• 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

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysis of democracies world-wide, infographic:
825px-Economist_Intelligence_Unit_Democracy_index.svg.png


Democracy by region, here: [FONT=&quot]Democracy index by country[/FONT]

As anyone can see, democracy in America, when inspected under a microscope is comparatively not as good as Americans like to think.

In most functional democracies on earth, it is simply the popular vote that determines the Executive. Not in America, where an archaic intermediary body (called the Electoral College) was instituted because the founding fathers thought - since most Americans could not read or write - that they could be "unduly influenced".

Moreover, few countries allow unlimited financial support of candidates in a presidential election. (But ours is not the only country to all unlimited financial support and yet there is not the same consequence as in the US - see that curious outcome explained here.)

Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.

This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation ...
 
You do realize that the US is not a democracy, its a constitutional republic

Gaw the ignorance.

A constitutional republic is the American words for a representative democracy. So yes, the US is a democracy. Almost all countries that are considered democracies are representative democracies. Even the most direct democracy in the world.. Switzerland, is not really a direct democracy.
 


Some issues with this map.

1) Greenland.. that is Danish and should be coloured the same way as Denmark.
2) UK should not be in the second category since as it like the US, breaks the main rule of democracy... the guy with most votes wins. Current UK government has a majority in the legislative branch but only got 32% of the votes at the last election. On top of that, the upper house is un-elected. If it was realistic, then the UK should be in the yellowish tint area.
 
How would you assure that states with lower populations have their voices heard?
 
Gaw the ignorance.

A constitutional republic is the American words for a representative democracy. So yes, the US is a democracy. Almost all countries that are considered democracies are representative democracies. Even the most direct democracy in the world.. Switzerland, is not really a direct democracy.

Yes a constitutional republic is democratic in nature but it is not the type of democracy the OP referenced.

Note the quote from the OP:

Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.

This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation

The only ignorance here is the OP's and your lack of being able to understand context
 


It's actually far worse than the Economist is willing to say being as the States is a de facto plutocracy; per Princeton's Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites said:
By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites said:
Just as previous literature suggests, each of three broad theoretical traditions—Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, EconomicElite Domination, and interest-group pluralism—seems to gain support. When taken separately, each independent variable—the preferences of average citizens, the preferences of economic elites, and the net alignments of organized interest groups—is strongly, positively, and quite significantly related to policy change. Little wonder that each theoretical tradition has its strong adherents.

But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.

By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy. This does not mean that theories of Economic-Elite Domination are wholly upheld, since our results indicate that individual elites must share their policy influence with organized interest groups. Still, economic elites stand out as quite influential—more so than any other set of actors studied here—in the making of U.S. public policy.
 
Some people will never get over the fact that Hillary isn't president.

Banality.

Some other people will never ever be able to accept simple truths when obvious to them; they are so fixated on "heritage" ...
 
Some issues with this map.

1) Greenland.. that is Danish and should be coloured the same way as Denmark.
2) UK should not be in the second category since as it like the US, breaks the main rule of democracy... the guy with most votes wins. Current UK government has a majority in the legislative branch but only got 32% of the votes at the last election. On top of that, the upper house is un-elected. If it was realistic, then the UK should be in the yellowish tint area.

Yeah, right.

Send that to the Economist Intelligence Unit. See what they think of it! (Print their response here!)

Don't be bothered by the long, long wait for a response ...

NB: Any methodology, however concocted, is applied uniformly and equitably across a politically geographic selection ...
 
You do realize that the US is not a democracy, its a constitutional republic

Do you realize that you need urgently to buy a dictionary ... ?
 
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
So what? Do you think a simple popular vote is automatically the only legitimate system by which to elect your President? What is so fundamentally wrong with the EC system that renders these close-run elections worthy of comment? Do you think a pure popular vote system wouldn’t come with its own set of problems and inconsistencies?

I’m also curious as to how discussions about US democracy seems to focus exclusively on Presidential elections and so often have literally nothing to say about Senate, Congressional or any of the countless state level elections when they could be said to be at least as significant to the people and the nation as one individual sat in the Oval Office.
 
Get rid of gerrymandering, but keep the EC.


If you make elections pure popular votes, you WILL eventually end up with a revolution. The 100 people that live on 500 acres in middle America don't give a rats ass about the problems faced by the thousands of Americans who live on 500 acres in some city or other urbanized community, and vice versa. But you hand complete electoral power over to the city folk. Middle America may as well not even bother voting, at that point.
 
Yeah, right.

Send that to the Economist Intelligence Unit. See what they think of it! (Print their response here!)

Don't be bothered by the long, long wait for a response ...

NB: Any methodology, however concocted, is applied uniformly and equitably across a politically geographic selection ...

Thats the problem, how can it, when half the legislative branch in the UK is appointed, and yet the UK scores higher on the democracy scale than the US, despite the seriously flawed US system? Makes no sense.
 
Get rid of gerrymandering, but keep the EC.


If you make elections pure popular votes, you WILL eventually end up with a revolution. The 100 people that live on 500 acres in middle America don't give a rats ass about the problems faced by the thousands of Americans who live on 500 acres in some city or other urbanized community, and vice versa. But you hand complete electoral power over to the city folk. Middle America may as well not even bother voting, at that point.

Problem here is that it goes both ways. The city folk dont give a rats ass about the rural folks and their problems, but it is the rural folks who sit on the power in the US and that too will eventually cause a revolution by your standards.

End of the day, nothing pisses people more off, than a minority ruling over them, and that is what is happening in the US at them moment.. but at Presidential level and House of Representative level... and that can also cause a revolution if left un-fixed.
 
Thats the problem, how can it, when half the legislative branch in the UK is appointed, and yet the UK scores higher on the democracy scale than the US, despite the seriously flawed US system? Makes no sense.

That half (House of Lords) has no real legislative power whatsoever.

And a "Senate" exists in very few European countries, so the UK is really no different.
 
So what? Do you think a simple popular vote is automatically the only legitimate system by which to elect your President?

The popular vote is the fundamental basis of any democratic election, and particularly of the Executive Office.
 
The popular vote is the fundamental basis of any democratic election, and particularly of the Executive Office.
That assertion doesn’t answer any of my questions though. I’m interested in why you think a national popular vote (there is a popular vote, just at the state level for the electors) would be unquestionably better, indeed unquestionably the only option.
 
That half (House of Lords) has no real legislative power whatsoever.

The hell they dont. They have a lot of power and have defeated the current government several times.

And a "Senate" exists in very few European countries, so the UK is really no different.

Those senates are elected.. the UKs is not.. how hard is that to understand?
 
Problem here is that it goes both ways. The city folk dont give a rats ass about the rural folks and their problems, but it is the rural folks who sit on the power in the US and that too will eventually cause a revolution by your standards.

End of the day, nothing pisses people more off, than a minority ruling over them, and that is what is happening in the US at them moment.. but at Presidential level and House of Representative level... and that can also cause a revolution if left un-fixed.

Hence, electoral collage.


Which, without gerrymandering, would work pretty well, to balance the weight of each voice.
 
Hence, electoral collage.


Which, without gerrymandering, would work pretty well, to balance the weight of each voice.

Ahh without gerrymandering it would work.. no it would not because it is flawed. It was designed for the 1700s and that does not only not work in the 21st century but it is not needed anymore.

The electoral system was put in place because of the vast distances back then and how slow information got around. This is not an issue today, hence the electoral college is not needed.

Look at this way... you dont have such an absurd system for House or Senate members.. but you do for the head of state? Why? Because back in the day, it was older white landowners who ran the country and they wanted a way to make sure, that they kept hold of power.. the electoral college does this. Will of the people.. my ass.. more like will of the 1%.
 


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.

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.
 
Ahh without gerrymandering it would work.. no it would not because it is flawed. It was designed for the 1700s and that does not only not work in the 21st century but it is not needed anymore.

The electoral system was put in place because of the vast distances back then and how slow information got around. This is not an issue today, hence the electoral college is not needed.

Look at this way... you dont have such an absurd system for House or Senate members.. but you do for the head of state? Why? Because back in the day, it was older white landowners who ran the country and they wanted a way to make sure, that they kept hold of power.. the electoral college does this. Will of the people.. my ass.. more like will of the 1%.

Sigh.

You're flat out wrong. The will of the 1% isn't insured because of the EC, lol. It's insured because of lobbying, and things like citizens United. 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.

Why is that needed? Because people from loss LA, who, without the EC, would decide elections for our entire country, represent only one small subset of the culture of this country.

Let me put it to you this way...when I first moved to CT, I lived near Hartford...the capital. i remember watching boomerang with a work buddy (born and raised in Hartford), and he didn't get the cartoon. It was bugs bunny, getting hunted by Elmore fudd. They kept switching sign, from rabbit season to duck season.


I had to explain to him the there are various seasons, or time periods, in which certain animals could be hunted. He had no idea. Unimportant in the grand scheme of things? Certainly. But it alludes to the reality that not all Americans share the same culture, the same values, or the same life experiences.

But without the EC, as YOU would have, you would force us ALL to abide by the choices made by just ONE subculture of people, that being inner city and suburbanites. Densely populated areas. These people, who occupy less the 20% of America, would decide 100% of the vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom