no, I am a proponent of democracy, which is why I value the limitation of power manifested in things like term limits. the will of the majority is important, as are the rights of all citizens, which come into question when the majority puts a dictator into office. I am merely suggesting that democracy in its most direct form can lead to a very unstable political atmosphere.
Well no on uses direct forms per say of Democracy. All nations use a representative form of Democracy. Some elect directly their leader, others use a representative system to elect a legislative group that in turn choose the leader. But the common thread on all (except the US) is that everyone is elected by MAJORITY vote.
we are a nation of states. the states cast their electoral votes for bush in 2000.
Yea and against the majority vote of the people. And you dont find that odd? That someone who more people voted against gets the top job? As for the "state" comment.. just an excuse. IMO the US needs to figure out if it is a country or 50 mini states and take the consequence. As it stands now, the political parties can use the "split" to their political favour, may it be getting elected, or getting through legislation over the head of the majority of people. And no I am not against local democracy and as much as possible locally with in reason.
imagine you are running for student body president. you easily win all of the female votes in the school, but you've failed to realize that each grade has slightly more males than females. you watch as the 7th grade vote goes to your opponent, followed by the 8th and the 9th, by small margins. ouch.
you run again in high school. now your school is 55% female, but only because all of the men in the senior class have been drafted into the military. the senior class votes unanimously in your favor, giving you the popular vote, but the overwhelmingly male junior and sophomore class votes go to your opponent, an underclassman who has pledged to make cheerleaders cheer at JV games. the seniors send their class president and VP to student body meetings to ensure that the interests of the female senior class are still addressed even though they did not get the ASB president they wanted.
/analogy.
What you are talking about is protecting the minority from abuse by the majority. The question is where you should do that. You seem to believe that it is okay to slant the election system to favour the minority? You do know that is what they do in Iran right? What Saddam did.. and Hitler? If you want to protect the minorities in any country then have laws doing that, not slant your whole political system to favour one party.
true. but we're talking about taking legal, democratic measures to amend the constitution of venezuela to allow chavez to be "president for life."
No, he wants to be able to stand for the job more than the term limit. That is NOT president for life. Are term limits great? Sure they are and I support them in any society and am against what Chavez is trying to change, but he is not rewriting the constitution to name him and his children as the only legal President. The amount of US anti Chavez propoganda is so funny and clouding the facts.
wouldn't you say that abolishing term limits is a step in the wrong direction? that it might in fact one day prevent plausible competition? how would abolishing term limits lead to less corruption?
As I said, term limits are great and should be part of any political system (even my own that dont have it). Corruption does come when there is lack of accountability and transparency and term limits can help. However it can also be bad frankly depending on the situation.
people vote within their states, and states send representatives to protect their interests in congress. in the same way, people vote for electors to protect their interests in the presidential election.
And? Yes the people vote within the states, just as I vote with in my local county and large political entity and send my representative to our parliament. No difference. Now the electoral system is very different because it is not a direct vote and it does not represent the "voice of the people" as the one with least votes can win. Plus the electors are not elected in most cases by the people.
I would love to debate with you but I'm not going to send all of my arguments through PeteEU, and I certainly don't think he's qualified at this point to answer for me.
Not qualified? So how involved in democracy have you been? Ever been an election official? Part of a political party? part of a political campaign? Have you voted? I have.. in 2 countries with very different political systems. I am not saying that this makes me all knowing, but it does qualify me at least a bit to discuss political electoral systems around the world, which includes the American.
He brings up a very valid point. Your favourite system brought us Bush, the guy who more people voted against than for, and look what his dictatorial leadership has brought us?! A war that should never have happened, an economy in the tanks, curbed individual freedoms, massive waste and corruption and so on.
It is what I have been trying to tell you.... Does not matter what the system of democracy and how you do it, if there is no accountability, transparency and checks and balances then there will be corruption and waste. And this is especially true in instances where one party or group are favoured over the others in a political system, because they know that it will take extra ordinary effort to kick them out. Chicago case in point. Many congressional seats case in point.. takes a guy getting busted for paedophile to change political colour of a district.... but even getting busted for corruption or accused of it, can get you re-elected.