• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democracy in America, an Analysis

That is the propagada we have become used to from you and that I had half expected you to produce, when I read that article the other day.

And now you are calling "research" conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit "propaganda"?

Typical Replicant reply by those who refuse factual debate and resort to sarcasm ...

But as has happened more often that in the time preceding the new management at The Economist, the article is only half informed or in any case refrains from letting an understanding of how group decision making works, how it applies to democracies and how the various and multitude of forms it can take affect the efficiency and legitimacy of the political system. The article was really very disappointing from the ppint of view of informing readers uninformed on the formal side of the subject.

Pure speculation on your part.

I have researched the article and find no serious contention with EIU-methodology. Perhaps you can do so, find it and share the arguments with us?

Instead of attacking off-the-cuff one of the world's best "economics research institutions" that also sells its work successfully to private enterprise.

Until I see otherwise from you, you are groping ...
 
The hell they dont. They have a lot of power and have defeated the current government several times.

The power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts.

Those senates are elected.. the UKs is not.. how hard is that to understand?

The House of Lords cannot reject a bill passed by the House of Commons. How hard is that to understand?
 
All the EC does...without gerrymandering....is allow the 500 voters from Greer, SC, to have as loud of a voice as the 500,000 in Los Angeles.

And THAT statement shows you understand nothing of a real democracy.

A real democracy is based upon the pure popular-vote where every citizen (of age) has the same right to vote and that vote is counted only once - the sum of which is solely definitive. Which is why six presidents have been elected "unfairly" in the history of the US by means of an antiquated/obsolete Electoral College that never should have been instituted by the 14th Amendment.

It should be revoked!

Gerrymandering deserves the same treatment. It is based upon an unfair redistricting of the popular-vote in order to concentrate it in regional elections. It too should be made illegal. If the HofR representation is voted strictly upon the state's population, then why not state government representatives?

We live in an homogenized democracy, where one person should be counted as one vote - except in presidential elections where the Electoral College decides (and its constitution is up to local governments, who should have no say whatsoever in national elections.

Thus, the College is contrary to fair practice.

For all the pride Americans take in their "freedom", it is curious that they have no concern whatsoever regarding the trickery involved in electing their representatives to state legislatures. Furthermore, the lock-hold on legislatures is also a consequence of gerrymandering since it has been shown to favor incumbents. This too is indecent in a truly "free" democracy ...
 
Last edited:
You do realize that the US is not a democracy, its a constitutional republic

i am going to disagree with you on a fine point!

when the founding fathers created the our nation it was a classical republic of "mixed government" [federalist #40] which is not a democratic FORM of government but instead a republican form of government.

in the time of the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron

democracy is a democratic form, and the founders hate democratic forms of government

in a republican form of government, it has 1 single element of democracy in it and that being the house of representatives.

the senate and the president are not elected by the people, but by representatives of the people ....so the vote is not a democratic vote of the people

the house represents the people, the senate represents the state governments, and the president represents the union as a whole, which is the people and the state governments combined.

however in the early part of the 20th century the 17th amendment to the constitution changes America into a more democratic form of government, against the ideas of the founders because democratic forms of government are filled with factious combinations[ special interest]

because of the 17th, the states have no power inside of the congress concerning law making they once had, no longer can they stop the power of the federal government from violating and usurping of state powers by federal legislation.

so technically because the senate is direct elected and the federal government is outside of the constitution and the presidnet can promise the people goodies, its more of democracy now---sadly:(

the founders hate democracies because they are unstable and lead to abuses of power because power is concentrated which is dangerous, in a classical republic of mixed government, power is divided and because of that government cannot be tyrannical.
 
And THAT statement shows you understand nothing of a real democracy.

A real democracy is based upon the pure popular-vote where every citizen (of age) has the same right to vote and that vote is counted only once - the sum of which is solely definitive. Which is why six presidents have been elected "unfairly" in the history of the US by means of an antiquated/obsolete Electoral College that never should have been instituted by the 14th Amendment.

It should be revoked!

Gerrymandering deserves the same treatment. It is based upon an unfair redistricting of the popular-vote in order to concentrate it in regional elections. It too should be made illegal. If the HofR representation is voted strictly upon the state's population, then why not state government representatives?

We live in an homogenized democracy, where one person should be counted as one vote - except in presidential elections where the Electoral College decides (and its constitution is up to local governments, who should have no say whatsoever in national elections.

Thus, the College is contrary to fair practice.

For all the pride Americans take in their "freedom", it is curious that they have no concern whatsoever regarding the trickery involved in electing their representatives to state legislatures. Furthermore, the lock-hold on legislatures is also a consequence of gerrymandering since it has been shown to favor incumbents. This too is indecent in a truly "free" democracy ...

Your notion of true democracy amounts to two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what to eat for dinner.
 
And now you are calling "research" conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit "propaganda"?

Typical Replicant reply by those who refuse factual debate and resort to sarcasm ...



Pure speculation on your part.

I have researched the article and find no serious contention with EIU-methodology. Perhaps you can do so, find it and share the arguments with us?

Instead of attacking off-the-cuff one of the world's best "economics research institutions" that also sells its work successfully to private enterprise.

Until I see otherwise from you, you are groping ...

Not the research. It was the omission of relevant information. But as a subscriber and regular reader over 30 years it would have been hard to miss the shift.
 
Not the research. It was the omission of relevant information. But as a subscriber and regular reader over 30 years it would have been hard to miss the shift.

Shot in the dark.

Moving right along ...
 
There aren't enough limits on democracy in the United States today.

There were more limits by design at the founding.
 
Piffle ...

How bout this, then.


How bout we have a popular vote in this forum to perma ban all liberal/democrat/socialist/left leaning folks like yourself?


Or....


We have moderator representation, so that it's not majority rule?
 
How bout this, then.


How bout we have a popular vote in this forum to perma ban all liberal/democrat/socialist/left leaning folks like yourself?


Or....


We have moderator representation, so that it's not majority rule?

How about we revert to a police-state like China or Russia ... ?
 
How about we revert to a police-state like China or Russia ... ?

Well, under your asinine majority rules plan, if enough major metropolitan areas decide that that's what they want....
 
Back
Top Bottom