View Poll Results: Does the word democracy upset you?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 11.54%
  • No

    21 80.77%
  • Not Sure

    1 3.85%
  • Other

    1 3.85%
Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 168

Thread: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

  1. #81
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    A square is a parallelogram.

    A sub-form of democracy is indeed a democracy.
    You missed the point.

    When the majority of people say it they mean direct, not what we have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #82
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,196

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You missed the point.

    When the majority of people say it they mean direct, not what we have.
    I don't think the majority are referring to direct democracy (which has only existed through ancient Greek's time, and does not exist today) when they're saying "Democracy".

    They're referring to a form of regime that is established "by the people, for the people", to a people's rule management, to values of equality and freedom, etc.
    Last edited by Apocalypse; 04-10-10 at 05:11 PM.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  3. #83
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You missed the point.

    When the majority of people say it they mean direct, not what we have.
    That would mean that the majority of people wouldn't think that we have senators and congressmen who we send to vote in our place. I do not believe this is the case.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 04-10-10 at 05:13 PM.

  4. #84
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    I don't think the majority are referring to direct democracy (which has only existed through ancient Greek's time, and does not exist today) when they're saying "Democracy".

    They're referring to a form of regime that is established "by the people, for the people", to a people's rule management, to values of equality and freedom, etc.
    When most people say "democracy" they are thinking majority rule. That is the impression I get anyway. Just look around here at the arguments about "most of the people need" etc.

    I think you give the unwashed masses way to much credibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #85
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    That would mean that the majority of people wouldn't think that we have senators and congressmen who we send to vote in our place. I do not believe this is the case.
    I don't agree at all. Read my post above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #86
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,991

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    Why would I be upset at one of the greatest terms ever invented?
    It wasn't invented. Copernicus discovered it behind Neptune in the 4th century.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #87
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Current presidential election system does not work well

    The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
    Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

    Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

    In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

  8. #88
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: Do you get upset at the word democracy?

    The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

    There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

  9. #89
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277
    The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. Faithless electors are not a practical problem, and most states have complete authority to remedy any problem there could be, by means of state law.

  10. #90
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277
    The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

    12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •