and shows a flaw in the system. It shouldn't be taken lightly regardless of what the past shows.

[BasementAddix]

[quote]Quote: from Tkinter1 on 7:42 pm on Nov. 28, 2002
Some people still fail to see that the US is a Democratic Republic, and never claims to be a pure Democracy.
[quote]



exactly...we probably have the most Democratic country in the world...though not perfect....thats the peoples own fault...you cant vote someone into power and expect them to be perfect...or even good for that matter...power corrupts...thats why we have checks and balances....to help that power from being dominated by any one particular group....it things were really as terrbible as people sometimes claim it to be...then things would have changed (ie revolution)...its happened before...and if needed...it can happen again....this is what i say to all the people who live in America and yet hate it so much...."move"....simple as that....there arent many other places that they will be happy...or atleast content....


(Edited by BasementAddix at 7:16 am on Dec. 5, 2002)

[Bulls on parade]

Sure the USA is 'democratic enough' but when was the last time you actually had a say in what happened in your town.

Not to mention the fact that voting in the USA is not compulsory, which is just the way the government likes it. When people don't care about the way their country is run it keeps them in power. (Contribution to this from the media of all forms).

Indoctrination of passiveness at it's finest.

[BasementAddix]

once again...thats the peoples own fault...i hate people who ***** about politics yet dont vote (not saying u...just in general)...

[lifetrnal]

Stormin,

You know what you are talking about, certainly the one party system in the United States is a product of it's elcetoral system; However, you can not dispute that for all intents and purposes the two parties are mearly both sides of the same coin. They both opporate, along witht the corporate world that controls the media, to marginalize the opposition. This has resulted in the "reasonable un-freedom" of Marcuse. I contend, if you deny that no other voice in American politcs is drowned out by the Republicrats in the United States, then your American recieved political science education has done its duty.

[lifetrnal]

Tinker,

Get real, open your eyes, comrade. Who is really in power in this country? The canidate that you vote for? Do you know how much it costs to be 'elected' in the United States? Do you know where the money comes from your president and your congress men to be elected? Basicly, BUSINESS is nominating 2 choices for you wht asthetic diffrences. Then you buy into yourself having a choice... you vote... and once in office the congressmen try to please those who are responsible for their position... BUSINESS. Think about it a little huh? Democratic-Republic my a**. If this is a democratic-republic so in China.

[timbaly]

Quote: from BasementAddix on 2:15 am on Dec. 6, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Tkinter1 on 7:42 pm on Nov. 28, 2002
Some people still fail to see that the US is a Democratic Republic, and never claims to be a pure Democracy.
[quote]



exactly...we probably have the most Democratic country in the world...though not perfect....thats the peoples own fault...you cant vote someone into power and expect them to be perfect...or even good for that matter...power corrupts...thats why we have checks and balances....to help that power from being dominated by any one particular group....it things were really as terrbible as people sometimes claim it to be...then things would have changed (ie revolution)...its happened before...and if needed...it can happen again....this is what i say to all the people who live in America and yet hate it so much...."move"....simple as that....there arent many other places that they will be happy...or atleast content....


(Edited by BasementAddix at 7:16 am on Dec. 5, 2002)


I f you don't like something, like American policies and live in America why should you move? You should try to make a difference and get other people to see your points. You have to open up the eyes of others who don't see the corruption like you do, thats what many of the people on this site are trying to do.

[BasementAddix]

I f you don't like something, like American policies and live in America why should you move? You should try to make a difference and get other people to see your points. You have to open up the eyes of others who don't see the corruption like you do, thats what many of the people on this site are trying to do.

once again i should have been more clear with what i said...i didnt mean "dont like"...i dislike alot of things our govt does...im speaking towards the people who always badmouth this country...the people who dislike and disagree with everything (most of them dont vote mind u)...the people who are all talk and no action...

[Aleksander Nordby]

do the USA just have a two party system, i just heard it and cant belive it.........

[BasementAddix]

theres more then 2 patries...but theres two main ones...yes

[lifetrnal]

Basement,

We have what political scientists call a two-party dominant system. Basicly, this means everyone knows that only two parties have any chance at all on the national level. So, yes, WE HAVE a two party system.
As to people who disagree with everythin about this country... I HATE the United States, but I love its people.. it is my DUTY to stay here and try and make this a better place. Oh, and not that it matters, I DO VOTE... EVERY election, which is probably more than you have.

[BasementAddix]

but it can be changed...and it is slowly...indi's are winning more and more state elections...and Perot bascially helped the democrats win office...as did Green did with bush...they do have a say and they are making progress...

[timbaly]

I thought I would just post the undemocratic presidential elections in the history of the US.

1824 Andrew Jackson gets the popular vote and most electoral votes. John Quincy Adams becomes president because the house of reps votes him in. This is because no candidate had a majority.

1840 Whig candidate William h. Harrison won 1,275,017 votes but his opponent , democrat Martin Van Buen won 1,280,702. but Harison won 234 electoral votes and Van Buren 60.

1876, Rutheford B. Hayes won over 4,033,950 and Samuel Tilden won 4,282,757. Yet Hayes won 185 votes and Tilden 184.

1888 Benjamin Harrison gets 5,444,337 and Grover Cleveland 5,540,050. Harrison won 233 electoral votes and Cleveland 168.

Gore 51,003,894 266
Bush 50,459,211 271

[BasementAddix]

thats the way its set up...to give the state with a larger population a bit more power...

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from BasementAddix on 12:52 pm on Dec. 13, 2002
thats the way its set up...to give the state with a larger population a bit more power...
the state with a smaller population has less power, when speaking of value of each vote. in one of my previous post in this thread, i also say this. a vote from a person in the least populated state weighs 20 some odd times more than that of a vote from california.

[BasementAddix]

im talking about the state as a whole...not the individual vote...i personally dont think its that bad of a system..,

[abstractmentality]

If the current system makes it so that one persons vote is worth 20 some odd times more than yours, than how could you possibly say that you "personally dont think its that bad of a system"? personally, i dont think that their vote is more important than mine, and i see a HUGE problem when i have less "power" then someone else in a "democratic" system.


(Edited by abstractmentality at 8:04 pm on Dec. 14, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Another aspect of democratic america is described here.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/r...taboutface.html (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/reportaboutface.html)

[BasementAddix]

Democratic isnt based on an individuals vote...look at how it was founded back in the 1700 (american democracy)...it was about giving power to the states...not the people...not the national govt...so in that sense...i dont see the system as being that bad

[peaccenicked]

The universal franchise as far as it exists in the USA and as as it does exist in other countries is a democratic step forward but as we have seen in Iraq and the former USSR it is useless with only one candidate, it is a sham but however it is a sham in all countries. It is a democracy by the rich for the rich set to delude the people by restricting their information and vilifying and making enemies out of critics and merely keeping critical thinking outside the flow of mainstream information.
The worst thing they do is try to promote a bond of patriotism with this sham democracy which informs their support for imperialistic militaristic goals of the rich.
The poor are caught in the ebbs and flow of the market
and cuts in public spending and no alternative to the market is presented.

[Stormin Norman]

"the state with a smaller population has less power, when speaking of value of each vote. in one of my previous post in this thread, i also say this. a vote from a person in the least populated state weighs 20 some odd times more than that of a vote from california"

How do you figure?

[timbaly]

Norm it's simple, every state has a minimum of 3 electors. If you have a state with the population of 5 than you get 3 electors. If your population is 783,60, like Deleware you have 3 votes. so the smaller state being the one with 5 people, have more power in their vote. Just divide the population of voting age by electors per state to get the answer.

I did some research of my own. It didn't go so well, I couldn't find the population of voting age in New York, California or Texas. However I did find the population of Wyoming and Delaware.

Delaware has a population of 783,600 and has 3 electors. 589,013 of citizens are of voting age. If you divide 589,013 into 3 you get about 196,338 when rounded to the nearest one. The # 196,338 is the number of people per elector in Delaware.

The population of voting age in Wyoming is 364,909 divide it by 3 to get 164,594. Meaning 164,594 people of voting age per elector in Wyoming.

As you can see the people in Wyoming have more power in their vote than people from Deleware. So your vote has a greater meaning in Wyoming than Deleware.
This might not seem like all that much of a difference but the larger the state the less your vote counts in comparison to small states like Delaware and Wyoming.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

America is a representative democracy, something which I would oppose any day. I prefer a direct, one-party democracy any day over this crap which they call Democracy.

[Stormin Norman]

For the same reason we have a bicameral congress, the electoral college was implemented. These devices were created to offset regional differences. Our whole system was designed to create a democracy with a large degree of legitimacy and stability, something I would suggest the founders succeeded in creating.

I don't think many of you have bothered to read the Federalist Papers which defend the use of a federal system and clarify the reasons for such a complicated system. The ultimate goal was to prevent the inevitable breakdown of democracy to what has been dubbed the tyranny of majority. Already I see that Victorcommie finds this theory deplorable and would favor the one party dominate system of China or the old Soviet Union. I can already assume that most of you would find these ideals deplorable, for you openly advocate anti-Americanism, while pledging allegiance to a economic and political system that does not bother itself with such considerations. You have alot of nerve attacking the U.S. constitution while praising the edicts of Marxism. Don't preach to me about democracy, for it it something you have already proven you care nothing about. Fucking hypocrits.

[abstractmentality]

SN:
I have read some of the federalist papers, but not the one you speak of in which they talk about the purpose of the Electoral college. In the attempt to not get a "tyranny of the majority," they made the system so that a potential "tyranny of the minority" can take place, as we have seen a few times in history (see one of Timbaly's earlier post). i dont know about you, but a tyranny of the minority seems a lot worse than a tranny of the majority. (although both do not show legitimate authority of the state over all of its people.) I am NOT for a one-party "democratic" system as victorcommie says, and i am not a dogmatic marxists, just to clear that up. i simply look at the structure of the electoral college and see that changes need to be made.

something that was written over two hundred years ago will probably have flaws when applied to todays society, and this is the case of the electoral college. if i remember correctly, when this was written, the urbanization of america hadnt happend yet, and the difference in number of people in the rural and urban areas was not nearly as great as it is now. that is something that needs to be looked at. if, as you say, it was the protect differences in region, then it needs to adapt to the current differences in region.

although i do not think that the electoral college will ever leave us, here is an idea to reform, and help a little, the electoral college system: instead of giving all of the electoral votes from one state to the candidate with the majority of the votes (no matter how slim the margin), give each candidate a percentage of electoral votes that corresponds to the percentage of popular votes they recieved in the state. although this still doesnt solve the problem of one persons vote weighing more than another, it is a step in the right direction; in no way do i think changing the system should stop there.

i am all for democracy, but a democracy that shows the proper legitamcy of authority over the citizens of the country (see In Defence of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff for the terminology used in this context)

(Edited by abstractmentality at 8:48 am on Dec. 18, 2002)

[timbaly]

I thought I would just post the undemocratic presidential elections in the history of the U.S.
In 4 of these 5 examples the peoples coice for president did not become the president. Now isn't democracy supposed to be based on majority rule? There can only be one majority, correct? How can you call these elections fair elections?

1824 Andrew Jackson gets the popular vote and most electoral votes. John Quincy Adams becomes president because the house of reps votes him in. This is because no candidate had a majority.

1840 Whig candidate William h. Harrison won 1,275,017 votes but his opponent , democrat Martin Van Buen won 1,280,702. but Harison won 234 electoral votes and Van Buren 60.

1876, Rutheford B. Hayes won over 4,033,950 and Samuel Tilden won 4,282,757. Yet Hayes won 185 votes and Tilden 184.

1888 Benjamin Harrison gets 5,444,337 and Grover Cleveland 5,540,050. Harrison won 233 electoral votes and Cleveland 168.

Gore 51,003,894 votes. 266 electoral votes
Bush 50,459,211 votes. 271 electoral votes.
One of the electors in Washington D.C. decided not to vote, and she has that power since she isn't held accountable to vote for the majority.

[Stormin Norman]

I can called them democratic because they abide by a certain set of rules established and ratified by the nations member constituents (states). They are consistent with the predetermined rule of law set of to legitimize the cohersive authority of a democratic government. These incidents did not result in military coups, or undermine the overall stability of the political structure. Having the precise election laws necessary to determine the outcomes of such sticky situations, and the underlying ideology (the constitution) that gives participants a common belief in the system, enabled disasters to be averted. Lives were spared. Democracy was strengthened.

Now I have a question for all of you nay sayers, which assert that the U.S. is undemocratic. You feel that the election laws regarding the people's selection of a president in the U.S. presidential system of government remain undemocratic. How then do you feel about parliamentary governments? Are they as undemocratic as the U.S.? I eagerly await an answer to this question?


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:55 pm on Dec. 21, 2002)

[lifetrnal]

SN,

I disagree with everything you say. :-) Now that we have that out of the way, I'll add my two cents. So far everyone else has pointed out how un-democratic our system really is, so I won't talk about that, what I will talk about is your acertian that the constitution of the United States is not something that has been forced on the people. Let me ask you about some things then.... The Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's rebellion, and dare I say our civil war. During none of those times was the millitary used to *impose* the constitution? The civil war is the most agrejus of the 3. The Southern states, rightly or wrongly wanted nothing more to do with the constitution... and what *protection* did the region get? An occupying federal army of more than a million men. But, that is nither here nor there.... things are GOING to change, things are comming to a head soon... capitalism will not stand for ever. Every empire falls.

[Stormin Norman]

First, you tell me that you do not agree with anything I say. Like I care. Then you casually skip over the question that I asked this board in order to pose your own set of questions. Aside from demonstrating your wish to shred the U.S. constitution, you fail to actually offer the respectable members of this board any insight into your way of thinking. I guess I will be forced to assume that you are another illiberal, illogical, inconsequential leftist idiot, for you have provided me nothing but your absurd questions to base my judgment of you.

If you wish for me to further acknowledge your pathetic assertions, you must first answer the question that I was so eagerly waiting for a response to. Anti up.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Leftist idiot?? Look at urself Stormin Moron. Captalism ofcourse has the great hero's like: Nixon, Berluscione, Bush, Putin, Karzai and many others(can't fit on this website)They are a real example to follow."God bless America" does this testify of blind faith to do everything what the moron in the seat says.

[abstractmentality]

SN:
I will not try to discuss with you the idea of parliamentry democracy, as i do not know much about it, and i will not pretend that i do.

but i did want to ask you what you thought of what i wrote in my previous post, for in your post you seem to not say anything of it.

[Stormin Norman]

"I will not try to discuss with you the idea of parliamentry democracy, as i do not know much about it, and i will not pretend that i do."

That's okay. I will discuss it after someone addresses it. You asked for feedback on your thoughtful post. Fair enough.

"i dont know about you, but a tyranny of the minority seems a lot worse than a tranny of the majority."

You are right in thinking that we should fear the tyranny of the minority as well as the tyranny of the majority. However, I don't think the results of the election debacle represent the tyranny of the minority. The rule of law was adhered to, and the election went to the man who got the most electoral votes rather than popular votes. This simply means the election was close and the country is sharply divided along ideological lines. In fact I think it could be said that a different majority is being represented by the outcome. If you look at a map of the districts that went to Bush, you will see that he had larger overall regional support than did Gore. Gore's supporters where mostly on the east coast states as well as some of the west coast states. Most the mid-west and southwest states went to Bush. Bush represents more states than Gore.

Tyranny of the minority would be more along the lines of the PRI in Mexico that used a corrupt a patron-client network to assume control of the political system. Election fraud and blatant corruption allowed the one party dominant system to reign for years. Because of large pressures coming from the majority of its citizens, the PRI has had to change some of its practices to ensure voting integrity be watched more closely. This is largely due to a changing political culture, and a voter base that no longer remembers the 'Mexican miracle', or the popular reforms imposed by the popular leader Lazaro Cardinas. Loyalty to the party is no longer a matter of practice, since years of poor economic policies has resulted in widespread dissolution among the voters.

Cadre parties in authoritarian and militaristic regimes more closely relate to what is known as the tyranny of the minority. Theocratic states that incorporate religious laws into the legal institutions are another great example of this sort of mayhem. Fortunately we are seeing a large movement away for these trends. The world is going through a third wave of democracy. The first to being the creation of states where many countries chose democracy as a form of policy making at their inception. The next wave resulted from the first two world wars, where these democratic states were forced into battle with those states that chose a different method of governance. The winners of the war imposed democracy on the losers in order to prevent future catastrophes of that magnitude. Now, as global markets are undermining old authoritarian regimes it becomes increasingly difficult for autocrats to shelter their citizenry from western products. The exposure to these innovations aids in the spread of western customs and ideas of democracy. We have all seen the result of these effects. Russia is probably the best example of how this can ruin a communist regime’s authority. China has done a better job dealing with the marketization than the former Soviet Union. However, Tiananmen square provides evidence of the precarious situation the Chinese Communist Party (an elite minority) finds itself in.

Although we have the advantage of democratic ideals and market economies, the U.S. is not immune to a very different threat posed by minorities. Religious groups have long sought to limit the freedom of the American people in order to align the society to a form more consistent to their values. Large special interest groups exist. Sometimes they are created to give voice to a minority position when voting does nothing to further their cause. Although this practice gives voice to concerns that would not otherwise be met with honest discussion, we all know the dangers present when the megaphone of the special interests silences the majority of citizens. Closed door bargaining of this sort is often not kept in a public forum; thereby undermining the democratic ideals laid forth in the U.S. Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights.

In addition to this threat, most Americans are aware of a notion known as politically correctness. Minority rights are often used to undermine the principles of this nation. Hate crime legislation undermines the credibility of the courts that may now place greater importance crimes that are determined to be hateful to a certain minority. Opponents of ‘hate-crime’ legislation have suggested that all forms of murder should be viewed as wrong and punished accordingly. With the advent of the EEOC following the controversial Clarence Thomas deposition, the right of employees to speak freely is being eroded in a peculiar manner. Some of the policies designed to be sensitive to minority groups border on pure insanity. If these trends continue, George Orwell’s thought crimes might become reality.

Continuing with threats caused by minority groups, it would only be fair to address the threat posed by the military. This notion also falls in line greatly with the interest group discussion, since the military is often a powerful special interest in itself. When militaries exist they should always be seen as a threat to the current regime. In our system the civilian population maintains direct oversight of their activities and the police and military remain separate entities. The Posse Comatatus Act ensures that military involvement in domestic affairs is kept to a minimum. However, 100 years after its enactment Eisenhower himself warned on against the growing military industrial complex in this country, demonstrating that the military still poses a threat to the democracy we enjoy. Even thought this is considered to be a minority threat to democracy, it seems as though stable political affairs in the United States may prove to neutralize this threat. It remains unlikely that the military would become an imposition unless the current system became unstable for some reason.

The examples shown all represent threats minority groups may pose. However, it is absurd to think that somehow because the presidency went to the man with 49.999% of the popular vote rather than the man with 50.001% we suffer from the tyranny of the minority. First of all, nothing Bush has done as of yet remains tyrannical. Second of all, he did win the regional majority. Last, Bush has seen some of the highest job approval ratings of all time. That does not seem consistent with the view that only a small percentage of Americans support the current president.

To use 2000 presidential election as reason for amending the U.S. constitution seems weak. The argument is flawed. One must realize that the U.S. Constitution is one of the hardest constitutions to amend, for good reason. The countries that routinely alter their constitutions undermine the credibility of the systems they outline. The high level of respect given the principles laid out by the paper foundation of our democracy is directly proportional to the amount of time our system has lasted. This document also lays the groundwork for the stability of the American system. If this document becomes arbitrary, it could possibly lead to a situation where the rule of law is not respected. When this happens, the legitimacy and stability of our political system erodes. As we have seen, such instability and possible violence could lead to direct military involvement, where you can be assured a rule by the minority.

Some have questioned why we don’t mandate a federal system that allows for a percentage of electoral votes to more closely resemble that of the popular vote. Again I refer you to the U.S. constitution. The electoral laws are left directly to the states, some of which do employ such a system for determining electoral votes. Overhauling state control over election laws would require a Constitutional Convention. In the past we have seen patterns of states adopting measures caused my pressures from the constituency. It would be far easier and less controversial if the reformulating of election procedure were done on a grassroots level in the individual states responsible for determining their own methods. It is obvious how the long lasting stability of American democracy is derived from the wisdom of the original framers. Any suggestions that advocate the removal of the Electoral College itself ought to be treated skeptically.

[abstractmentality]

SN:
"If you look at a map of the districts that went to Bush, you will see that he had larger overall regional support than did Gore."

i have seen this, especially on the shirts of the stout republicans of my city. yes, bush may have won more districts, but you have to look at the number of people that gore won over bush. (i dont like either of them, so dont get me wrong.) many of these districts that Bush won over Gore are not heavily populated, and the overall number of actuall people (not districts) to vote for gore was more than those that voted for Bush.

Now, as you say, "[t]he rule of law was adhered to" and the electoral college rules prevailed, but this would natuarally make the 51% of the country that voted for Gore to think about the structure of the system that forced the person with the minority vote to win the election. The 51% should then wonder why somebody elses vote is worth more than theirs. In my personal view, in a democracy, one persons vote means just as much as anothers.

As you have said though, when the electoral college was made, it was made in the attempt to help the people with less represented districts, mostly from urban areas and agricultural areas. but, as i said, the difference in number of people in the respective areas over 200 years ago differ greatly from the difference in the number of people living in the respective areas today. These old documents should not be placed as the last word, and never think about changing them. it is a living document, and should adapt to the times, as it has done in the past. If one is to think that the constitution is laid in stone, then they have become as much of a useless dogmatic "constitutionalist" as the dogmatic marxists. Documents as these must adapt to the current time setting.

"However, I don't think the results of the election debacle represent the tyranny of the minority."

I may have went a little overboard when calling this a tyranny of the minority, as the election was so close, but none the less, it is still a rule of the minority. Approval ratings for just about any president since approval ratings began have always started high, and then dropped off at the end of their presidency. now, lets not lie to ourselves, Bush's approval rating got a huge boost with september 11th. if that would not have happend, i think the public would be much more focused on the "trickle down" type economic relief that we saw not work with Ronald Reagan, that left us with more national debt than we had ever seen prior to reagan taking office. if september 11th hadnt of happend, the approval ratings would be high, but not nearly as high as they were at one point. So, i dont think that approval ratings matter as much now, especially with the whole thought going around of "if you are a dissident, you are not patriotic, you are a traitor, etc" that helps to push people to go along with whatever happens. but, as you look now, when republicans have been polled, they are split (give or take a percentage point) on whether or not to attack iraq. all you have to do is imagine what the percentages are like for democrats when polled. so, in this case, if we do attack, it will be an act of the minority over the majority, overwhelmingly. the simple fact that the administration is not listening to the public on this issue is a clear showing of this. now, whether or not we should attack iraq is debatable, but the right thing to do in a democracy is to listen to the people, period.

"...the U.S. Constitution is one of the hardest constitutions to amend..."

Yes it is, but it can be amended, and it has been, on numerous occasions. The thought that we should adapt the constitution to current conditions is not as farfetched or "radical" as you make it out to be. all it is is knowing that things are not the same as over 200 years ago.


(Edited by abstractmentality at 1:18 pm on Dec. 22, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

"These old documents should not be placed as the last word, and never think about changing them. it is a living document, and should adapt to the times, as it has done in the past."

I guess this a one of the many differences between liberals and conservatives. At least you are not of the foaming of the mouth mad-dog types. Your views on constitutional change are held by many middle of the road liberal democrats, the blue dog democrats. I enjoy talking to you because you are honest in your debate and use logic as a means of discussion. By far you are one of my favorite leftists to talk to . Just wanted to put that out there, so people don't accuse me of hating all liberals. If they could all take lessons from you, I am sure I would be much nicer to everyone on this board.

That being said, I think it would be a huge mistake to amend the constitution for the purpose of taking greater authority away from the states. I do think the type of change you suggest could be done on a state level. I don't think we will ever agree on this, but it was definetely worth discussing.

Now, I will wait to see if anyone addresses my question about parliamentary style of government.

[abstractmentality]

thank you. the thought of the constitution as a living document or as the last word is just one of the fundamental differences between our ideologies.

[Goldfinger]

Quote: from TheLesserof2Evils on 8:00 am on Nov. 15, 2002
Hey Apocalypse When,

I don't think north Korea is a domecratic republic, South is. North Korea is nothing but a GIANT fu#$'n army.

that's my point; just because they call it a democracy doesn't mean it is. And when it comes to South Korea - well, you'll just have to ask Comrade Junichi.

[Stormin Norman]

Either way, your comment landed you in the ignorance hall of fame, AW. Hey that abbreviation sounds a lot like dubya.

Still no reply to my loaded question about parliamentary government. I guess none of you enjoy Russian Roullete.