NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to let you know, I'm an American. Back to the topic, our type of government really sucks. It's called a Democracy by most but it really isn't. The real name for it is either a Representative Democracy or a Republic. These are completely different from true Democracy. The Greeks had that one right to a certain extent. When a law was proposed, all of the eligible voters(white [or whatever type of skin was predominant then], landowning, men) went to whatever meeting place they met at, discussed the new law, and voted. That's Democracy. That's a good thing. Unfortunately, that's not how we work. We elect people assuming they're going to stick with what they said they were going to do. They also say they're going to create laws for the good of the people. I'm sure everyone here knows that's not true no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. These politicians(the ones in congress anyway) are elected and go about doing whatever they want. Some things like Proposition ### is voted on by the people like it should be done. Congress, however just does whatever they want. Some say that we're to blame because we vote them into office. It doesn't matter who we vote for; the whole system's flawed. Why don't we change it? Most people who can are too afraid, don't care, or like the way it is for some strange reason. The rest of us just don't have the resources. I'm not advocating any rebellion or some such nonsense; only change. It's just nearly impossible to change something that "important" in the constitution. Back to congress voting whatever they want. People say it's legal since it's in the constitution. Do you even know how many times the constitution's been bypassed? There's the whole commander in chief vs congress deal that's since been resolved. It used to be that the president could send troops wherever he wanted and just not call the thing a war. Vietnam went that way. It started off small and escalated. That's it for me for now. Any ideas, rebuttals?

It's called a Democracy by most but it really isn't. :rolleyes:
No, it's not. It is a republic.

emigrate.

Reason one that a true democracy would be a disaster:

Tyranny of the majority. If wolves and sheep were in a "democracy" and the wolves outnumbered the sheep, don't you think the sheep would get eaten?


Reason two that a true democracy would be a disaster:

The average layperson does not have time to adequately learn all sides of every single issue. It's not like every American can fit into one little room and discuss things and then vote on them. The average person knows quite a bit about a particular subject, a little bit about some other subjects, and absolutely nothing on most subjects. They don't have time between everything else to become well-educated on every single issue.

The politicians are *supposed* to do this. If they do not, they should be voted out. The problem is not really with the politicians not voting the way they should, it with the fact that the average American is content to listen to what they say and take it as Gospel truth (especially if it sounds good) instead of voting out those who fuck up and getting new people in. It is the responsibility of the American citizen to make sure that the politician knows that voting the wrong way on the wrong issue could cost them a job. Americans just need to stop being so complacent.

Actually this is why the system is like how it is right now. You as a person think that the politicians should do something. They then put up a nice agenda to conform to that. These days people care about issues so basically we vote on whether someone is for or against gay marriage ect. In truth you should be electing a represenative because you trust they will make the right decision. And ultimatly the issues created the parties.

Reason one that a true democracy would be a disaster:

Tyranny of the majority. If wolves and sheep were in a "democracy" and the wolves outnumbered the sheep, don't you think the sheep would get eaten?


Reason two that a true democracy would be a disaster:

The average layperson does not have time to adequately learn all sides of every single issue. It's not like every American can fit into one little room and discuss things and then vote on them. The average person knows quite a bit about a particular subject, a little bit about some other subjects, and absolutely nothing on most subjects. They don't have time between everything else to become well-educated on every single issue.

The politicians are *supposed* to do this. If they do not, they should be voted out. The problem is not really with the politicians not voting the way they should, it with the fact that the average American is content to listen to what they say and take it as Gospel truth (especially if it sounds good) instead of voting out those who fuck up and getting new people in. It is the responsibility of the American citizen to make sure that the politician knows that voting the wrong way on the wrong issue could cost them a job. Americans just need to stop being so complacent.

In response to the first part, doesn't that already happen? The side with more politicians is the wolf and the minority is the sheep. It works like that now but on a smaller scale. For the second part, I disagree. While some Americans wouldn't keep up to date on all of the new laws, if we could vote for more, people would care more. The Greeks made it work so why can't we? Sure there are more of us but communication is a whole lot easier now. I already said what I thought about voting politicians out. It never works. The new one does whatever he wants too. Maybe mandatory voting would help things...

If I ran as a politician I would run on,

compromise so both sides can win

giving people options

if confronted by public opinion engage in a debate in my home state to express my reasons, and if there is opposition come to a compromise.

exploratory policy in all areas to help come up with new solutions.

ext.. not tax cuts, abortion, social security

I might try "running" on another thread, but tomarrow.

I feel its more of a duo-mocracy.

People, if you demand change and threaten to kick your voted Congress members out, you will see change! The problem is, not enough people do that, thus, your all ****ing up the country that's to be my problem in 4 years. Wouldn't ya know it, I turn 18 right after Bush's possible 2nd term...damn that's one hell of a future to look forward to [/sarcasm]

In response to the first part, doesn't that already happen? The side with more politicians is the wolf and the minority is the sheep. It works like that now but on a smaller scale.

However, the politicians won't do *too* much to piss off the minority, just in case thier votes end up counting. If everything was just a free-for-all, the minorities would get screwed on *everything*.

For the second part, I disagree. While some Americans wouldn't keep up to date on all of the new laws, if we could vote for more, people would care more.

You missed my point entirely. The average human being has to go to work, no? They also have kids to raise or classes to go to, etc. No one with a normal life (ie 40 hour work week, actvities, needs sleep, dependents) has time (unless it is their job to do so) to be informed on every single issue that comes before Congress. No one, that is, who ever goes to work, eats, sleeps, or takes care of anyone else.

We would have an even worse version of what we have today, accept it would be an entire country full of uninformed people voting on each individual issue, instead of just the representatives whose sole purpose would be to listen to the experts and then vote on those issues.

The Greeks made it work so why can't we?

The Greeks made it work within single cities (never even the entirety of Greece at once) and only counted a few elite people as viable voters. On top of that, they did not have the technology that we have now - which you often must have at least a rudimentary understanding of in order to make an informed decision on a given issue.
You are talking millions of relatively uninformed people across miles and miles of land somehow getting together all at once to talk about and become informed on every single bill that comes before the country and then to vote on it. This is quite simply, impossible.

Sure there are more of us but communication is a whole lot easier now.

We have no system that would allow for a 300 million person discussion on every single possible issue and then an accurate 300 million person vote.

I already said what I thought about voting politicians out. It never works. The new one does whatever he wants too. Maybe mandatory voting would help things...

And, as I said, the problem is not that voting politicians out does not work - the problem is that very few politicians get voted out! People complacently return to the polls every year and vote for "that guy we voted for last year" or "that guy that X party nominated," instead of actually being informed about that person's past or opinions on how to run the country. If politicians were truly scared that they would essentially get fired for going against their constituents or the policies that they ran based on, they would not do it. The problem is that the average American voter lets them get away with it.

Reason one that a true democracy would be a disaster:

Tyranny of the majority. If wolves and sheep were in a "democracy" and the wolves outnumbered the sheep, don't you think the sheep would get eaten?



Okay, I'm using this lively fellows post to make a point of the current American political paradigm...

It's currently a 'tyranny of the minority'... (or as I see it, a 'noisy minority')just because the sheep currently out-number the wolves doesn't mean that the wolves aren't eating them, throwing a leg over, or doing whatever pleases them...

Being that I'm Canadian, I get a ring-side seat, and the opportunity to sit and worry about how long it'll take the Republican GOP to notice these facts:

1) that the 49th Parallel is the world's single largest undefended border,
2) Canada, while having a very well-trained, competent military, still has equipment at least 10 years out of date, and 1/10th the standing military.
3) Canada has vast tracts of natural resources.

Anyways, I'm slightly nervous.

Okay, I'm using this lively fellows post to make a point of the current American political paradigm...

Er...don't qualify as a fellow, but alright.

It's currently a 'tyranny of the minority'... (or as I see it, a 'noisy minority')just because the sheep currently out-number the wolves doesn't mean that the wolves aren't eating them, throwing a leg over, or doing whatever pleases them...

I never said it worked perfectly. And it works even less since the average American voter is freaking lazy.

Being that I'm Canadian, I get a ring-side seat, and the opportunity to sit and worry about how long it'll take the Republican GOP to notice these facts:

1) that the 49th Parallel is the world's single largest undefended border,
2) Canada, while having a very well-trained, competent military, still has equipment at least 10 years out of date, and 1/10th the standing military.
3) Canada has vast tracts of natural resources.

Anyways, I'm slightly nervous.

Don't be. If we attacked you and took you over, we couldn't blame you for anything. Blame Candada! =)

the american political institutions (i.e. the constitution) are decent, in my opinion; it's the political culture that's seems really screwed up to me.

the american political institutions (i.e. the constitution) are decent, in my opinion; it's the political culture that's seems really screwed up to me.
Not bad, I rather like that pocket analysis.

In response to the first part, doesn't that already happen? The side with more politicians is the wolf and the minority is the sheep. It works like that now but on a smaller scale. For the second part, I disagree. While some Americans wouldn't keep up to date on all of the new laws, if we could vote for more, people would care more. The Greeks made it work so why can't we? Sure there are more of us but communication is a whole lot easier now. I already said what I thought about voting politicians out. It never works. The new one does whatever he wants too. Maybe mandatory voting would help things...

This is balanced out by the electoral system and the two houses.

The House get representation based on population and is subject to minority rule.

The Senate has equal representation(from a states point of view) and population has far less impact.

The President is concerned with electoral votes(which is a combination of population and individual states).

This system prevents legislation from passing that gives too much advantage to any particular group(for the most part, majorities still have advantages though).

Further, our court system allows it to nullify laws if the are unconstitutional, which they would be if a law took advantage of one group.

The one thing I *hate* about our democracy are all the upper-crust elitists running the government . . . . my idea of democracy involves more people from *all* walks of life

The one thing I *hate* about our democracy are all the upper-crust elitists running the government . . . . my idea of democracy involves more people from *all* walks of life

Unfortunately, that problems pandemic across the Western World: Straight white men in suits run everything. It's how it's always been, and since people don't get given enough monority candidates, they don't vote for them just because they show up. We basically need more minorities to try and get into governments.

Woow is the US a democracy?

Woow is the US a democracy?
In terms of what is accepted as a Modern Western Democracy, yep. In terms of theoretical perfect democracy, no, but then again noone else is either. Democracy in terms of modern nations refers to the type of elected representative government we have in most of the West these days, Britain although techincally a monarchy is considered a democracy likewise.

The one thing I *hate* about our democracy are all the upper-crust elitists running the government . . . . my idea of democracy involves more people from *all* walks of life


what does statement mean? both parties raise about the same amount of $$. Dems actually have more this election if you include soft money.

The bulk of votes (by definition) arent the elite.

I find that there is noting really wrong with the way Democracy in the United States works, as a non american, i see America as haveing the same style of government as any other nation in the West. Under the U.S. Contitution, you have the same basic rights as any other western nation. You have representatives, political debates, intensive discussions in changes of the law and so on. There is noting really wrong with the Constitution as it is written..

i'll tell you what makes american democracy bad... it is the attitude most americans take towards politics!! We can see you're rights are being taken away slowly, you are not represented well at all, the average citizen has little say in what happens in the government, all standars are beginning to lower. This is because, over the years, not enough americans take an interest in politics and too few actually stand up and face the government over a very important issues raised. The government was left to do "whatever it willed" to keep america safe from communism in the cold war, understandably, like alot of nations. Now laws are changing in favor of the elite class which has practically taken over the government during this century and has met no real opposition from the american people because most don't take any interest in how the country is being governed.. and now it is becomeing increasingly difficult to make people stand up against the increasingly selfish elites in government (who are mainly interested in making lives of the rich better regardless of the poor) and due to falling educational standards in many parts of the country it is also becoming increasingly difficult to make people aware of the situation. Yet america is still a "democracy" under the constitution and you can vote in whoever you damn well like, not just the spoilt millionairs that show up during all kinds of elections with big smiles on their faces, so long as america is still a large democracy of tens of millions of people the country can be changed by its people for the better of its people!! god speed! lol


the socialist has spoken!

The one thing I *hate* about our democracy are all the upper-crust elitists running the government . . . . my idea of democracy involves more people from *all* walks of life

hey - you elected them. everyone gets one vote.

Would you rather have Jimbo, who pumps your gas, run the country?

Would you rather have Jimbo, who pumps your gas, run the country?

Yeah ... I kinda would, actually.

Yeah ... I kinda would, actually.

oh really? well, then...umm...carry on.

oh really? well, then...umm...carry on.

Well, ya know, we've had 43 Presidents so far, right? Of all of them, only Lincoln was not born "privileged". That means we've basically voted for the same guy 42 times ... why bother with a 43rd?

As my grandfather always said, "If what you're doing isn't working, try something else."

Well, ya know, we've had 43 Presidents so far, right? Of all of them, only Lincoln was not born "privileged". That means we've basically voted for the same guy 42 times ... why bother with a 43rd?

As my grandfather always said, "If what you're doing isn't working, try something else."

Er...so you're saying all people born into priviledged households are the same?

Are you sure he was the only one? I keep thinking there was at least someone else who grew up in a house his parents built themselves...etc...but I can't remember who...

Just to let you know, I'm an American. Back to the topic, our type of government really sucks. It's called a Democracy by most but it really isn't. The real name for it is either a Representative Democracy or a Republic. These are completely different from true Democracy. The Greeks had that one right to a certain extent. When a law was proposed, all of the eligible voters(white [or whatever type of skin was predominant then], landowning, men) went to whatever meeting place they met at, discussed the new law, and voted. That's Democracy. That's a good thing. Unfortunately, that's not how we work. We elect people assuming they're going to stick with what they said they were going to do. They also say they're going to create laws for the good of the people. I'm sure everyone here knows that's not true no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. These politicians(the ones in congress anyway) are elected and go about doing whatever they want. Some things like Proposition ### is voted on by the people like it should be done. Congress, however just does whatever they want. Some say that we're to blame because we vote them into office. It doesn't matter who we vote for; the whole system's flawed. Why don't we change it? Most people who can are too afraid, don't care, or like the way it is for some strange reason. The rest of us just don't have the resources. I'm not advocating any rebellion or some such nonsense; only change. It's just nearly impossible to change something that "important" in the constitution. Back to congress voting whatever they want. People say it's legal since it's in the constitution. Do you even know how many times the constitution's been bypassed? There's the whole commander in chief vs congress deal that's since been resolved. It used to be that the president could send troops wherever he wanted and just not call the thing a war. Vietnam went that way. It started off small and escalated. That's it for me for now. Any ideas, rebuttals?

I dont think its a problem with our democracy at all or our government system just our current leaders are retarded. George W. Bush-"Most of our imports come from other countrys." .......... I have a huge page that my friend e-mailed to me of dozens of dumb quotes just like that one.

Well, ya know, we've had 43 Presidents so far, right? Of all of them, only Lincoln was not born "privileged". That means we've basically voted for the same guy 42 times ... why bother with a 43rd?

As my grandfather always said, "If what you're doing isn't working, try something else."
No, many of them weren't born privileged. That dosen't mean they didn't become rich throughout their lives, but people like Reagan and Clinton weren't born into families like the Kennedys or Bushes.

If you break your arm, would you gather your friends and ask what to do about your arm? If the water is broken to your home, would you gather all of your friends to decide how to fix the water? If your cat died, would you gather all of your friends to decide where to bury it?

There are some issues that are either irrelavant to a community at large, or are so miniscule that they can be called routine. The examples above are scaled-down examples, but I think they still fit for the larger political scale.

It makes a poor argument to argue the nomenclature of something. "It's not a car, it's a Volkswagon, so it sucks at being a car" kind of stuff is just a waste of time.