America: A Democracy?

damned_junkie

Thraktor wrote:

Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now, and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

Appart from all the other valid points. If you have ever actually been to Switzerland you wouldn't doubt that they seem to have a pretty incredible record of protecting their natural environment. There are fish and swans in the rivers of Zurich... To my mind this points to a system that isn't being taken advantage of.

Thanks however for illustrating the point about the LePenn connection. I see how it makes some sense now, although supporting an extremist party would surely deplete funds available to run your own campaign which would jeapordise your own candidate. The risk of a backfire would seem so great that it would be a foolish tactic.

On the main topic. I question America's democratic status simply because of it's bipartisan system. It seems to remove any scope for political change. I mean you basically have a choice between Conservative and Ultra conservative. Of course this could just be a fair representation of the American electorate, which is a scary thought. We all remember what happened to Dukakis.

simu

Thraktor wrote:

The system that would be pt in place would be pretty much exactly the same as that in France, where if no candidate wins a majority, there is a second "run-off" election between the top two vote-getters..

Why don't they let people give preferences where there are more than two candidates? It seems fairer and less hassle...

Thraktor

bonkey wrote:

Switzerland has existed in its modern "neutral with semi-direct deocracy" form since 1848. Thats a mighty short time to squeeze 350 years into.

Well, they've been neutral for a bit over 356 years (declared at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, if I'm not mistaken), and although their current form of governance, as you rightly point out, technically originated in 1848, they were, for significant proportions of the time previous to that (obviously the international political climate of each era caused a number of changes), considerably more democratically-oriented than the norm at the time, particularily on the level of individual cantons. Regardless, if Switzerland is such a successful model of governance, why, may I ask, are there still places in it in which women are not allowed to vote?

My original point, however, is that a representative democracy is generally a much quicker, more effective and more responsive democracy than that which can be achieved by a direct democracy.

bonkey

Thraktor wrote:

if Switzerland is such a successful model of governance, why, may I ask, are there still places in it in which women are not allowed to vote?

Where? Women got the right to vote federally in 1971, and the last regional area to give them the right to vote was Appenzell in the early 90s.

My original point, however, is that a representative democracy is generally a much quicker, more effective and more responsive democracy than that which can be achieved by a direct democracy.

If you replace "is" with "was" I wouldn't disagree with you.

However, if - as you just argued - Switzerland has been effectively neutral for 350 years, then I fail to see how you see its lack of foreign influence as being based on its flavour of democracy, rather than on its neutrality.

Its not a perfect system (check out maternal rights for a more glaring anachronism than the right to vote) by any means, but it is far from ineffective.

Perhaps the greatest benefit it has is that it easily allows the public to change the system if they perceive it as being flawed....

jc

DadaKopf

Thraktor wrote:

you'd have to go back to Greek times, whereby every single issue affecting the city would be voted on in a council held once-weekly comprising the city's entire electorate, without any elected officials

You don't have to go back that far. The city council in Porto Alegre in Brazil is now run as a participatory (or deliberative?) democracy. By all accounts, it's doing very well.

DadaKopf

Well, they've been neutral for a bit over 356 years, declared at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

But didn't Switzerland continue to send mercenaries all over the place? Or did this stop in 1648, too? Although they're still in the Vatican, eh?

The Clown Man

Actually, the only doubt I have about American democracy is that I doubt the majority of the American populace are actually able to make a free, informed decision at all.

Now, I'm not saying they are all stupid or anything, far from it, I'm just saying that all they know is what they can see around them. And what they are shown.

News covers the war in Iraq like its an exciting show - "SHOWDOWN!!! in IRAQ" - and makes it look like America is winning and everything is rosey.

The vast majority of them do not have a clue where Iraq even is on the globe or know anything of it's history. They all believe that Iraq wants to destroy their way of life and their "freedom" when actually Iraq has never once attacked an American. Only retaliated. Iraq doesn't care what the hell America do as long as they leave them alone.

Schools hammer patriotism into kids, saluting the flag every morning and singing the national anthem. The average kid is raised as a patriotistic zealot from as early as 3.

They are made believe by the media that all these foreign nations are evil and that they are under attack and that everyone is against them when actually, the only time they have been attacked since Pearl Harbour was 9/11. And then it was an islamic religious fanatic group from Saudi Arabia.

So what else can they believe? And are they really free if this is all they know?


If the American populace actually knew that Afganistan was only one of the many countries that had no beef with OBL going where he liked, that Saudi Arabia was actually the country that grew these terrorists, that Saddam Hussien despised OBL as much as Bush did and that he had absolutely no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and hadn't lifted an aggressive finger since he was neutralised in 1991, would they really have let Bush do all that he has done?

We can all see the glaringly obvious reasons for why Bush should be removed, but the fact is, they can't.

Not their fault. But if they are being so blatently mislead so that they can be convinced that they are doing the right thing while they are actually doing the wrong thing, have they actually made a choice? Or been told what to vote. Is that a democracy?

Is blinding the people from the truth not the same as attempting to rig the vote?

bonkey

DadaKopf wrote:

But didn't Switzerland continue to send mercenaries all over the place? Or did this stop in 1648, too?

No, and yes.

Although they're still in the Vatican, eh?

This was a negotiated exception, and remains (I believe) the only foreign location that the Swiss send armed military support to. They can, and do send military ovservers abroad, though.

There's been a small group of them in the Korean DMZ for 50 years*, for example

jc

* Obviously teh personnel within the group haven't individually been there 50 years, so spare the wit.

DadaKopf

bonkey wrote:

* Obviously teh personnel within the group haven't individually been there 50 years, so spare the wit.

The thought didn't even cross my mind! :rolleyes:

omnicorp

em, firstly, "the" is not "teh"

But mainly, Swtizerland developed Calvinism, the Protestant religion of the North, Scotland, South Africa and other places.

Great place for skiing too.

And what does this have to do with the discussion? Bonkey and Dadakpf, going off topic, and moderators too...

bonkey

...and omnicorp breaking the rules by having an issue and not reporting it, but rather responding to the posts he has an issue with....

Its amazing how as mods we're expected to be flawless, even when being criticised in flagrance of the rules....

jc

omnicorp

ok, I'm sorry.
Well, I got 17 reasons not to kill myself cos Bush won from Michael Moore.
Thars considerate of him.
Makes a good point in that the best part of the USA's "democracy" is that the he can only be president for 8 years max.

Macaco

America is a democracy of sorts, but democracy can be perverted by having huge concentrations of wealth and power. The concentration of media ownership, and the reliance of parties on corporate sponsorship, as well as the dominance of the political and economic power by a small and wealthy elite means that it is a very limited democracy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

omnicorp

Macaco wrote:

America is a democracy of sorts, but democracy can be perverted by having huge concentrations of wealth and power. The concentration of media ownership, and the reliance of parties on corporate sponsorship, as well as the dominance of the political and economic power by a small and wealthy elite means that it is a very limited democracy.

exactly. But, that said, I can understand the States wishes to have the Electoral College system but now that it is more of a country than a collection of states it seems a bit unescasery.

Dr_Teeth

I don't really mind the electoral college - it's there to ensure that all the states have a decent voice in an election. My major issue with it is that the party that wins the election gets *all* the college votes for that state. That's crazy.

If the democrats win by 51% in one state, all the republican votes in that state are completely ignored, it's as if they never turned up to vote. If the republicans win by like 53% in another state, it's the same thing with the democrat votes - they might as well not have bothered.

The vote of a republican in california or a democrat in florida was not represented in the final tally to elect the president, I don't think that's right.

omnicorp

of course it's not, neither is Partisan tactics or focusing on moral issues by an immoral president but that didn't stop them

Ivan

The Clown Man wrote:

Actually, the only doubt I have about American democracy is that I doubt the majority of the American populace are actually able to make a free, informed decision at all.

Now, I'm not saying they are all stupid or anything, far from it, I'm just saying that all they know is what they can see around them. And what they are shown.

News covers the war in Iraq like its an exciting show - "SHOWDOWN!!! in IRAQ" - and makes it look like America is winning and everything is rosey.

The vast majority of them do not have a clue where Iraq even is on the globe or know anything of it's history. They all believe that Iraq wants to destroy their way of life and their "freedom" when actually Iraq has never once attacked an American. Only retaliated. Iraq doesn't care what the hell America do as long as they leave them alone.

Schools hammer patriotism into kids, saluting the flag every morning and singing the national anthem. The average kid is raised as a patriotistic zealot from as early as 3.

They are made believe by the media that all these foreign nations are evil and that they are under attack and that everyone is against them when actually, the only time they have been attacked since Pearl Harbour was 9/11. And then it was an islamic religious fanatic group from Saudi Arabia.

So what else can they believe? And are they really free if this is all they know?


If the American populace actually knew that Afganistan was only one of the many countries that had no beef with OBL going where he liked, that Saudi Arabia was actually the country that grew these terrorists, that Saddam Hussien despised OBL as much as Bush did and that he had absolutely no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and hadn't lifted an aggressive finger since he was neutralised in 1991, would they really have let Bush do all that he has done?

We can all see the glaringly obvious reasons for why Bush should be removed, but the fact is, they can't.

Not their fault. But if they are being so blatently mislead so that they can be convinced that they are doing the right thing while they are actually doing the wrong thing, have they actually made a choice? Or been told what to vote. Is that a democracy?

Is blinding the people from the truth not the same as attempting to rig the vote?

I know, lets form an international coalition and invade America.

We can bring back Democracy to them, on the end of an Uranium-depleted anti-tank shell.

Sure, they wont like it at first.

But once we depose their democratically elected leader (although everyone knows the only reason he won was due to propaganda and fear), replace him with our own pre-approved government. Next we can begin selling contracts to our own, local corporations and begin sending in private contracters.
Then finally, once we have destroyed a large portion of their civilian infrastructure, killed 100's of thousands of civilians and controlled the flow of their natural resources from their country, we can all sit around a campfire singing "coom-bi-ya my lord" and roasting marshmallows.

Ah, democracy, what a hypocracy.

omnicorp

democracy CAN work, but when it is corrupted by big business it doesn't.

Ivan

omnicorp wrote:

but when it is corrupted by big business it doesn't.

You say that as if it were possible any other way.
But then that would be off topic...
So no, America isnt a democracy.

Not in the apparently flawless sense, which is vastly superior to Communism and allows everyone to live happily ever after.
</bitter rant>

pork99

The Onion hits the nail on the head yet again

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045

WASHINGTON, DC—The economically disadvantaged segment of the U.S. population provided the decisive factor in another presidential election last Tuesday, handing control of the government to the rich and powerful once again.

"The Republican party—the party of industrial mega-capitalists, corporate financiers, power brokers, and the moneyed elite—would like to thank the undereducated rural poor, the struggling blue-collar workers in Middle America, and the God-fearing underpriviledged minorities who voted George W. Bush back into office," Karl Rove, senior advisor to Bush, told reporters at a press conference Monday. "You have selflessly sacrificed your well-being and voted against your own economic interest. For this, we humbly thank you."

Added Rove: "You have acted beyond the call of duty—or, for that matter, good sense."

According to Rove, the Republicans found strong support in non-urban areas populated by the people who would have benefited most from the lower-income tax cuts and social-service programs championed by Kerry. Regardless of their own interests, these citizens turned out in record numbers to elect conservatives into office at all levels of the government.

"My family's been suffering ever since I lost my job at the screen-door factory, and I haven't seen a doctor for well on four years now," said father of four Buddy Kaldrin of Eerie, CO. "****, I don't even remember what a dentist's chair looks like... Basically, I'd give up if it weren't for God's grace. So it's good to know we have a president who cares about religion, too."

Kaldrin added: "That's why I always vote straight-ticket Republican, just like my daddy did, before he lost the farm and shot himself in the head, and just like his daddy did, before he died of black-lung disease in the company coal mines."

Kaldrin was one of many who listed moral issues among their primary reasons for voting Republican.

"Our society is falling apart—our treasured values are under attack by terrorists," said Ellen Blaine of Givens, OH, a tiny rural farming community as likely to be attacked by terrorists as it is to be hit by a meteor. "We need someone with old-time morals in the White House. I may not have much of anything in this world, but at least I have my family."

"John Kerry is a flip-flopper," she continued. "I saw it on TV. Who knows what terrible things might've happened to my sons overseas if he'd been put in charge?"

Kerry supporters also turned out in large numbers this year, but they were outnumbered by those citizens who voted for Bush.

"The alliance between the tiny fraction at the top of the pyramid and the teeming masses of mouth-breathers at its enormous base has never been stronger," a triumphant Bush said. "We have an understanding, them and us. They help us stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor. See? No matter what naysayers may think, the system works."

Added Bush: "God bless America's backwards hicks, lunchpail-toting blockheads, doddering elderly, and bumpity-car-driving Spanish-speakers."

omnicorp

Ivan wrote:

You say that as if it were possible any other way.
But then that would be off topic...
So no, America isnt a democracy.

Not in the apparently flawless sense, which is vastly superior to Communism and allows everyone to live happily ever after.
</bitter rant>

communism, in theory works better than democracy, in theory.
But... in practice, although both aren't both perfect, democracy, when it isn't corrupted, works.

chill

Dr_Teeth wrote:

I don't really mind the electoral college - it's there to ensure that all the states have a decent voice in an election. My major issue with it is that the party that wins the election gets *all* the college votes for that state. That's crazy.

If the democrats win by 51% in one state, all the republican votes in that state are completely ignored, it's as if they never turned up to vote. If the republicans win by like 53% in another state, it's the same thing with the democrat votes - they might as well not have bothered.

The vote of a republican in california or a democrat in florida was not represented in the final tally to elect the president, I don't think that's right.

It's an assenine system that can only be called a flawed form of democracy imho. (NOTE TO BONKEY: My opinion !)

It is part of America's obsessional reverence for the original writers of their constitution, which they have turned into a quasi religious document. They venerate the original writers and the original document instead of treating it like a living breathing statement of principles that should be adjusted and updated to cope with the changes in modern society.
(Yes they have bolted on a few bits here and there, but rarely and not for a LONG time)

They continue to play the ongoing saga of State versus Federal game as if they were not a single United Country, in a sort of clinging-on to the old days of Statehood and the Old West Frontier self imagery.
The truth is that the USA as a whole behaves in almost all cases as a single country with a single people and there is no excuse or justification for not having a "one man one vote" system for their President.

Ivan

omnicorp wrote:

communism, in theory works better than democracy, in theory.
But... in practice, although both aren't both perfect, democracy, when it isn't corrupted, works.

Thats the point though isnt it. Man cannot govern himself without corruption, in some respect.
The fact that corrupt communism failed a long time ago and corrupt democracy is still going, should be a testament to communism, imho.

omnicorp

maybe, but the Capitalists learned from the mistakes of the USSR

sceptre

omnicorp wrote:

maybe, but the Capitalists learned from the mistakes of the USSR

There's a sweeping statement.

With tentative (as in "hands over eyes and peering through fingers for fear of rubbernecking") devil's advocate mode on, here's a sweeping question about it:

When, where and how?

omnicorp

Cold War, Europe, By seeing it first hand

sceptre

omnicorp wrote:

Cold War, Europe, By seeing it first hand

I'm afraid you get zero points for a quarter-assed attempt like that. Not worth even my asking another question to get an actual answer from you.

omnicorp

OK, but a system where a President can get elected without getting the majority is NOT democracy

Gordon

omnicorp wrote:

OK, but a system where a President can get elected without getting the majority is NOT democracy

You're right - it's a Republicancy isn't it?