• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you get upset at the word democracy?

Does the word democracy upset you?

  • Total voters
    24
I don't care, but It is silly when people say we are a democracy (direct) when in reality we are a sub type (representative republic).
 
Blackdog said:
I don't care, but It is silly when people say we are a democracy (direct) when in reality we are a sub type (representative republic).
Click to expand...
A square is a parallelogram.

A sub-form of democracy is indeed a democracy.
 
Apocalypse said:
A square is a parallelogram.

A sub-form of democracy is indeed a democracy.
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

When the majority of people say it they mean direct, not what we have.
 
Blackdog said:
You missed the point.

When the majority of people say it they mean direct, not what we have.
Click to expand...
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:
Blackdog said:
You missed the point.

When the majority of people say it they mean direct, not what we have.
Click to expand...

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:
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't agree at all. Read my post above.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all rules, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
 
The National Popular Vote bill

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska – 70%, DC – 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
 
MSgt said:
It wasn't invented. Copernicus discovered it behind Neptune in the 4th century.
Click to expand...

:lol: Oh, I thought it was invented by Leonardo in 1224 BCE .
 
Flea said:
:lol: Oh, I thought it was invented by Leonardo in 1224 BCE .
Click to expand...

That's because you don't know basic history. It was Copernicus right after buying Jesus a Whopper at the Beijing McDonalds. The Mayans wrote all about it on the Eiffel Tower right before their language, called graffiti, became lost in history. How embarrassing for you.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
That's because you don't know basic history. It was Copernicus right after buying Jesus a Whopper at the Beijing McDonalds. The Mayans wrote all about it on the Eiffel Tower right before their language, called graffiti, became lost in history. How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Was that part of the 2012 prediction?
 
People will often say 'this is a democracy, and so...'.

When they do, they generally fail to understand that in our system of government, the will of the people does not always prevail.

I believe this is generally due to ignorance, which is sometimes willful.
 
Flea said:
The problem is in that the elector does not even need to cast their vote as their constituency wants, as happened in the 2000 election. They are known as "Faithless Electors"

2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)
In the most recent act of Elector abstention, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic Elector from the District of Columbia, did not cast her vote for Al Gore as expected. Her abstention was meant to protest the lack of Congressional representation for Washington, DC.

The Electoral College - "Faithless Electors"


There is a list of the rest, and that is the problem. The people are not truly represented.
Click to expand...

That's part of the system. The founders weren't comfortable with direct democracy and too much reliance on popular opinion can have devastating effects on a government; so they moved to isolate somewhat the government from the whims of populism. And they were correct.
 
Goobieman said:
People will often say 'this is a democracy, and so...'.

When they do, they generally fail to understand that in our system of government, the will of the people does not always prevail.

I believe this is generally due to ignorance, which is sometimes willful.
Click to expand...
Give a name of a democracy where the will of people always prevails.

You're speaking about direct democracy.
In representative democracy, which is pretty much the only form of democracy that is being used on planet Earth, the will of the people doesn't mean much when we're not on the elections periods.

One of the main reasons why we favor representative democracy is because we understand that the majority of the people cannot be entrusted with making the right decisions, hence we choose a politician that we believe represents our opinions and pray that he wouldn't turn asshole on us.

Indeed, the democratic value of "the majority rules" in modern democracies is represented mainly by the elections themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom