Is Democracy sustainable?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I could have predicted his answer, it was exactly what I figured it would be, a NON ANSWER, word games.

EMN, answer the question, are you eager for something OTHER THAN our current representative democracy?
If so, what would it be?

What would it be? Describe it, describe how it would function.

Click to expand...

I would be happy enough to repeal the direct election of senators, the income tax, and eliminate all federal entitlements. Then we’re an ok enough representative Republic not a Representative democracy

Phys251 said:

Says the one who made one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on DebatePolitics. "Democracy is a form of authoritarianism" LOLOLOLOLOL Yeah, and this nice steak I had for dinner is a part of a vegetarian diet!! :lamo

Click to expand...

You still haven’t made a logical argument. I provided a clear example of how a democracy can (and certain political are planning to) become authoritarian, you reject the idea, but have not provided an argument

Unless private money is extricated and insulated from public politics? Probably not.

We're already straddling a mire of corporatism and plutocracy with one foot deep inside.

EMNofSeattle said:

I would be happy enough to repeal the direct election of senators, the income tax, and eliminate all federal entitlements. Then we’re an ok enough representative Republic not a Representative democracy

Click to expand...

Of course, first thing you're going to have to accept is, repeal of the 17A is never going to happen.
That's bad news for you Tenthers. Accept it.
Secondly, your little semantics battle is pointless, because even with the 17A gone, it's still a representative democracy, just less so, because the representatives are still democratically elected. That's what people mean when they use the word "democracy".
The only functioning form of democracy in the Western world, or in all of modern history for that matter, is representative democracy.

So, you're in for a huge disappointment, no 17A repeal. Not gonna happen, not ever.

So you're actually okay with democracy, you just think America has too much of it, that's all.
I wasn't asking about your libertarian wet dreams, only whether you wanted to get rid of democracy.

EMNofSeattle said:

You still haven’t made a logical argument. I provided a clear example of how a democracy can (and certain political are planning to) become authoritarian, you reject the idea, but have not provided an argument

Click to expand...

LMAO you have the nerve to say that after claiming that "democracy is a form of authoritarianism"! This is getting better by the minute! Go on, triple down on your pathetic claim! :lamo

Phys251 said:

LMAO you have the nerve to say that after claiming that "democracy is a form of authoritarianism"! This is getting better by the minute! Go on, triple down on your pathetic claim! :lamo

Click to expand...

Again, not an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Phys251 said:

LMAO you have the nerve to say that after claiming that "democracy is a form of authoritarianism"! This is getting better by the minute! Go on, triple down on your pathetic claim! :lamo

Click to expand...

He wants the 17A repealed which allows even more authoritarianism to flourish, while screaming about authoritarianism.
Humpty Dumpty would be proud, and impressed.
There be word games afoot.

Liberal democracy is a sustainable form of government. It's the most sustainable form of government.

American liberal democracy is unsustainable, because the foundation of our democracy was corrupt at its inception, and the rot has spread through the entire edifice.

Our leaders have been trying to undermine the Constitution since before the ink dried on it, and 100% of the corruption stems from the same two sources: white supremacy and rent-seeking. Literally every single instance of authoritrian contempt for our Constitutional rights and the proper confines of government power can be traced to those two causes.

Waddy said:

I've been watching a few "Man on the street" interviews on UTube lately, and I'm distressed at how politically ignorant so many people are these days. Was it always that way? I can remember adult family members discussing politics at the kitchen table and they seemed better informed. Maybe I'm just getting old. But people who can't even identify in which war we gained our independence from England...Or name even one of the members of Congress from their state......or the governor. Geography knowledge seems to be a lost art. Many people apparently can't name their state capital. Does political illiteracy affect the prospects for the survival of democracy?

Click to expand...

I had to vote we are screwed because if we become a democracy we will be. Luckily right now we are a representative government with a constitution where the peoples rights are protected from the majority vote. Our judicial system is also the last line of defense of the peoples rights from the majority vote. Our forefathers did a great job of making sure our rights could not be voted away by the majority or a democracy. The only mistake they made was leaving even the slightest possibility our rights can be voted away. I don't think they ever realized that our government would be run by 2 parties funded not by the people but special interest and a few rich and powerful. They did warn us about the federal reserve and the bankers that now control all the money. We didn't listen. Now what we actually do get to vote for are puppets of the rich and powerful who fund both parties and the candidates.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Of course, first thing you're going to have to accept is, repeal of the 17A is never going to happen.
That's bad news for you Tenthers. Accept it.
Secondly, your little semantics battle is pointless, because even with the 17A gone, it's still a representative democracy, just less so, because the representatives are still democratically elected. That's what people mean when they use the word "democracy".
The only functioning form of democracy in the Western world, or in all of modern history for that matter, is representative democracy.

So, you're in for a huge disappointment, no 17A repeal. Not gonna happen, not ever.

So you're actually okay with democracy, you just think America has too much of it, that's all.
I wasn't asking about your libertarian wet dreams, only whether you wanted to get rid of democracy.

Click to expand...

Before the 17th, the gerrymandered state legislatures picked both US Senators, often with a great deal of corruption.
So the Senate was gerrymandered.
The gerrymandered state legislatures also wrote the gerrymandered congressional remaps.
So the House was gerrymandered.

Very often, some states couldn't agree on who should be chosen, so there were no Senators for that state.
We're all pretty sure today's politics would be existentially worse without the 17th.
This is why Leaders of both parties had the good sense to give us the 17th, like Teddy Roosevelt.
There's a whole lot of great reasons why our beloved Teddy Roosevelt is on Mt. Rushmore.

So now the original TEA party, currently led by Jim DeMint, wants a new Con/Con, which I want also.
I just don't want to scrap the 16th like they do.
They're planning all kinds of political mischief, now up to 12 states for a Con/Con.
And right on cue, DEMs haven't got a clue as to what's about to hit them next decade.

There is nothing wrong with democracy, there is however a lot wrong in US politics and they way these politicians are elected (the money, the lobbying, the special interest, etc. etc. etc.).

What the US needs electorally is a shock to the system.

PIPEWRENCH said:

I had to vote we are screwed because if we become a democracy we will be. Luckily right now we are a representative government with a constitution where the peoples rights are protected from the majority vote. Our judicial system is also the last line of defense of the peoples rights from the majority vote. Our forefathers did a great job of making sure our rights could not be voted away by the majority or a democracy. The only mistake they made was leaving even the slightest possibility our rights can be voted away. I don't think they ever realized that our government would be run by 2 parties funded not by the people but special interest and a few rich and powerful. They did warn us about the federal reserve and the bankers that now control all the money. We didn't listen. Now what we actually do get to vote for are puppets of the rich and powerful who fund both parties and the candidates.

Click to expand...

The ultimate power has to come from someone, whether a family, a corporation, a political party, or the people. A democracy simply means that that ultimate power comes from the people. It doesn't mean that we can instantly vote our rights away--political change in a representative democracy is inherently difficult to bring about, as it should be. Passions of the day come and go, and a properly functioning democracy will be able to withstand their pressures while making the incremental changes that it needs to make.

Peter King said:

There is nothing wrong with democracy, there is however a lot wrong in US politics and they way these politicians are elected (the money, the lobbying, the special interest, etc. etc. etc.).

What the US needs electorally is a shock to the system.

Click to expand...

We already got that shock in 2016. America can only take so many shocks.

Waddy said:

I've been watching a few "Man on the street" interviews on UTube lately, and I'm distressed at how politically ignorant so many people are these days. Was it always that way? I can remember adult family members discussing politics at the kitchen table and they seemed better informed. Maybe I'm just getting old. But people who can't even identify in which war we gained our independence from England...Or name even one of the members of Congress from their state......or the governor. Geography knowledge seems to be a lost art. Many people apparently can't name their state capital. Does political illiteracy affect the prospects for the survival of democracy?

Click to expand...

I suspect it was ever thus. Perhaps especially in the people of the US who hves always been rather ignorant of the big wide world.

Incidentally when opening a thread about lack of basic knowledge it is more than usually important to get things right. The American Colonies (not the US which had yet to be created) gained their independence from Great Britain, not England.

Phys251 said:

Stopped reading right there. If you seriously believe that crap then you need to reread your high school civics textbook, which was no doubt written by people who understand this stuff far better than you do.

Click to expand...

He's not wrong. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights, and charters of rights in general, is to protect the People from their own misguided authority. Liberalism is supposed to act as a check on democracy.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

See what I mean? Most conservatives want authoritarian dictatorship, rule by strongman.
They don't want people they don't like to have the right to vote.
They want strongmen who rule by decree, and given that we're being infected with a particularly virulent and evil form of religious fundamentalism which is obsessed with impending holy war, I'd wager that authoritarian theocracy is their preferred flavor.

In other words, they want America to become Iran or Saudi Arabia, only with a Christian flavor of Wahhabism.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. 'Most' conservatives are for individual rights having priority over collective rights. They emphatically do not want a 'strong man' who will destroy their liberty. You have no idea what Conservatism actually is. What it is not is a longing in for a theocracy. I am a small government libertarian conservative democratic who detests religion in all in forms, just like millions of others.

Waddy said:

So ad hominen attacks is all you got? Well, my mother taught me never to fight with the mentally handicapped kids, so I won't.

Click to expand...

You insulted the intelligence of each reader with your first question. You didn't receive near what you deserved.

Waddy said:

I've been watching a few "Man on the street" interviews on UTube lately, and I'm distressed at how politically ignorant so many people are these days. Was it always that way? I can remember adult family members discussing politics at the kitchen table and they seemed better informed. Maybe I'm just getting old. But people who can't even identify in which war we gained our independence from England...Or name even one of the members of Congress from their state......or the governor. Geography knowledge seems to be a lost art. Many people apparently can't name their state capital. Does political illiteracy affect the prospects for the survival of democracy?

Click to expand...

The idea that all citizens should be allowed to vote has backfired on us.

In reality, the vote of a person who doesn't know the candidates or their positions is detrimental to the election process.

I think a test should be administered that indicates that the voter actually knows a minimum of information about the candidates, otherwise, it's a regressive process.

Sweden said:

I suspect it was ever thus. Perhaps especially in the people of the US who hves always been rather ignorant of the big wide world.

Incidentally when opening a thread about lack of basic knowledge it is more than usually important to get things right. The American Colonies (not the US which had yet to be created) gained their independence from Great Britain, not England.

Click to expand...

You're correct. Getting things right is important. But before you call someone out you should do a little research. Google is your friend. The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation on Nov 15, 1777, uniting the colonies into a Union and providing the first Constitution. It was in force but not radified until 1781. The American Revolution ended on September 3, 1783.

Waddy said:

You're correct. Getting things right is important. But before you call someone out you should do a little research. Google is your friend. The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation on Nov 15, 1777, uniting the colonies into a Union and providing the first Constitution. It was in force but not radified until 1781. The American Revolution ended on September 3, 1783.

Click to expand...

"What is meant by Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington." John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 24 August 1815.

Cited by Kathleen Burk in 'Old World, New World'. (Google is just one of my friends).

We are not a democracy, it would be fantastic if we actually tried it for a few generations.

HowardBThiname said:

The idea that all citizens should be allowed to vote has backfired on us.

In reality, the vote of a person who doesn't know the candidates or their positions is detrimental to the election process.

I think a test should be administered that indicates that the voter actually knows a minimum of information about the candidates, otherwise, it's a regressive process.

Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable at first glance but as with all complex issues, the details get in the way of a simple solution. Who administers this test? What does it test for? How does this information about the candidates get promulgated in a fair and objective manner? Who determines if this information is fair or objective? Do we then compel each candidate to take an oath that their public positions are indeed accurate? Are they then legally bound to follow these principles once elected? Would there be a national standard for clearing these ideas and explanations to the national voting block? Is there a method of review?

The only real way to create an informed public is through education starting at a very early age. This is what we have attempted to do with the public school system which has been attacked constantly by the right wing and religious nuts. They do not want a reasoned nation, they want a following nation that is force fed their tripe early enough to make them pliable as adults.

Vadinho said:

This sounds reasonable at first glance but as with all complex issues, the details get in the way of a simple solution. Who administers this test? What does it test for? How does this information about the candidates get promulgated in a fair and objective manner? Who determines if this information is fair or objective? Do we then compel each candidate to take an oath that their public positions are indeed accurate? Are they then legally bound to follow these principles once elected? Would there be a national standard for clearing these ideas and explanations to the national voting block? Is there a method of review?

Click to expand...

While all of those questions would be open to discussion, off that bat, I'd say that the polling machines could be set up to ask a few questions before the voter voted. The questions could contain choosing the names of the candidates and their running mates, questions such as what party the candidate belongs to and then a couple of questions about major policies. For example, in the 2016 election, a question could have been "What candidate wants to build a wall on our southern border?" Relatively simple questions that could be answered by anyone who's really paying attention.

You ask -- "Who determines if the information is fair or objective?" Committees (most likely) appointed at the state level after Congress decides on a basic format. I envision something as simple as the way state driver license tests are administered. While they differ slightly by state, they all cover the same basic info.

The interesting question you ask is "Do we then compel each candidate to take an oath that their public positions are indeed accurate? Are they then legally bound to follow these principles once elected?" This indicates to me that you were digging for something else related to a test for voting but couldn't come up with anything else. LOL

Suffice it to say that we regulate virtually everything in the nation. All sorts of hoops must be jumped through in order for a person to qualify for a specific job or to get a specific degree. When it comes to the state of our politics, why should we settle for less?

The only real way to create an informed public is through education starting at a very early age. This is what we have attempted to do with the public school system which has been attacked constantly by the right wing and religious nuts. They do not want a reasoned nation, they want a following nation that is force fed their tripe early enough to make them pliable as adults.

Click to expand...

Now this is odd, what, specifically, does the Right Wing oppose that would help educate our students in understanding more about candidates? I'm really interested in hearing your answer.

Sweden said:

"What is meant by Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington." John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 24 August 1815.

Cited by Kathleen Burk in 'Old World, New World'. (Google is just one of my friends).

Click to expand...

Keep trying. The Revolutionary War was fought between 1775 and 1781.

The American Revolutionary War was fought from 1775 to 1783. It was also known as the American War of Independence. The Revolutionary War began with the confrontation between British troops and local militia at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, on 19 April 1775.

Click to expand...

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Revolutionary_War,_1775_to_1783

What is striking is the lack of critical-thinking skills of most Americans.

Much like Trump, they'll go with whatever they heard last.