You all live in a part of the world that call themself a democracy.

By that definition it is the majority that gets to call the shoots!

Therefore if the majority of the population would like to have free healthcare the democracy could make it so!



Do the U.S.A. really have a democracy?

Lets look at other forms of ideologies.

You can sum up all ideologies in very few words because it is the basis of a society:



Democracy: The majority (51 %) gets to call the shoots!

Tyranny: One person gets to call the shoots, who cares for only him self!

Monarchy: One person gets to call the shoots, who may or may not be good to the people and the his son or dauther gets to call the shoots after that person is dead.

Oligarchy: A minority gets to call the shoots, who cares most for others who are a part of that minority.

Wikipedia explains it like this: is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family, military powers or spiritual hegemony). The word oligarchy is translated into "rule by few."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy



So If you have a democracy in the U.S.A. then how come it looks like and behaves as an Oligarchy?



Sure you get to vote........ that is democratic, but who gets to sit on the throne?

What does it take to become a president?

What does it take to become THE spokesman for the 51% of the people?

It takes money!

Q: How many in the U.S.A. have the capital to run for president?

A: A very select few!



Now what you could do to make the U.S.A a true democracy is to do what other countries have done before you.

Denmark a small country by size and population, but we are a true democracy.

Sure we vote for a primeminister who gets to sit on the throne, but he or she do not get to call all the shoots!

Anyone who are active in politics in denmark, even on a local plan, and are a part of politic party can become primeminister and/or become a minister in general. All it takes is to be politically active and over the age of 18.



Im sure that most Americans do not know what a true democracy really is, because if they did they would not be fooled by the people who in reality runs their country.



Take a look on what wikipedia has to say on the matter of the danish democracy and compair it to your own.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Denmark



YinYangDK. Aarhus, Denmark.

It's colloquially called a democracy, but the technically correct term is a republic.

do the U.S.A really have a democracy?

The long answer is no.

The evidence of this can be seen by the fact that when abortionists, homosexuals, and child rapists want to march or demonstrate they do so in front of the Supreme Court building and not in front of Congress.

If democracy were a factor in US politics, traitors and enemies would march and demonstate in front of Congress where people allegedly vote.

Therefore if the majority of the population would like to have free healthcare the democracy could make it so!

Nothing in life is FREE! Someone must pay for others to recieve "free" healthcare so I'd think you aren't exactly thinking correctly about this issue. Anoither thing, there's already "free" medical care for those who really need it at local community hospitals or there's a sliding scale at which one pays for services. So if you aren't making much they will only bill you according to what you make and can afford to pay, if anything at all. Then there's Medicare, and Medicade as well as social Security with its health care plan for free. So alreeady there's free health care so I really don't understand your problem all that well.

Again, who will pay for this "free" healthcare you seem to think we need?:shrug:

Nothing in lide is FREE! Someone must pay for others to recieve "free" healthcare so I'd think you aren't exactly thinking correctly about this issue. Anoither thing, there's already "free" medical care for those who really need it at local community hospitals or there's a sliding scale at which one pays for services. So if you aren't making much they will only bill you according to what you make and can afford to pay, if anything at all. Then there's Medicare, and Medicade as well as social Security with its health care plan for free. So alreeady there's free health care so I really don't understand your problem all that well.

Again, who will pay for this "free" healthcare you seem to think we need?:shrug:

How much money does the military get to buy new equipment pr. year?
If the majority of the population would like to get FREE health care, no matter socialstatus a democracy would be able to redirect money away from the military and into population healthcare!

Did you know by the way that the average live span of a male american is 45?
In Russia the average live span for a male is 43.
In the poor countries of Africa it is 35.

Is it not a bit desturbing that From one of the poorest countries in the world to the U.S the live span only increase with 10 years?

We are a Representative Democracy. For example, we don't directly elect the President. We vote for our reps in the electoral college to vote for us. So a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election (see: Al Gore, 200) We elect officials that do the voting for us. That's why they pass the laws, not us.

As far as who can become President...well, technically, any natural-born citizen age 35 or above can become President. Is there a practical chance that I could become President when I reach that age? No, not at all. But I could run.

Our leaders have found a way to circumvent the system through special-interest groups and corporate money. That's why we have a father and son who have been President. And eventually, another Bush will become President, because they have the resources and recognition. But those are loopholes that are enabled by the ignorance of our citizenry. Our education system sucks, so we're not smart enough to read the writing on the wall.

Did you know by the way that the average live span of a male american is 45?
In Russia the average live span for a male is 43.
In the poor countries of Africa it is 35.

Is it not a bit desturbing that From one of the poorest countries in the world to the U.S the live span only increase with 10 years?

Where on earth did you find that crap?! The average male American life span is 75.29 years, not 45!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Life_Expectancy_2007_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook. PNG

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

http://www.nysun.com/national/american-life-expectancy-passes-78-years/79783/

Uber pwnage.

How much money does the military get to buy new equipment pr. year?
If the majority of the population would like to get FREE health care, no matter socialstatus a democracy would be able to redirect money away from the military and into population healthcare!

Did you know by the way that the average live span of a male american is 45?
In Russia the average live span for a male is 43.
In the poor countries of Africa it is 35.

First , what the fuck does this have to do with what I asked you as to WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR FREE HEALTH CARE?

Second, your "facts" about death age averages are WRONG! If you will look them up you will see how wrong you are. If you can provide a link as to where these "facts" are located, I'd appreciate it.

You all live in a part of the world that call themself a democracy.
By that definition it is the majority that gets to call the shoots!
Therefore if the majority of the population would like to have free healthcare the democracy could make it so!
Do the U.S.A. really have a democracy?
Lets look at other forms of ideologies.
You can sum up all ideologies in very few words because it is the basis of a society:
Democracy: The majority (51 %) gets to call the shoots!
Tyranny: One person gets to call the shoots, who cares for only him self!
Monarchy: One person gets to call the shoots, who may or may not be good to the people and the his son or dauther gets to call the shoots after that person is dead.
Oligarchy: A minority gets to call the shoots, who cares most for others who are a part of that minority.
Wikipedia explains it like this: is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family, military powers or spiritual hegemony). The word oligarchy is translated into "rule by few."

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olig

So If you have a democracy in the U.S.A. then how come it looks like and behaves as an Oligarchy?
Sure you get to vote........ that is democratic, but who gets to sit on the throne?
What does it take to become a president?
What does it take to become THE spokesman for the 51% of the people?
It takes money!
Q: How many in the U.S.A. have the capital to run for president?
A: A very select few!.

You are correct we have an oilgarchy mascarading as a representative democracy. Officially, we have three branches of government, the executive (president), legislative (congress) and judicial (court system). In practice we have two additional branches of government, journalists and K Street (lobbyists). The most powerful branches of our government are the two unoffical branches. Those are not elected branches nor even official branches of government. But in fact, those two control the country. Our government is broken. Where else could an inarticulate incompetent man attain the highest office in the land?

We both have representative forms of government. The difference is that you have a parlimentary system whereas we do not. It seems multiparty parlimentary systems tend to represent the interests of their citizens with more integrity than what occurs in the United States. I suspect it is because special interests have much more difficulty in corrupting the political system in a multiparty parlimentary system.

The healthcare system is another example of our broken government. Your facts on life spans is more than a little off target. But the truth is, it is a broken system. In the United States we spend more of our collective income on healthcare than anywhere else in the world...period! And we get few medical services. And not all of our citizens are covered as you point out.

Others in this thread have pointed out that some Americans are covered with goverment sponsored healthcare, and that is true. But there are huge gaps in coverage. Most often lower wage earners or independent small business people just cannot get or afford healthcare insurance.

The real issue with healthcare in the United States is COST. It is more than 15 percent of our GDP whereas in other industrial countries is around 5 percent of GDP. Not only is Healthcare cost BIG but the cost is growing at double digit rates annually. This is adversely impacting our productivity and our abiltiy to produce and export groups. It is adversely affecting our abiltiy to compete globally. Goods and services produced in others countries have a built in cost advantage because they do not have to bear the extra 10 percentage points of costs due to the American healthcare system. Virtually any prescription drug can be purchased anywhere in the world for less than what it costs in the United States.

These extra costs are the direct result of special interest lobbying...artificially controlling healthcare markets. For example, it takes 33 percent more education to become a medical doctor in the United States than it does anywhere else in the world. Does that mean American doctors get an extra 33 percent more medical education..no. Does it mean they are better than doctors that receive a typical foriegn medical education...no. It just drives up their abiltiy to charge higher fees and keeps down the number of physicians...special interests in action.

One final point, the one who receives the majority vote in the United States does not always win. Gore recieved more votes in 2000 than did George II. He had more popular votes. Had be been awarded all of the votes he should have had, he would have won the electorial votes as well. But George II still took office because of his special interest buddies and influence on the supreme court.

The long answer is no.

Correct. It is corporate oligarchy or elite plutocracy (well, that is kind of redundant), whichever you prefer.

Next question?

It's a Republic, something people seem not to understand, so majority rule or mob rule or whatever you want to call it when 51% wants something has nothing to do with anything.

It's a Republic, something people seem not to understand, so majority rule or mob rule or whatever you want to call it when 51% wants something has nothing to do with anything.

Oh on the contrary, I think people understand it all too well.

No, the majority does not rule a Constitutional Democracy. The Constitution also protects minority rights, both of the people, and minority parties or representatives in the Congress.

I think the system in Denmark is pretty cool. One advantage they have is everyone that works hard can get a free education to the graduate level. Having to pay for everything ourselves, many people with potential go nowhere, and consequently think they have little say in how things are run. There are all kinds of Democracies. It's very difficult to keep the influence of money out of it. The Danes tax the hell out of the very rich, and that helps to keep their power fairly in check.

"Democracy" is an elusive ideal, and such a concept cannot govern people, especially in the thousands and in the millions.

The US government is a Two-Party Republic, whereby a people elect between two leaders (choices which are controlled by other entities such as business corporations, labor unions, wealthy class, and foreign government lobbies). The electorial college is one of the main institutions which in shows without doubt that the US is not governed directly by the people. It's a facade.

The American forefathers were all part of noble and wealthy families. The dictatorship of the masses was to be prevented at all costs. American people do not know what is good for them (I agree with this statement to a degree). So a government was established to prevent anarchy and chaos, the government system was controlled by two parties, both of which are controlled by the upper class and use rhetoric and naive general propaganda to receive support.

Small price to pay for FREEDOM.

We are a federated republic of democratic states.

It's colloquially called a democracy, but the technically correct term is a republic.

A republic is a type of representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy

However, with its superdelegates, its media selected candidates and its electoral college, I do not believe that Americans have any choices in their candidates. The candidates are selected for them.

Based on popularity, so it's not entirely unjustified. Would Ralph Nader be more popular if he got more TV interviews? Probably not.

Popularity is also based on media exposure.

It's not as if seeing someone on TV makes them popular. TV is what we make it, they are driven by ratings. Cheney and Bush get media exposure, but they aren't popular.

You must be naive. How many people know about candidates who do not get ANY media exposure?

SAM i think you will find the same thing happens in ALL countries.

Look at the house of reps in Australia, there are only 2 independents (i think) because its so hard to get that sort of local popularity that enough people will vote for you ABOVE the 2 major parties.

that being said the senate is more friendly to the minor parties but still tends to lock out independents because in the senate case you need to be popular across a whole state.

Most people couldnt even tell you who there local member IS because they vote for the party rather than the people

I think the system in Denmark is pretty cool. One advantage they have is everyone that works hard can get a free education to the graduate level. Having to pay for everything ourselves, many people with potential go nowhere, and consequently think they have little say in how things are run. There are all kinds of Democracies. It's very difficult to keep the influence of money out of it. The Danes tax the hell out of the very rich, and that helps to keep their power fairly in check.

School is expensive in the states, but it's important to remember that the higher education in the US is the best in the world. That costs more money than the government and the public are willing to pay for...

Based on popularity, so it's not entirely unjustified. Would Ralph Nader be more popular if he got more TV interviews? Probably not.

I agree. And the same could be said of Ron Paul, who got less and less appealing, to the voters anyway, the more he spoke.

You must be naive. How many people know about candidates who do not get ANY media exposure?

Most people don't know anything substantive about the candidates who do get the "exposure," so what's your point. Again, the essence of what Spider says is correct. You can put Nader and Paul on television all you like. The majority isn't going to go for them.

"Democracy" is an elusive ideal, and such a concept cannot govern people, especially in the thousands and in the millions.

The US government is a Two-Party Republic, whereby a people elect between two leaders (choices which are controlled by other entities such as business corporations, labor unions, wealthy class, and foreign government lobbies). The electorial college is one of the main institutions which in shows without doubt that the US is not governed directly by the people. It's a facade.

The American forefathers were all part of noble and wealthy families. The dictatorship of the masses was to be prevented at all costs. American people do not know what is good for them (I agree with this statement to a degree). So a government was established to prevent anarchy and chaos, the government system was controlled by two parties, both of which are controlled by the upper class and use rhetoric and naive general propaganda to receive support.

Diamond don't look now, but your lack of understanding American history is showing. American origins are not as you seem to think they are. The current system of government evolved over time. It was not like, "so a government was established to prevent anarchy and chaos." The political parties that dominate American politics today, did not exist back then. The issues were different back then. The Republican Party didn't even exist back then. The Federalist Party was in power and various other parties have had power at various times in our history (e.g. Anti-mason Party).
Also Americans have never had nobles. We do not believe in nor recognize noble titles. The country was not founded by nobles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

School is expensive in the states, but it's important to remember that the higher education in the US is the best in the world. That costs more money than the government and the public are willing to pay for...

I agree. And the same could be said of Ron Paul, who got less and less appealing, to the voters anyway, the more he spoke.

Most people don't know anything substantive about the candidates who do get the "exposure," so what's your point. Again, the essence of what Spider says is correct. You can put Nader and Paul on television all you like. The majority isn't going to go for them.

The reason Nader and Ron Paul do not get more votes is because people do not belive they can win. Voters fear voting for them will waste their vote and help the canididate they dislike. That is the problem with pluarality voting. That is why we need a different voting system.

I prefer the Borda Count method. It is used in industry to gain consensus on the best choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

SAM i think you will find the same thing happens in ALL countries.

Look at the house of reps in Australia, there are only 2 independents (i think) because its so hard to get that sort of local popularity that enough people will vote for you ABOVE the 2 major parties.

that being said the senate is more friendly to the minor parties but still tends to lock out independents because in the senate case you need to be popular across a whole state.

Most people couldnt even tell you who there local member IS because they vote for the party rather than the people

I'm not familiar with the Australian system, I was comparing to the Indian one. We have the single representative vote, which is why we can never have a two party system.

umm isnt india a westminster system?

Ie someone needs enough members to form a goverment. Its possable the US could abolish the party system if they chose but its HIGHLY unlikly that the party system can be done away with in westminster democraises because that would mean a group of inderviduals having to work out who suports who in power, who should be PM ect and in the end it just wouldnt work

We have a parliamentary democracy.

yes but is it a british style westminster system or not?

Are there any other?

i assume so. Germany for instance isnt a british style system

So anyway how does india get a goverment set up if they dont use a party based system?

I mean how do you know pre election what policy each side stands for if they become goverment

India has political parties, and Sam well knows this. Currently, the communists are fairly powerful, if I am not mistaken.

The reason Nader and Ron Paul do not get more votes is because people do not belive they can win. Voters fear voting for them will waste their vote and help the canididate they dislike. That is the problem with pluarality voting. That is why we need a different voting system.

Maybe. Maybe not. Many European countries have multiple political parties, but typically there are two "major" ones there, too. To some degree, it's human nature to boil things down to an either/or choice, even if one doesn't like the two options.

As for throwing their vote away, I'm sure that's part of the reason why Nader and Paul are avoided by some. But the bigger issue is as has been suggested. The more people who see them, the less they are liked by the overall population. This is particularly true in Nader's case. A man like him will never have a major following, no matter what the system or how much free media he is given.

I prefer the Borda Count method. It is used in industry to gain consensus on the best choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

At first glance, this method strikes me as much too complicated to be carried out by tens of millions of voters. I am also wary of the notion that just because a consensus has been reached on something, and in this case the consensus is unintended (unlike it is in something like juries), that the resulting decision will somehow be more palatable than the current method.

India has political parties, and Sam well knows this. Currently, the communists are fairly powerful, if I am not mistaken.
Maybe. Maybe not. Many European countries have multiple political parties, but typically there are two "major" ones there, too. To some degree, it's human nature to boil things down to an either/or choice, even if one doesn't like the two options.
As for throwing their vote away, I'm sure that's part of the reason why Nader and Paul are avoided by some. But the bigger issue is as has been suggested. The more people who see them, the less they are liked by the overall population. This is particularly true in Nader's case. A man like him will never have a major following, no matter what the system or how much free media he is given.
At first glance, this method strikes me as much too complicated to be carried out by tens of millions of voters. I am also wary of the notion that just because a consensus has been reached on something, and in this case the consensus is unintended (unlike it is in something like juries), that the resulting decision will somehow be more palatable than the current method.

I don't think it would be to difficult now to execute now...especially with technology. The jury system does not use the Borda count method...perhaps it should. It has been my experience in quality circles that the Borda count works in finding the best solution to a given problem.

i assume so. Germany for instance isnt a british style system

So anyway how does india get a goverment set up if they dont use a party based system?

I mean how do you know pre election what policy each side stands for if they become goverment

We have a party based system, not a two party one.

India has at the federal level a head of state - the president - and a legislature. The President of India is elected for a five year term by an electoral college consisting of members of federal and state legislatures. Parliament has two chambers. The House of the People (Lok Sabha) has 545 members, 543 members elected for a five year term in single-seat constituencies and 2 members appointed to represent the Anglo-Indian community. The two unelected members are a relic from the past. . The 543 members are elected under the plurality ('first past the post') electoral system.

The House of the States (Rajya Sabha) has 245 members, 233 members elected for a six year term, with one third retiring every two years. The members are elected by legistators of the state and union (federal) territories. The elected members are chosen under the system of proportional representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote. The twelve nominated members are usually an eclectic mix of eminent artists (including actors), scientists, jurists, sportspersons, businessmen and journalists.The Lok Sabha is the more powerful of the two houses and can precede or overrule the Rajya Sabha (upper house) in certain matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_India

We have four six national level [ie recognised in four states] political parties and several regional ones. There is no fixed status for the parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India

we have 2 major parties (well correctly 3 but in reality the nations barly ever vote against the liberals so they can be counted as 1) and god knows how many minor ones.

it flutuates alot and there are alot of parties who just never get elected (THANK GOD) like the shooters party and the libertarians

for more infomation look at the post i made in the "goodbye to the democrats" thread because im not going to rewrite it

We have a gazillion parties, so generally the mix that gets electoral seats, forms a mixed government.

Its very rare for us to have ideologically different parties as opposites. The last time that happened was with the right wing BJP party in power. Although right now, the communist parts of the government coalition are being a pain in the butt about US India nuclear deal.

oh BTW sam i wouldnt expect any of that yellow cake to actually arive in india. The new australian goverment isnt going to bend over for the US like the old one did and has shelved any plans to sell yellow cake to india UNLESS it joins the NPT

Then we'll just have to make it ourselves, tough luck. :(

edit: hmm not as black and white as all that

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page504?oid=55194&sn=Detail


And apparently we can manage:

Nuclear Power Corporation of India, which plans to put up eight units of 700 MW `pressurised heavy water reactors' (PHWR), is not particularly worried about uranium supplies, whether or not the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of 40-odd nations agrees to give the raw material.

There is enough indigenous uranium to support a 10,000-MW PHWR programme for 50 years, Mr S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, NPCIL, told journalists here today.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/04/11/stories/2007041102980300.htm

Back to US undemocracy

Diamond don't look now, but your lack of understanding American history is showing. American origins are not as you seem to think they are. The current system of government evolved over time. It was not like, "so a government was established to prevent anarchy and chaos." The political parties that dominate American politics today, did not exist back then. The issues were different back then. The Republican Party didn't even exist back then. The Federalist Party was in power and various other parties have had power at various times in our history (e.g. Anti-mason Party).
Also Americans have never had nobles. We do not believe in nor recognize noble titles. The country was not founded by nobles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

One thing I do not understand, why do you have to personally attack me every time you respond to one of my posts. Where are the moderators to prevent this form continuing?

Regarding your reply, we obviously differ. Not everyone has to think as you do. Good day.

He didn't attack you personally, he attacked your appreciation of the issue, which is demonstrably poor.

WOW Great responce from nearly all of you!

The funny thing while reading is to notice how the orignale question are totally evoided by some of the readers, and they instead answer on the subject they were most provocated by.

ANYWHO.
To sum up the answers.
TIM840 : republic.
JDawg : Representative Democracy.
Joepistole : oilgarchy mascarading as a representative democracy.
Syzygys : corporate oligarchy or elite plutocracy .
Countezero : Republic.
Mr.G : federated republic of democratic states.

What I have understood so far is that The U.S.A. do not have a democracy, but the people in charge would like that the population thinks had they have.
Fixed elections are common in many countries around the world and uselly it is hungery for power people who win.

Question Nr.2
With is better for the population?

Diamond don't look now, but your lack of understanding American history is showing.

Actually, Diamond is right on every point.

The current system of government evolved over time.

My ass. It is pretty much the same as 200 years ago...

Also Americans have never had nobles. We do not believe in nor recognize noble titles. The country was not founded by nobles.

It is all semantics. The Kennedys were/are as noble as it gets.....Ever heard of prince of Camelot, describing junior???

To sum up the answers.
TIM840 : republic.
JDawg : Representative Democracy.
Joepistole : oilgarchy mascarading as a representative democracy.
Syzygys : corporate oligarchy or elite plutocracy .
Countezero : Republic.
Mr.G : federated republic of democratic states.

You have to realize 2 things:

1. Those are not all mutually exclusive things. A country can be a republic AND an oligarcy at the same time.
2. The word democracy dan describe the form of government/name of the country and the real status of the voting system. That's where the confusion starts. In the second case democratic should be used to avoid confusion.

In a really democratic country a new political party has a real chance of getting strong by popular demand and getting into power. Examples are Germany's greens or most of the new East European countries. This can not happen in the USA, thus it is not democratic.

And it has a 1.5 party system at most...

As to the question which is better for the people, it depends on your social class/economic satus.

P.S.: Actually all 6 answers are the same as long as we understand that JDawg's representative democracy represents the rich and not the people... :)

My ass. It is pretty much the same as 200 years ago...

Bullshit.

Consider that 200 years ago, the only federal position people could vote for was their member of the House of Reps. That is, no vote for the president was even taken. It was entirely selected by the electoral college. US Senators were appointed by state legislatures.

Also, 200 years ago women, blacks and anyone who wasn't white and didn't own a certain amount of land couldn't vote for anything. So no, it's not "prett much the same," and you need to learn some history.

It is all semantics. The Kennedys were/are as noble as it gets.....Ever heard of prince of Camelot, describing junior???

It's more than semantics. The Kennedys do indeed have a great deal of status in this country, but that status is not air tight. That is, if people stopped caring about them and stopped voting for them, they would become little more than a group of wealthy New Englanders who are gradually frittering away the money the Old Man made. This is vastly different than the notion of heredity title that is handed down for hundreds of years and automatically bestows privilage and influence.

For example, nobody in England knows or cares who the current Duke of Marlborough or Wellington is, but both have status, access to power, property and fortunes that will continue in perpetuity.

What I have understood so far is that The U.S.A. do not have a democracy, but the people in charge would like that the population thinks had they have.


The only people who think the US has a democracy are uneducated fools. The word Republic is all over the founding documents for anyone who cares to look.

The US government is a Two-Party Republic, whereby a people elect between two leaders (choices which are controlled by other entities such as business corporations, labor unions, wealthy class, and foreign government lobbies). The electorial college is one of the main institutions which in shows without doubt that the US is not governed directly by the people. It's a facade. The Republic part is structural, legal, and describes the setup. The "Two Party" aspect is circumstantial, and could disappear tomorrow without any change in the legal setup.

Mechanism is not facade. The electoral college is outdated, its purpose (to allow democratic representation in distant places of political negotiation) probably better served otherwise, but it is not a "facade": electors are themselves elected, by popular vote.

The American forefathers were all part of noble and wealthy families. Some were members of wealthy families, some weren't. None were noble.

I favour a conditional and proportional democracy.

Conditional because citizens would have to pass a general aptitude test to earn the right to vote.

Proportional because each representative would have as many votes in the house as the votes he received in the election.

There would be three representatives from each region, but with variable influence on decisions based on electoral votes received.

Syzygys I don't know what kind of education you have had, but it is obviously deficient with respect to American History. Have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? The Articles of Confederation were the founding legal documents of The United States of America. They were subsequently replaced with the Consitution which we now enjoy. And that constitution has been modified ever since with admendments. And you say nothing has changed. I am ever amazed at the ignorance and arrogance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

The last admendment to the Consitution occured in 1992, and there are 27 admendments.

Section/Article 9 of the Consitution expressly bans the use of noble titles:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

It would be greatly appreciated if some folks would do a little research before making blatenly false posts. It would certianly elevate the level of discussion and debate.

How much money does the military get to buy new equipment pr. year?
If the majority of the population would like to get FREE health care, no matter socialstatus a democracy would be able to redirect money away from the military and into population healthcare!

Did you know by the way that the average live span of a male american is 45?
In Russia the average live span for a male is 43.
In the poor countries of Africa it is 35.

Is it not a bit desturbing that From one of the poorest countries in the world to the U.S the live span only increase with 10 years?

How utterly stupid and ridiculous!!!

In your profile you say you are a nurse in an insane asylum - from the above statements, it appears that you are one of the inmates posing as a nurse!!!:bugeye:

Lol.

The Republic part is structural, legal, and describes the setup. The "Two Party" aspect is circumstantial, and could disappear tomorrow without any change in the legal setup.

Exactly.

Mechanism is not facade. The electoral college is outdated, its purpose (to allow democratic representation in distant places of political negotiation) probably better served otherwise, but it is not a "facade": electors are themselves elected, by popular vote.

No, the electorial college still serves the same purpose as it did 219 years ago, it allows for the democratic representation of the people in Fly Over Country, who's needs, are generally ignore by the East and West Coasts.

Some were members of wealthy families, some weren't. None were noble.

Very true, many made their fortunes after coming to America.

No, the electorial college still serves the same purpose as it did 219 years ago, it allows for the democratic representation of the people in Fly Over Country, who's needs, are generally ignore by the East and West Coasts.

I'm not so sure about that. The electoral college doesn't necessarily add any power to the Midwest of great plains. Moreover, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are hardly anything to turn your nose up at in an election year. This has little to do with the electoral college than the fact that some of the fastest growing states are "flyover" and some of the currently most populated states are "flyover" as well.

~String

I'm not so sure about that. The electoral college doesn't necessarily add any power to the Midwest of great plains. Moreover, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are hardly anything to turn your nose up at in an election year. This has little to do with the electoral college than the fact that some of the fastest growing states are "flyover" and some of the currently most populated states are "flyover" as well.

~String

But it still levels the playing field between the liberal and the conservative.

Enhances status of minority groups
Far from decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and special interests.[46] This does not apply to states that do not employ an all-or-nothing system, for selecting their electors, such as Maine and Nebraska; it does apply to individual electors.


Isolation of election problems
Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of potential election fraud or other problems to the state where it occurs. The College prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. Recounts, for instance, occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide. Similarly, the College acts to isolate less malicious election problems to the state in which they occur

Maintains separation of powers
The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.

you do know you could get the same effect by just making voting compulsery. Voting responcably is a much more patriotic act than saying some stupid plege

you do know you could get the same effect by just making voting compulsery. Voting responcably is a much more patriotic act than saying some stupid plege

Really? So you would have some one who doesn't know anything about what he is voting for compelled to vote?

It is the responsibility of a voter to take his vote as a serious thing, to educate himself about the issues, and then take himself to the polling station and vote, if he is to lazy to do it with out compulsion, he is to lazy to know what the issues are.

I haven't missed a election since I was eligible to vote, no mater what.

The American forefathers were all part of noble and wealthy families. The dictatorship of the masses was to be prevented at all costs. American people do not know what is good for them (I agree with this statement to a degree). So a government was established to prevent anarchy and chaos, the government system was controlled by two parties, both of which are controlled by the upper class and use rhetoric and naive general propaganda to receive support.

I beg to differ:

George Washington was a farmer and surveyor, a "landowner of the second rank, respectable but not very rich"(Mr. President: The Human Side of America's Chief Executives, David Rubel).

John Adams was descended from "average people. His great-great-grandfather Henry Adams first settled in Braintree, Massachusetts, around 1640, and the next four generations of Adamses were all anonymous small farmers"(Rubel).

Benjamin Franklin's father, Josiah Franklin, was "the son of Thomas Franklin, a blacksmith and farmer." His mother, Abiah Folger, was the daughter of "Peter Folger, a miller and schoolteacher"("Benjamin Franklin," Wikipedia).

Alexander Hamilton was the bastard son of the descendant of Scottish landowner living in St. Kitts and Nevis.

Samuel Adams was the son of a Boston businessman.

BR this is an honest question but what is to stop a candiate paying people to vote in the US?

Say a candiate saying if you vote i will give you $50

BR this is an honest question but what is to stop a candidate paying people to vote in the US?

Say a candidate saying if you vote i will give you $50

Considering that it takes roughly fifty million votes to get elected, it would take around 2.5 billion US dollars to do so, and let's face it, it would take more than fifty bucks to sway a good portion of the electorate. Considering that in the general election, McCain will spend roughly $100 million, plus another $100 million will be spent by unaffiliated special interest groups, and Obama will spend about $200 million + another $50 million by unaffiliated special interest groups, you're still are a long way off the $2.5 billion benchmark to "buy" the American vote. No, no... there's a much better way to get the American vote: glitzy ads and lots of nifty slogans.

I'm open to bribes. Ten grand will get you my vote.

~String

so there isnt a law against it?

Interesting

In australian the person who did that wouldnt need to worry wether they got elected or not, they would be in jail. however bribs with tax money isnt a crime:mad:

The rights and immunities of the Constitution are iron-clad and don't fluctuate based upon political convenience. It would take a full-blown amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) to alter this fact.

On a side note: even though it is technically legal to "buy" votes, it's hardly feasible in a nation of 120 million voters. Moreover, despite the fact that it's become fashionable to denigrate Americans for every imaginable peccadillo, the fact remains that it's a serious political faux pas to be thought of as a vote buyer, let alone have it proven undeniably by mailing out checks to potential voters. More than likely, people would just cash the checks and stay home, or worse, just vote for whomever they wanted anyway.

~String

I beg to differ:

George Washington was a farmer and surveyor, a "landowner of the second rank, respectable but not very rich"(Mr. President: The Human Side of America's Chief Executives, David Rubel).

You might want to check your sources here. GW was and still is, with adjustments for currency and inflation, the richest president this country has ever had. He owned tons and tons of land. At one point, he owned most of the Ohio River valley, I believe. His wife, Martha, was also one of the country's richest widows when he married her.

string to be honest im not really concerned about candiate buying votes. As you said its really not worth there while but its QUITE feasable for someone who isnt so much interested in getting someone elected but keeping them out to do this. Say for instance a president wanted to legalise gay marrage. Well a church like the Exclusive Brethren who didnt care about the cost but like to work from secrecy quite easerly could do this.

Under the electrol act however in australia they would be commiting a criminal offence as would anyone who took the money

string to be honest im not really concerned about candiate buying votes. As you said its really not worth there while but its QUITE feasable for someone who isnt so much interested in getting someone elected but keeping them out to do this. Say for instance a president wanted to legalise gay marrage. Well a church like the Exclusive Brethren who didnt care about the cost but like to work from secrecy quite easerly could do this.

How would such a deed be accomplished, for example, in the USA? Have you calculated the costs of making it a "sure thing"? It's enough to bankrupt even the richest company.

~String

...
...
...
Do the U.S.A. really have a democracy?
...
...
...


It's a democratic republic. The people elect specialized people whom do the real voting. The idea is that the specilists will be much more competent than than the average joe citizen.

you think so string? take the current predicted election results. How many votes would you have to swing to make sure McCain rather than obama won the election?

Personally, I think the reason so many people frown upon the American system is because we vote irresponsibly. We vote because we can, or because we feel we have to, rather than because we should. I'll explain.

When the 2000 elections were coming around, there were all these TV ads with celebrities (especially P. Diddy) telling the youngsters that they needed to vote because it was "our responsibility", and the only way to "make change". The truth is the opposite, however. Voting is a right, not a mandate. We do not have to vote. It a choice. But because we are swayed to vote by celebrities and politicians who make us believe it is our responsibility to vote...we do, regardless of the candidates.

This is precisely the reason that a third-party (or fourth or fifth) can't get any real credibility in this country.

What we need to do is stop, as so many have said in recent elections, "plug your nose and pick the lesser of the evils". We need to hold on to our votes, not give them away because we feel we have to. Why is that? Because the less people that vote, the more untapped voters there are for another candidate to chase. And if you really, truly don't vote until someone speaks to your needs and your key issues, then guess what? Change happens. It is only then that a truly different candidate, or a truly different party, steps onto the stage.

But because we do simply vote because we're told to, we never get a real choice in candidates. The same old corporately-tied, rich bastards keep getting all the offices. And the cycle continues.

JDawg voting IS a responcability. Actually its a legal obligation in australia but its always the most important part of citizanship. Yes this also involves being politically informed to make the best choice voting is NOT a right, its a duty you owe your country

Not sluting the flag, singing the atham, saying some oath to the country, these are facards that show you have no idea what citizanship actually means.

Actually its a legal obligation in australia but its always the most important part of citizanship. Yes this also involves being politically informed to make the best choice voting is NOT a right, its a duty you owe your country

Not sluting the flag, singing the atham, saying some oath to the country, these are facards that show you have no idea what citizanship actually means.

Are you joking or what? If the roles were reversed and the U.S was the one who made it a legal obligation and in Australia it was not FORCED upon the citizens then i am sure, and those like you, would be calling U.S a police state. What do they put you in prison?

As far as the second paragraph, i will take those small things compared to being forced to vote...NO WAY. When it is time to vote i will exercise my freedom by NOT voting.:D

first offence is a $50 fine, its a summery offence. It does increase the more often you dont do vote.

Actually i wouldnt be calling you a police state for enforcing voting, its the only civic duty that comes with citizanship

Still it is forcing people to do something that they may have no interest in. I think Australia is a fine country but that mandatory voting is really strange. As a matter of fact the first time i heard it i found it hard to believe.

What is the purpose of forcing people to vote if they dont even know what or who they are voting for anyway? Which i am sure is the case more often then not when people do somehting just because they are forced to.

you mean like fight in a war simply because there number comes up?

I will take this citizanship responcability over conscription ANY day

you think so string? take the current predicted election results. How many votes would you have to swing to make sure McCain rather than obama won the election?

Hey, people, take about three steps back on this bribery issue!!!!!

It's a violation of U.S. federal law to offer, bribe, or accept a bribe in a national election. And every single state, to be best of my knowledge, has similar laws to cover their jurisdiction.

For the uninformed - which apparently we have among us - here's a quote based on that federal law:

Codifying the ban on voter bribery, the United States Congress has prohibited the conspiracy to encourage illegal voting and stated that anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Because of constitutional restrictions on the role of the federal government in elections (considered within the sovereignty of the several States), this punishment is only available in an elections held either solely, or in part for an election to a federal office.

oh thats good then:)

you mean like fight in a war simply because there number comes up?



Those people were fighting real threats to afford us the freedoms we enjoy today. We owe them more than we can ever repay them.


And afterall they WERE fighting for WORLD peace - :peace:

what a load of crap, vietnarm would be the most usless war in history if it wasnt for iraq. I agree that the solders need to be treated with respect but the goverment who sent us there needs to be treated with CONTEMPT

oh thats good then:)

Yes, it is. I'm not about to go back through the thread to see who it was that told you otherwise, but I would have thought SURELY they would know it's illegal !!! Egad!!!

vietnarm? I dont think you understand that conflict too well.

What about WW2? I guess using your logic everything would have taken care of itself. After Europe was taken over by the Nazii's things would have cooled down and just let them get it out of their system.....:rolleyes:

umm all the solders involved in WW2 were volenteers. At least the ones from australia were. The only time conscription has every been legal was during vietnarm and it required a change to the consititution to alow it. Thankfully it was only a tempory one which means it would require another referendum to alow it again

Repressive ideologies and brutal dictatorships love you kind of thinking.

Thankfully it was only a tempory one which means it would require another referendum to alow it again

Yes well WW2 was an extreme occurrence and i know i dont want to depend on someone who is afraid to be under fire or does not want to be there. So basically they are pretty useless which is why i cannot see a draft being imposed ever again.

Asguard, the reason attributed to low voter turnout in elections is voter apathy. A good number of Voters feel that their votes will not make a difference. The perception is that they are going to be screwed no matter who attains office. So why vote, the outcome will be the same.

Here are some perspectives i have found.

Vietnam - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_causes_of_the_Vietnam_War

WW2 - Allow Hitler to expand to avoid war?

They were subsequently replaced with the Consitution which we now enjoy.

We are talking about elections and democracy. Please list the amandements that EFFECT either, and women's voting rights don't really effect the outcome, it just enlarges the population taken for a ride...

So my statement is still true, nothing has changed in the last 200 years that would effect the country's democratic standards...<<<happens to be the issue here :)

About the wallet check: there were only 2 president dying poor:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/NEWS15/806290587/1009/NEWS07

GEORGE WASHINGTON (1789-97): His family was wealthy and he married a wealthy widow. When he died in 1799, his estate was valued at more than $500,000. His salary as president: $25,000.

ANDREW JACKSON (1829-37): Among the wealthiest presidents of the 19th Century. His fortune was made in real estate while he was a U.S. Army general. His salary was $25,000.

HERBERT HOOVER (1929-33): He made his money in mining and investments. By World War I, when he was just 40, he was worth between $1 million and $5 million. He donated his annual presidential salary of $75,000 to charity.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1933-45): Born into wealth, he also was a Wall Street lawyer. His estate was valued at more than $1 million.

JOHN F. KENNEDY (1961-63): Born into wealth, he was notorious for not carrying cash, and friends often had to slip him some. He, too, donated his $100,000 presidential income to charity.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON (1963-69): Made his wealth entirely while in public life. By the time he became president, his wealth was estimated at $14 million. Most of the fortune came from land deals and a radio and TV station in Austin, Texas.

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

ULYSSES S. GRANT died impoverished. The two-term president (1869-77) invested money -- donated by friends and supporters -- in a fund that went bust. He sold his military swords and Civil War souvenirs just to survive. He died of cancer shortly after his "Personal Memoirs" came out. It made nearly $500,000.

THOMAS JEFFERSON Author of the Declaration of Independence, two-term president (1801-09), prolific writer, quintessential American philosopher, farmer and founder of the University of Virginia died July 4, 1826, virtually bankrupt. Troubled by debt, his finances were ruined after a business he endorsed failed.

Mind you the last 2 were poor only by bad business practice and investments...

JDawg voting IS a responcability. Yes this also involves being politically informed to make the best choice voting is NOT a right, its a duty you owe your country

In return, shouldn't the state provide REAL choices before asking for fullfilling responsibility???

JDawg is right. Until there is no good choice, a responsible voter can only do one thing: not voting. That sends a message. The only reason they want you to vote is LEGITIMACY. With low turnout no system can claim legitimacy...

That's why in Cuba and Iraq you have like 99.9% voter's turnout....

It's a democratic republic.

People, for the uptenth time, the title question is about the democratic nature of the US and not the form of government. A dictatorship can be called democratic republic, but it doesn't make that country democratic...

We are talking about elections and democracy. Please list the amendments that EFFECT either, and women's voting rights don't really effect the outcome, it just enlarges the population taken for a ride...

The Fourteenth Amendment gave all citizens the same rights when dealing with state governments that they had with the federal government and significantly altered the political landscape, including voter rights (though, it took some time to properly enforce).

The Fifteenth Amendment was directed solely at voter rights and it enshrined the right to vote for all races, religions and creeds and it immediately altered the political landscape by enfranchising a lot of people who were previously denied the vote-- they tended to vote more liberal than whites did.

The Seventeenth Amendment gave the citizens the right to vote directly for Senators which removed the "buying" of that position from the equation (a big issue around the turn of the century). This changed the political landscape of the Senate significantly as well because average citizens make different senatorial selections than state legislatures do.

The Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote. Your statements that it somehow doesn't count is patently ridiculous. Women are significantly more liberal than men and since they account for 50% of the population, it overwhelmingly effects the outcome, especially in the fact that women voters have been the core champions of some of the 20th century's biggest civil rights advances.

The Twenty-Second Amendment dealt directly with the "outcome" by prohibiting the president from serving more than 10 years as president. (elected twice + plus serving out no more than the remaining two years of a previous administration)

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment altered the voting outcome of the south by removing a longstanding tradition of forcing all people to pay poll taxes. Since blacks were usually too poor to pay the tax, they couldn't vote. By re-enfranchising them it altered the political makeup of southern states.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment gave people the right to vote at 18 years. Thought I don't think this significantly altered the political landscape in Washington, I do think that the very fact that it enfranchised several million Americans is worth mentioning.

So my statement is still true, nothing has changed in the last 200 years that would effect the country's democratic standards...<<<happens to be the issue here :)

Seven amendments say otherwise. What's your definition of "standards"? The right to vote has been little BUT extended over two-hundred years.

~String

The Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote. Your statements that it somehow doesn't count is patently ridiculous.

Really? Women in Cuba or in China are allowed to vote but that doesn't alter the political landscape?? Of course not, and it didn't happen in the USA either. As long as you have limited choice (remember my 3 real choices out of the 10-10 running last year?) it doesn't matter how wide the voting population, because it doesn't effect the outcome.

The same with your other Ammendements...

The Twenty-Second Amendment dealt directly with the "outcome" by prohibiting the president from serving more than 10 years as president.

OK, so you can't have a president for life. Still doesn't effect the choices. But I will allow a half point for you here... :)
You still can have dinasties, let' me see if I can think of 2 families....

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment gave people the right to vote at 18 years. Thought I don't think this significantly altered the political landscape

OK, so we agree on this.

My standards were already posted: a country's voting system is democratic if a newly formed party can get into power just by popularity based on people's desire and votes.A good counterexample would be Zimbabwe, although there was a democratic election, since the outcome wasn't according to the power-in-charge, the election was overruled....

The US election system HAS BEEN set up for 200+ years that no new political entity has a real choice to enter the power structure, NO MATTER how wide the voting base is, thus the country can not be called democratic. There are no real differences between the 1.5 ruling parties, thus no real choice has existed for centuries...

End of story...

P.S.: For extra credit: In the most extreme case, a candidate can win the US presidency with only 24% of the votes, thus 3 out of 4 voting against him/her. Now that's what I call democracy!!!

Really? Women in Cuba or in China are allowed to vote but that doesn't alter the political landscape?? Of course not, and it didn't happen in the USA either. As long as you have limited choice (remember my 3 real choices out of the 10-10 running last year?) it doesn't matter how wide the voting population, because it doesn't effect the outcome.

The same with your other Ammendements...

OK, so you can't have a president for life. Still doesn't effect the choices. But I will allow a half point for you here... :)
You still can have dinasties, let' me see if I can think of 2 families....

OK, so we agree on this.

My standards were already posted: a country's voting system is democratic if a newly formed party can get into power just by popularity based on people's desire and votes.A good counterexample would be Zimbabwe, although there was a democratic election, since the outcome wasn't according to the power-in-charge, the election was overruled....

The US election system HAS BEEN set up for 200+ years that no new political entity has a real choice to enter the power structure, NO MATTER how wide the voting base is, thus the country can not be called democratic. There are no real differences between the 1.5 ruling parties, thus no real choice has existed for centuries...

End of story...

P.S.: For extra credit: In the most extreme case, a candidate can win the US presidency with only 24% of the votes, thus 3 out of 4 voting against him/her. Now that's what I call democracy!!!

Mega Dittos String, very well said. The first thing women did was make all the good stuff illegal (booze, etc). Syzygys I think we are just going to have to agree you are ill informed about American History, and don't like getting confronted with proofs that disprove your beliefs. You were not familar with the admendments nor the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation...states had all powers...even printed their own currencies.
Look at my previous posts and links and you will see how political parties have come and gone and morphed over time.

Mega Dittos String, very well said.

he only had a point with the maximizing the lifetime of a presidency.

The first thing women did was make all the good stuff illegal

Which was quickly reversed a decade latter and then again, that was an issue, not the election itself. Now tell me, all those blacks and women voting, how did they help the democratic nature of the 2000 and 2004 elections??

Simply, they didn't. Both time the loser got more votes, so you can showel up your 200 years of Amandements and improvements in your ass.... :)

I read a book about the 1929 crash. The book starts with the election of 1928, and noted, that the 2 candidates had to run on the personal differences because by politics there were absolutely NO differences between them. Guess what changed in the last 80 years....

P.S.: But if we are at issues, having blacks and women voting didn't help not criminalizing marihuana, which was only in the business interest of a few rich, but influental people...

You make me laugh Syzgys...thank you. I am glad you read a book about the 1929 crash.

You make me laugh Syzgys...thank you.

Which part was funny? That a president can be elected with only 24% of the votes or having a president who actually got less votes TWICE than the opponents, and look what good did it to the country/world...

Yes, the world laughs at the US democracy, although crying would be more appropriate...

On the other hand I had to cry at your inability to make a logical argument... :(

Which was quickly reversed a decade latter and then again, that was an issue, not the election itself. Now tell me, all those blacks and women voting, how did they help the democratic nature of the 2000 and 2004 elections?? The winning party was forced to spend tens of millions of dollars and organize massive vote manipulations and frauds to counter the influence of blacks and women.

Granted that's not quite what one would hope for, in the way of "influence", but universal suffrage has made and does make a noticeable difference - especially in more local elections.

Hey, I thought of an interesting test, which country is the more democratic?:

1. Country X: Only men can vote, but there are about a dozen political parties with different programs and each has the chance of getting on power, either individually or in a coalition based on the popular vote...

2. Country Y: Every citizen over 18 can vote, but there are only 2 parties with not much differences, everyone else is locked out of the political structure.

So? Limited base with wide choices vs. wide base with limited choices... You pick, I decide! :)

Which part was funny? That a president can be elected with only 24% of the votes or having a president who actually got less votes TWICE than the opponents, and look what good did it to the country/world...

Yes, the world laughs at the US democracy, although crying would be more appropriate...

On the other hand I had to cry at your inability to make a logical argument... :(

Syzgys, do you read all the postings? I take it you do not. Because, I have said in the United States we have, in practice an oligarchy,...and not a democracy. However, that does not change the fact that you are not well informed about American government nor American history. And have made several false and misleading statements.

I personally think the United States needs a radical overhaul of our electorial system. First, by getting rid of the Electorial College. Second, by implementing government funding of campaigns. Third and most importantly, by ridding ourselves of lobbyists and implementing a strong code of ethics for our elected representatives and government employees. We have to stop the revolving door between government and industry...where elected representatives and governement regulators and family members of same move freely from their positions in government into industry and back and forth. At a minimum, elected offiicals should have to maintain the same ethics standards as is expected of any corporate employee. Additionally, I think the plurality system of voting is outmoded and inefficient. I think we should have a consensus method of voting. I prefer the Borda Count method myself as I have some experience with it in corporate America. And finally, I think the Fairness Doctrine should be restored. The Fairness Doctrine requires radio and TV to give equal time to all sides. Currently we have media moguls pushing an agenda and altering public perceptions by choosing what and what not to report and how to report (spin) it. Voters are misled with information the media feeds them.

I used to be a resident of California. And I was always very impressed with how they conducted elections. Before each election I would get a packet from the state which would include information on what was being voted on come election day. Every canididate had an opportunity to address the voters. Every issue was presented to the voter with a pro, con and independent analysis of the proposal. I wish other states would adopt something similar.

PS you cannot seriously think that giving the vote to women and minorities had no impact on the electorial processes. Don't confuse the electorial process with the governing process. It does little good if good representatives are elected only to become corrupted by the governing process. In order to have good government, you need representatives focused on doing best for the citizens and not the special interest the too frequently represent.

Hey, I thought of an interesting test, which country is the more democratic?: I'd pick X, of course. What's your point ?

alot of the things your talking about simply cant happen under a parlimentry system.

For instance it would be dam near impossable for someone to claim only 24% of the vote and get enough seats to win power.

It does depend on if your talking about primary vote or 2 party prefered though because if 4 candiates for a seat got around 25% each (i wonder what would happen if they all got EXACTLY 25%) then you would be definitly going into preferences because to win you need 50% of the vote PLUS one vote, PER SEAT.

in order to be in goverment you need a majority of seats in the house of reps or a majority in cohalition (as the libs and nats do) with another party or independents (called a minority goverment, happened which the victorian labor goverment during there first term after kennet).

vietnarm would be the most usless war in history if it wasnt for iraq.

Yeah, absolutely.

But Johns sentiments about voting are not so unusual. Many people exercise their freedom to vote by not voting. Makes no sense to me.

alot of the things your talking about simply cant happen under a parlimentry system.

For instance it would be dam near impossable for someone to claim only 24% of the vote and get enough seats to win power.

It does depend on if your talking about primary vote or 2 party prefered though because if 4 candiates for a seat got around 25% each (i wonder what would happen if they all got EXACTLY 25%) then you would be definitly going into preferences because to win you need 50% of the vote PLUS one vote, PER SEAT.

in order to be in goverment you need a majority of seats in the house of reps or a majority in cohalition (as the libs and nats do) with another party or independents (called a minority goverment, happened which the victorian labor goverment during there first term after kennet).

Asguard, I have not vaildated that statement. But it would only apply to the election of the President of the United States. Voters in the United States do not vote directly for the president. We vote for members of the Electorial College who are pledged to vote as their state votes in the general election. Each state has a certian number of seats in the Electorial College. The number of electorial votes granted to a state is based upon the number of representatives it has in Congress. If a canididate wins a state, they get all of the electorial votes for that state. It is kind of a screwy system that a lot of folks think is outmoded...me being one of them. That is how someone can win the general election and loose the office which is how George W. (and with a little help from political friends on the Supreme Court) was able to become president in 2000. Because he flat outright lost the general election in 2000.

One of the long ongoing issues we face is small state versus big state issue. Small states do not want to be stepped on by big states. So we have this electorial process to accomodate small states. It gives the smallers states more power in the electorial process.

States Rights has been a long and ongoing issue in the United States. The Articles of Confederation placed most of the power in the states. The federal government only consisted of a congress which depended on the states for it's power. There was no executive branch of government, no judical branch of government. The Congress had all of the federal power. But federal power was limited to defense and foriegn affairs.

Congressmen/senators are elected directly by citizens they represent. If they loose the general election even by one vote, they do not get the office. The Electorial College only elects the President and Vice President of the United States.

see we have populally elected goverments basically (well mostly). The goverment as i said has to win a majority of seats in the house, as house electrots are ajusted so that they cover the same % of population (this happens ALOT, every year infact) this means that basically the goverment just has to win a popular vote. Some seats will never fall (because they are supper safe labor or liberal seats which HUGE majorities), some seats sit on a knife edge (herd of one seat held by only a single vote) but it evens out across the state or country.

the senate on the other hand is made up of the same number of sentors from each state and 2 (i think) each from the 2 territories (though there has been a constant push to make the NT a state rather than a terriotory, dont know if this will ever happen or not)

The main thing though is the goverment (the executive) is the popually elected goverment. As for if votes matter it really depends on what seat you are in, if you are voting labor in say Ku-ring-gai (dont ask me where that seat is or what its about, i just googled ultra safe liberal seat and got this from the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2007/guide/kuri.htm)) then your vote is PROBABLY not going to make any difference (i do qualify that PROBABLY because benalong was concidered a safe seat untill howard lost it). However if your voting in that seat with a majority of 1 vote then you can make a HUGE difference, especially if the goverment only holds a 1 seat majority and one of those seats is held by only 1 vote.

Its not EXACTLY as fair as a country wide popular vote but its pritty fair concidering the seats are distributed by percentage of population and arnt controled by the pollies, safe seats can become margional simply because the AEC moves the bounderies (which did happen in benalong)

I'd pick X, of course. What's your point ?

Thanks for asking. The point was that the difference between free and freer is not just a letter. Just like between democratic and more democratic. Giving women the right to vote, the system became MORE cemocratic, but that doesn't mean it became democratic. It just got a step closer..

Syzgys, do you read all the postings?

I usually lose interest after 3 sentences, but I agreed with this post.

PS you cannot seriously think that giving the vote to women and minorities had no impact on the electorial processes.

I never said there was totally no impact. (by the way feel free to list the impacts).I said you can widen the voter's base but if your choices are limited, that is not democracy. I think I stated it in less than 3 sentences... :)

P.S.: Just in case you are an Obamafan, he is not the real deal either...

so push for preferentual voting. This will mean that a wider field of candiates can realistically run

so push for preferentual voting. This will mean that a wider field of candiates can realistically run

Indeed, and have a much better chance of winning. Too often in the United States people vote for the lesser of two evils. They may not vote for the canidate they really want. Because the perception that the canididate they want has no chance of winning...e.g. Ralph Nader...not that I am endorsing Nader. I share some of his beliefs especially as they relate to corruption. But the idea of voting should be, in my mind, to get the best possible canididate. That does not happen with the current system, wittness George II.

I usually lose interest after 3 sentences, but I agreed with this post.
I never said there was totally no impact. (by the way feel free to list the impacts).I said you can widen the voter's base but if your choices are limited, that is not democracy. I think I stated it in less than 3 sentences... :)
P.S.: Just in case you are an Obamafan, he is not the real deal either...

Impact: They made liquor illegal with an admendment to the consitution!

You might want to check your sources here. GW was and still is, with adjustments for currency and inflation, the richest president this country has ever had. He owned tons and tons of land. At one point, he owned most of the Ohio River valley, I believe. His wife, Martha, was also one of the country's richest widows when he married her.

I was talking about before marrying Martha.

"Wallet Check"
From Andrew Jackson on.

Andew Jackson was born in a frontier village and did not receive a full education as a child. He later became a successful lawyer, but he was born neither rich nor noble.

Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern-keeper and farmer.

Millard Fillmore was born in a frontier cabin in New York and grew up working on his father's farm. He took up an apprenticeship as a cloth dresser before becoming a lawyer eight years later.

Abraham Lincoln was born on the Kentucky frontier and grew up farming and splitting rails.

Andrew Johnson grew up in poverty. He was a tailor's apprentice as a boy, and later opened his own tailoring shop.

Ulysses Grant was born to a leather-worker and tanner.

James Garfield's father died when James was two years old. He grew up working on the canals, barely making enough money to pay for an education.

Calvin Coolidge was born to a farmer and schoolteacher.

Herbert Hoover was born in an Iowan village to a blacksmith and store owner.

Harry Truman worked on the rail lines, living in temporary hobo camps, until he joined the army. After WWI ended, he became a haberdasher.

Lyndon Johnson grew up impoverished in a rural Texas community. He worked through college to pay tuition.

(For more info, visit whitehouse.gov or wikipedia.org) :D

I was talking about before marrying Martha.

Ok, but the relevant point is how wealthy he was when he became president.

So we can all agree on that the U.S. do NOT have a Democracy.

What they do have is a HUGE army and lots of weapons.... Right?

What do they use this for?

Simple....... Terror and war!

Look at what happened in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Is the WORLD really going to let this take place in our day and age?

Have we not learned ANYTHING from our past? (WW2)

So we can all agree on that the U.S. do NOT have a Democracy.

What they do have is a HUGE army and lots of weapons.... Right?

What do they use this for?

Simple....... Terror and war!

Look at what happened in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Is the WORLD really going to let this take place in our day and age?

Have we not learned ANYTHING from our past? (WW2)

First, what does it say about the state of the nation that placed an abomination like George II as it's chief executive. Not good, in any stretch. The war was not necessary nor was the first Gulf War.

Funny, the biggest loosers in this war are the Iraqis and the American peoples. The biggest winners in the war are the oil companies who are now getting back the oil wells that Saddam nationalized in the 1970's.

Comparison time.
The U.S. is like an anthill.
It has a polygyne ((more than one parent queen) rule, and has a HELL of alot worker and soilders.

As it some times happens in the animalkingdom, something that is harmfull for the colony enters the nest.
Sometimes this harmfull thing is a queen from another colony.

"They will enter the Lasius niger colonies, acting submissive to any niger workers they meet, in an attempt to avoid combat. Eventually the umbratus queen is accepted by the niger workers as their own, and they will kill their original parent queen."
http://www.antnest.co.uk/colony4.html

Conclution.

America startede out fairly good.
At some point something entered the nest.
The workers and the soilders did not notice that somethings began to change.
Now the change is allmost complet, and the workers and soilders have two choices; Accept the new queen or kill her.

Which brings us back to the original question of this thread: USAmericans still do retain the means (if not the strong desire) for effecting an informed and decisive democratic change of government. We don't have to literally kill anyone to make truly revolutionary changes in US government and policy. Our "more perfect union" needs no destruction of our Constitutional structure- instead, our advancement awaits a motivated, informed consensus to overcome our apathetic default into oligarchy. No semblance of democracy can function, even in a "pure" democracy, without the concerned and informed participation of the public in the collective process of debate and decision.

"Wallet Check"
From Andrew Jackson on.

Andew Jackson was born in a frontier village and did not receive a full education as a child. He later became a successful lawyer, but he was born neither rich nor noble.

Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern-keeper and farmer.

Millard Fillmore was born in a frontier cabin in New York and grew up working on his father's farm. He took up an apprenticeship as a cloth dresser before becoming a lawyer eight years later.

Abraham Lincoln was born on the Kentucky frontier and grew up farming and splitting rails.

Andrew Johnson grew up in poverty. He was a tailor's apprentice as a boy, and later opened his own tailoring shop.

Ulysses Grant was born to a leather-worker and tanner.

James Garfield's father died when James was two years old. He grew up working on the canals, barely making enough money to pay for an education.

Calvin Coolidge was born to a farmer and schoolteacher.

Herbert Hoover was born in an Iowan village to a blacksmith and store owner.

Harry Truman worked on the rail lines, living in temporary hobo camps, until he joined the army. After WWI ended, he became a haberdasher.

Lyndon Johnson grew up impoverished in a rural Texas community. He worked through college to pay tuition.

(For more info, visit whitehouse.gov or wikipedia.org) :D
This, of course, does not mean that this is democracy. What it points out is that there is class mobility. That people from poor origins can become the approved candidates of the rich and powerful AS LONG AS THEY MAKE IT CLEAR they will support the rich and powerful. Once they have passed this litums test they can be one of the two, or occasionally three, approved candidates that everyone else gets to choose BETWEEN. During the process of final selection these candidates will enter into explicit and implicit agreements with rich and powerful people. Later on these agreements will control many of the actions of these candidates.

It is not a democracy. More like a corrupt beauty pagent, that yes, does allow girls who grew up in trailer parks to participate.

This, of course, does not mean that this is democracy. What it points out is that there is class mobility. That people from poor origins can become the approved candidates of the rich and powerful AS LONG AS THEY MAKE IT CLEAR they will support the rich and powerful. Once they have passed this litums test they can be one of the two, or occasionally three, approved candidates that everyone else gets to choose BETWEEN. During the process of final selection these candidates will enter into explicit and implicit agreements with rich and powerful people. Later on these agreements will control many of the actions of these candidates.

It is not a democracy. More like a corrupt beauty pagent, that yes, does allow girls who grew up in trailer parks to participate.

Mega dittos! Look at what happened to McCain. At first, when he was a rebel, he scared the beJesus out of the oligarchs. And they swift-boated him pretty good very quickly. Now he has sold his soul for a chance at the presidency and it shows! It has been amazing to watch the transformation of John McCain...almost as if Dr. Evil got a wack at him.

Which brings us back to the original question of this thread: USAmericans still do retain the means (if not the strong desire) for effecting an informed and decisive democratic change of government. We don't have to literally kill anyone to make truly revolutionary changes in US government and policy. Our "more perfect union" needs no destruction of our Constitutional structure- instead, our advancement awaits a motivated, informed consensus to overcome our apathetic default into oligarchy. No semblance of democracy can function, even in a "pure" democracy, without the concerned and informed participation of the public in the collective process of debate and decision.

Good answer!

Mega dittos! Look at what happened to McCain. At first, when he was a rebel, he scared the beJesus out of the oligarchs. And they swift-boated him pretty good very quickly. Now he has sold his soul for a chance at the presidency and it shows! It has been amazing to watch the transformation of John McCain...almost as if Dr. Evil got a wack at him.

And let's remember that to be a senator he would have had to make a lot of compromises already - if they were necessary. Not everyone sells their soul, there are true believers out there. But even to make it to the senate requires a great deal of money and corporate approval. And then to function in relation to the other bought souls who are there when you arrive.

Yea, it has been amazing to watch McCain. He strayed off the farm in 2000. It is like he was a Stepford wife...maverick to lamb.

Yea, it has been amazing to watch McCain. He strayed off the farm in 2000. It is like he was a Stepford wife...maverick to lamb.And from the other side of the fence, the way Clinton (the male one) became a good little lapdog was unpleasant to watch. Not that he was some radical, but I think he actually cared about the poor when he was heading toward office. But the time he was in he started creating many more poor to care about.

Which brings us back to the original question of this thread: USAmericans still do retain the means (if not the strong desire) for effecting an informed and decisive democratic change of government. We don't have to literally kill anyone to make truly revolutionary changes in US government and policy. Our "more perfect union" needs no destruction of our Constitutional structure- instead, our advancement awaits a motivated, informed consensus to overcome our apathetic default into oligarchy. No semblance of democracy can function, even in a "pure" democracy, without the concerned and informed participation of the public in the collective process of debate and decision.

The short answer is "yes."

The longer, more accurate, answer is "Yes, for now."

We have the means to be an informed public. But as time goes on, and each new generation comes up through the abhorrent education system, we lose that ability. Whether it is intentional, or simply the result of lawyers and businessmen with no knowledge or ability to fix the education system getting elected, the system is as such now where we are growing less and less intelligent. This, of course, leads to apathy. And not conscious apathy, but apathy because we don't know any better.

When you're not smart enough to understand how corporations can influence elections, then you can't possibly care that they do so. When you accept at face value the fact that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to become President of the United States, then you can't possibly imagine a scenario where it wouldn't cost that much. And in turn, you can't possibly question why the wealthy are the only ones who have any realistic chance of getting elected.

You can make the argument that we are already there. That we are already in the midst of a broken democracy. The fact that a father and son have both been President would help you argue that case. The fact that a movie star has been President would also help. But the way I see it, the tools are still available to us. We still hate war, we still hate our social freedoms being destroyed, and that will lead to a change in parties in the highest office. Barack Obama only needs to be a democrat, nothing more, in order to get elected. And we will see what happens from there, but the fact that McCain and his Republican goons are not the favorites show that the American people still care, and are still somewhat informed. Maybe it just took an eight-year knock on the noggin to wake us up, I don't know.

But we'll see.

Agreed Jdawg.

Impact: They made liquor illegal with an admendment to the consitution!

The challenge was for the impact on the election system/democracy, not on unrelated matters...

"Wallet Check"
Abraham Lincoln

Oh, so a fully 11 out of the 40+ presidents started out in humble origins?? Damn! Not to mention Lincoln was a successful and rich lawyer by the time he run for the presidency. I could check the rest. The point was, how rich they were at the time of running, not if they were born in an orphanage...

USAmericans still do retain the means (if not the strong desire) for effecting an informed and decisive democratic change of government.

OK, that is incorrect, but please, carry on...

Oh, so a fully 11 out of the 40+ presidents started out in humble origins?? Damn! Not to mention Lincoln was a successful and rich lawyer by the time he run for the presidency. I could check the rest. The point was, how rich they were at the time of running, not if they were born in an orphanage...

To be fair, there is a de facto amount of experience needed to get elected president, which experience generally makes a person wealthy by default. It's not an indictment of a nation's enfranchisement to have never elected a mendicant. It's just good judgement to reserve the most powerful position in government for those who demonstrate such abilities in advance. The president should be the best of the best. I want an elitist, not an average Joe.

(side note: we're obviously not getting the best these days, but the point still stands)

~String

The point was, how rich they were at the time of running, not if they were born in an orphanage... No, the point was to counter the claim that they all came from wealthy families.

To be fair, there is a de facto amount of experience needed to get elected president, which experience generally makes a person wealthy by default. It's not an indictment of a nation's enfranchisement to have never elected a mendicant. It's just good judgement to reserve the most powerful position in government for those who demonstrate such abilities in advance. The president should be the best of the best. I want an elitist, not an average Joe.

(side note: we're obviously not getting the best these days, but the point still stands)

~String

The average Joe stands behind you String, even if you don't want us for pres!

The point was that they were mostly part of the elite or ruling class...

For String: How about a person, who let's say a doctor and lives accordingly, but nothing special wealth? Not like Obama's 4 million last year from books,etc.

Hey, you want a decent fellow to run? Read up on Long Huey! I just ran into his story, he was going to give Roosvelt a hard time while running for the presidency, when he got assasinated! Well, I guess typical...

The point was that they were mostly part of the elite or ruling class... So of the elections since WWII, in how many were both major candidates heirs in one of America's ruling or elite families ?

There's W and Al, in 2000. Past that I'm drawing a blank.

O' course some Presidents - Reagan, W - were more or less fronts for other powers.

OK, that is incorrect, but please, carry on...

Could you please explain how it isn't true?

The bottom line here is that we absolutely do have the means to elect whoever the hell we want to elect. There are no laws against us voting for any certain candidate, candidates aren't typically shot in the street or kidnapped into the jungle as they are in some places. We are still free.

And I agree with Superstring. We want a President who isn't someone who hasn't succeeded in life. We don't want a President who is flat broke and up to their ears in credit card debt, because that guy or gal obviously can't balance a checkbook or hold a job or figure a way out of financial trouble. Like String said, people who are successful in life are kind of rich by default.

There are people like Reagan, however, that are elected simply because they are famous for a different reason, or because they connect with the people. But a guy like Reagan should tell you that we absolutely have the means to elect whoever the hell we want. In what Twilight Zone does a movie star qualify for the Presidency? I mean, yeah, OK, he was the Gov of California...but I'm pretty sure the only qualifications for that job are that you've starred in a movie, or have a hundred million in the bank. :D

So of the elections since WWII, in how many were both major candidates heirs in one of America's ruling or elite families ?

For a start see post #85....

The bottom line here is that we absolutely do have the means to elect whoever the hell we want to elect.

yeah, that is what most people incorrectly believe. I assume you don't really understand the US election system. The whole system is set up in a way, that candidates not supported by one of the 2 parties are almost impossible to elect. Technically, it is not impossible for a incredibly popular grassroot kind of guy to get over the hurdles (although better be a millionare on his own), but if we throw in the media's power and calculated missinformation, it is very close to impossible. So far it hasn't happened yet.

There are no laws against us voting for any certain candidate, candidates aren't typically shot in the street

See Long Huey's candidacy. He wasn't part of the elite, he died 2 days after getting shot. The circumstances of the case are still unclear...

We want a President who isn't someone who hasn't succeeded in life.

It is understandable, but also kind of an American thingy.Success doesn't always mean monetary success... In East Europe, actors and writers became politicans of the new governments and we are not talking about Hollywood millionares. Popular union leaders are also not average joes with karizma...

Like String said, people who are successful in life are kind of rich by default.

And people who actually know how to run a country are all cutting hairs and driving cabs...

There are people like Reagan,

He was the perfect president for the elite. He didn't do shit, let the powers to be run things behind the curtain and he just represented...Pretty much the same with W. No wonder that his idol is Reagan and not his dad....

Again, the system is rigged from the get go. It has the appearence of a democratic system, but there are built in safety measures (apprival of one major party, fundraising ability,EC,etc.) that makes sure noone running against the system can be elected....

So of the elections since WWII, in how many were both major candidates heirs in one of America's ruling or elite families ?
”
For a start see post #85.... Post 85 is completely irrelevant.

yeah, that is what most people incorrectly believe. I assume you don't really understand the US election system. The whole system is set up in a way, that candidates not supported by one of the 2 parties are almost impossible to elect. Technically, it is not impossible for a incredibly popular grassroot kind of guy to get over the hurdles (although better be a millionare on his own), but if we throw in the media's power and calculated missinformation, it is very close to impossible. So far it hasn't happened yet.

I don't misunderstand the election system, and I'm actually pretty miffed that you'd just assume I do.

It isn't impossible. "Close to impossible" is still not impossible. Improbable? Yes. But the election system is not set up against a third-party candidate, or a grassroots candidate in any way whatsoever. The election system works the same for anyone.

Remember, WE are the ones that elect these people.

See Long Huey's candidacy. He wasn't part of the elite, he died 2 days after getting shot. The circumstances of the case are still unclear...

So what happened was that one time one guy got shot while he was campaigning, and all of a sudden it's all a big conspiracy? Give me a break.

It is understandable, but also kind of an American thingy. In East Europe, actors and writers became politicans of the new governments and we are not talking about Hollywood millionares. Popular union leaders are also not average joes with karizma...


OK...? And?

And people who actually know how to run a country are all cutting hairs and driving cabs...

Bullshit. If they could run a nation, they would be more than barbers and cab drivers. No offense to those professions, but let's be realistic here.

He was the perfect president for the elite. He didn't do shit, let the powers to be run things behind the curtain and he just represented...Pretty much the same with W. No wonder that his idol is Reagan and not his dad....

OK, but we still elected him. His usefulness to these so-called "elites" is besides the point. We still had to vote, brah. And we did.