The USA the greatest democracy ?

Mr.Micro

How can a democracy be a democracy when one individual has the power to veto motions or bills passed by Congress and or the House of Representatives. This one individual namely GW Bush has supreme power which is hardly democratic.

Mick86

The veto can be over ridden by two thirds of both houses.

Mr.Micro

Thats still an awful lot of power considering both Houses would be needed to muster two thirds each . I suppose its form of Democracy extreme .What happened to a simple majority ?

Sand

Tyranny of the majority happened to simple majority.

The individuals who wrote the US constitution deeply distrusted and/or were deeply pessimistic about the illiberal nature of democracy [ 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner...] and built an entire system of checks and balances to prevent any branch [Legislature, executive or the judiciary] from wielding undue power, and to protect liberty which they saw as often being endangered by democracy [Again wolves, lambs, dinner, voting].

People might hate that when theyve got 51% of the votes and not 67%, but it forces both sides to actually negotiate and debate and work in some sort of consensus. Rather than just riding roughshod over the opposition and their voters.

Manic Moran

Sand said that rather well.

The other point to note is that technically the US is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy, though it does fall under the concept of a 'democratic government' as per common usage.

NTM

Mr.Micro

People might hate that when theyve got 51% of the votes and not 67%, but it forces both sides to actually negotiate and debate and work in some sort of consensus. Rather than just riding roughshod over the opposition and their voters.[/QUOTE]


The trouble though is getting such numbers as 67% which I believe is almost impossible ,which effectively means a US President has enormous power to pursue personal beliefs in the National interest with the only check it appears the number crunching 67% of both houses?

Manic Moran

What number would you suggest, then? 55%? 60%? 2/3 is a reasonable number to allow discretion without ability to do nutty things over the will of voters.

And if it's downright illegal, you just need a 51% of the court to say so.

NTM

digitally-yours

Definition of democracy = Gov for the people by the people

Do you think that applies to USA ?



Also I have seen this latest documentary 9/11 Press For Truth and i have to say that its SHOCKING its the most convincing evidence yet available in the media.

Revealing how Washington operates and how secret services operate.

I would highly recommend watching this worth every second.Highly Informative with very strong video evidence.

[mod edit] <url removed> - this entire post is way off-topic and likely to be inflammatory. If you want to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories, do it on the Conspiracy Theories board.

Back on topic. [/mod edit]

bonkey

Mr.Micro wrote:

What happened to a simple majority ?

Thats how the President is elected, but you seem to be complaining that the results of a simple majority result in supreme power.

One could argue that there's a difference between electing a single party and a single individual, but the reality is that the decisions of neither are controlled by the voters post-election.

The 66% figure is well chosen. If one assumes a close split of power between two parties, it boils down to one party fully opposing something and roughly one third of the other party. In effect, it means that if one third of the party "in control" oppose a measure, that measure can be defeated by getting the opposition to agree to oppose. That's not an unreasonable benchmark.

Having said that, I prefer the Swiss system. Of course, it should be noted that the Swiss system was based on and derived from the American system.

Dr_Teeth

If you think vetos are bad, have a look at signing statements..

Mr.Micro

Manic Moran wrote:

What number would you suggest, then? 55%? 60%? 2/3 is a reasonable number to allow discretion without ability to do nutty things over the will of voters.

And if it's downright illegal, you just need a 51% of the court to say so.

NTM

Thank you MM I feel appropriately chastised. A definition of nutty things with regards Mr GW Bush is a whole other forum.

sovtek

Mick86 wrote:

The veto can be over ridden by two thirds of both houses.

Not any more...read signing statements.

eoin5

As a democracy its pretty undemocratic as well as anti-democratic.

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote:

Not any more...read signing statements.

You know that they have no legal effect?

NTM

You Suck!

representive democracy is a pain in the (*)

Funny thing being that in the two hundred years since, no one has seriously suggested or implemented a major improvment or alternative. Its almost a lack of innovation in any serious sense. Which is a pity as we now have the technological ability to implement some radical forms of direct democracy or at the very least streamline the existing form.

monosharp

The USA claims to be a Republic not a Democracy. And no they are not the same thing.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

In my personal opinion, on the Capitalism vs Communism/Socialism debate (No Capitalism does not = Democracy and Socialism/Communism does not = authoritarian etc)

They are both as bad as the other. (Capitalism vs Communism).

In Capitalist Yankland you have people starving on the streets, people who are going to die simply because they can't afford medical procedures or even worse, can't afford simple medication and this is better then how things were in Communist Russia how ?

I think the best solution is somewhere in the middle, between a Capitalist and Socialist society. I think a lot of European Countries are a lot closer to a "better" society then the US or any other part of the world.

Look at Frances healthcare system for example, not perfect but damn better then anyone else's.

The richest Capitalist country in the world won't even provide Universal Healthcare. -> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

monosharp

You Suck! wrote:

Which is a pity as we now have the technological ability to implement some radical forms of direct democracy or at the very least streamline the existing form.

As an IT guy let me say this.

If you are talking about e-voting then ... ha.

You could spend 20 years developing a "secure" system for e-voting and someone would find a way around that security in a week. Computers are not secure, software is not secure, no Data is secure. Absolutely nothing in IT is tamper proof.

I always find this really funny when guys talk about the fantastic new security procedures on their computers.

Bio-Metrics for example (Fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition etc etc etc) I had a class on this in college and the presenter was talking about possible ways to get around the security e.g > Cut out some lads eye, take a graft of their fingerprint etc etc.

At the end of the f'ing day, the computer is still running an Operating System, more then likely windows. Anyone with any IT know how with physical access to a machine will laugh at these measures. "Oh look this thing wants a scan of my eye, a sample of my DNA and voice recognition to log-on. Whatever shall i do ???? Oh wait i'll just yank out the bloomin hard drive shall i ?"

Then the machine is more then likely connected to a network of some kind, then your data's most definitely not safe.

eoin5

monosharp wrote:

As an IT guy let me say this.

If you are talking about e-voting then ... ha.

You could spend 20 years developing a "secure" system for e-voting and someone would find a way around that security in a week. Computers are not secure, software is not secure, no Data is secure. Absolutely nothing in IT is tamper proof.

I always find this really funny when guys talk about the fantastic new security procedures on their computers.

Bio-Metrics for example (Fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition etc etc etc) I had a class on this in college and the presenter was talking about possible ways to get around the security e.g > Cut out some lads eye, take a graft of their fingerprint etc etc.

At the end of the f'ing day, the computer is still running an Operating System, more then likely windows. Anyone with any IT know how with physical access to a machine will laugh at these measures. "Oh look this thing wants a scan of my eye, a sample of my DNA and voice recognition to log-on. Whatever shall i do ???? Oh wait i'll just yank out the bloomin hard drive shall i ?"

Then the machine is more then likely connected to a network of some kind, then your data's most definitely not safe.

As an IT guy let me say you should look into e-voting systems a bit more. These systems are designed and tested by the leading experts in Crypto and Formal Methods. Theyre not open systems (though the software may be) and they require an obvious crime to even get near them. At the end of the f'ing day theyre easily as secure as any manual system.

Time Magazine

bonkey wrote:

Mr.Micro wrote:

What happened to a simple majority ?

Thats how the President is elected

We wish.

Al Gore: 51,003,926 (48.38%)
George W. Bush: 50,460,110 (47.87%)

Manic Moran

We wish.

Al Gore: 51,003,926 (48.38%)
George W. Bush: 50,460,110 (47.87%)

You're not looking at the right figures.

Al Gore: 266 (49.54%)
George W Bush: 271 (50.46%)

NTM

Time Magazine

You're not reading what I quoted.

Manic Moran

Ibid wrote:

You're not reading what I quoted.

On the contrary. I did indeed.

You simply misunderstood the data you had collected.

This is what you apparently contested. (As I understood 'we wish' to signify)

Originally Posted by Bonkey

Originally Posted by Mr.Micro
What happened to a simple majority ?

Thats how the President is elected

I quote now from the US Constitution, from Article II, Section 1:

The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President

I don't see the discrepancy.

NTM

You Suck!

monosharp wrote:

As an IT guy let me say this.

If you are talking about e-voting then ... ha.

You could spend 20 years developing a "secure" system for e-voting and someone would find a way around that security in a week. Computers are not secure, software is not secure, no Data is secure. Absolutely nothing in IT is tamper proof.

I always find this really funny when guys talk about the fantastic new security procedures on their computers.

Bio-Metrics for example (Fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition etc etc etc) I had a class on this in college and the presenter was talking about possible ways to get around the security e.g > Cut out some lads eye, take a graft of their fingerprint etc etc.

At the end of the f'ing day, the computer is still running an Operating System, more then likely windows. Anyone with any IT know how with physical access to a machine will laugh at these measures. "Oh look this thing wants a scan of my eye, a sample of my DNA and voice recognition to log-on. Whatever shall i do ???? Oh wait i'll just yank out the bloomin hard drive shall i ?"

Then the machine is more then likely connected to a network of some kind, then your data's most definitely not safe.

I've worked in the industry

But even despite these problems, no one has even as yet envisioned a theoretical framework by which individuals in a society could be enabled by technology to have a more direct input. But thats just a symptom of a deeper problem, that is a lack of innovation around democratic models of government. Wish I'd payed more attention in systems design now

bonkey

You Suck! wrote:

representive democracy is a pain in the (*)

Funny thing being that in the two hundred years since, no one has seriously suggested or implemented a major improvment or alternative.

You don't consider quarterly referenda combined with the ability for the public to force an item onto the ballot (within a comparatively short timeframe of a small number of years) through signature-collection as a major improvement?

Exactly what are you suggesting?

Representative democracy is a balance between levels of participation and levels of control. While denizens of the politics forum might love the chance to have their voice given weight in each and every vote carried out in the Dail, the reality is that the vast majority of the population don't want anywhere near that level of participation and wouldn't use it if they had it.

This would then result the ability for small interest-groups to carry the day, regardless of what the representatives chosen by the populace at large had to say on the matter.

Its almost a lack of innovation in any serious sense.

Perhaps you should consider that this is because there isn't widepsread agreement that there's a problem which needs solving.

Which is a pity as we now have the technological ability to implement some radical forms of direct democracy or at the very least streamline the existing form.

You don't need technology for most of it. The Swiss have had a form of direct democracy for a hundred and fifty years now. Only relatively recently did they force the last communities to abandon the "show of hands" method of voting - not because it was unworkable, but because of issues of voter-privacy.

What you do need is the willingness to basically say "lets make a fundamental change to the way our contry works. Lets say that our current system is badly flawed and we want a radical change with no guarantee it will really make things better".

Thats a willingness you won't get, outside of a small number of idealists.

oscarBravo

eoin5 wrote:

As an IT guy let me say you should look into e-voting systems a bit more. These systems are designed and tested by the leading experts in Crypto and Formal Methods. Theyre not open systems (though the software may be) and they require an obvious crime to even get near them. At the end of the f'ing day theyre easily as secure as any manual system.

Discussions of electronic voting are off-topic - there's a forum for them. And I think you'll find your views will be strongly contested.

Time Magazine

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't see the discrepancy.

Ah, so you didn't understand the concept of a simple majority rather than not reading it .

The "simple" element generally refers to a straight paper count. Certainly Bush won the population-distorted election, but he did not win the simple majority.

Simple majority is defined as "Majority, a voting requirement of more than 50% of all ballots cast". Meanwhile ballot is defined as "a slip or sheet of paper, cardboard, or the like, on which a voter marks his or her vote."

No candidates won a simple majority in 2000 election, but Al Gore had the most ballots to his name. A full 543,816 more than the nearest rival.

Now I know that's not how the American Presidential election works. Much like our proportional representation system, the votes are divided and tallied up subject to constraints. That's not what I was refuting. I was refuting, rightly, that the presidential election mechanism is done by means of a simple majority.

djpbarry

The problem with democracy, if it can be called a problem, is that it only works when everyone participates. The majority of Americans do not want Bush as president; only about 18% of the population voted for him in 2000, but of course, less again voted for Gore. Therein lies the problem.

Manic Moran

I try again.

Manic Moran wrote:

The other point to note is that technically the US is a Representative Republic

I understand this is a difficult concept for non-Americans (and indeed, some Americans) to understand due to the unique Federal nature of the country, but in a Representative system, we have representatives to do our voting for us. Not only on legislative bills, or appointments to the Courts, but also for the position of President.

The closest analogy I can think of is to ask if you partook in a vote to elect Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering to the position he currently holds.

When it comes to President of the US, the voters are not the 300 million Americans. They are the 571 Electors, who represent the voters of their States.

Simple majority is defined as "Majority, a voting requirement of more than 50% of all ballots cast". Meanwhile ballot is defined as "a slip or sheet of paper, cardboard, or the like, on which a voter marks his or her vote."

Despite the fact that 'Simple Majority' has a different meaning in common usage depending on where you are (In American terms, it means an absolute majority: More than 50% of the vote. In European terms, it means a plurality: More votes than anyone else. I presume, being a European board, the latter was the one we were using), the use of a ballot in the Presidential Election is confirmed by looking at US law.

Again, the US Constitution:

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons

When I go down to the local ballot station, and check the box for George W. Bush or Mickey Mouse or anyone else, I am not voting for President. I am partaking in a referendum to indicate to my State's representatives which way I would like them to vote. In most (all?) cases, State Law requires the State's Electors to follow the results of that referendum, but not necessarily all to the same degree. For example, there is a measure in California's legislature right now which would split CA's presidential electoral votes in a manner similar to some other States. There was a bill passed in CA (but vetoed by Arnie, fortunately) which would completely ignored the State referendum result entirely.

I was refuting, rightly, that the presidential election mechanism is done by means of a simple majority.

And you are quite simply wrong to do so. The President is elected by counting the 571 votes cast. Whoever gets the most, wins. Period.

NTM

Time Magazine

Okay, let's try make this easy.

The election of the President of Ireland is done by a simple majority.

The election of the President of the USA is done by a complicated majority. I understand the mechanism by which this is done. Using the American definition, no candidate in the 2000 Presidential Election received a simple majority. Using the European definition, the victor of the 2000 Presidential Election did not receive a simple majority.

Voting by proxy is not a simple majority vote. You seem to be failing to make a distinction between a simple ballot and constituent vote. I assert there is a difference, not entirely unlike the fact that our Taoiseach is elected by TDs. If you do not accept this distinction, we're literally arguing semantics, and I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore with that.

djpbarry

Manic Moran wrote:

The President is elected by counting the 571 votes cast. Whoever gets the most, wins. Period.

Yes, but as you said yourself, the electors' vote is based on the popular vote. Now, while a simple majority in the popular vote does not necessarily mean anything, this vote is still highly influential in determining the next president. For example, a large majority in the popular vote is likely to be reflected in the vote of the electors, assuming this majority is spread relatively evenly across the country. But you are quite right in saying that this is not a democracy.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

The majority of Americans do not want Bush as president; only about 18% of the population voted for him in 2000...

That doesn't mean that 82% didn't want him to be president. If someone didn't vote, the assumption is that they don't care who's president.

That's leaving aside the issue of deliberate and/or indirect disenfranchising of entire groups of voters, which is a separate - and very serious - issue.