• 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
Flea said:
Probably? That is a lot to leave to chance. This is our nation, our freedom, after all.

1832 - Thirty-Two Electors (PA, MD)
all 30 Electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Martin Van Buren, voting instead for William Wilkins.

Not sure how this is not viewed as a problem.
Click to expand...
Because of it's rarity. There are blips in any system, so to declare failure because of one or two isn't sufficient IMO. If, say......this happened once every 2-3 elections you'd have a strong point.
 
Flea said:
Probably? That is a lot to leave to chance. This is our nation, our freedom, after all.

1832 - Thirty-Two Electors (PA, MD)
all 30 Electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Martin Van Buren, voting instead for William Wilkins.

Not sure how this is not viewed as a problem.
Click to expand...


Frankly, the Presidency and the Federal Government should never have become so powerful, that who gets elected President could make us or break us. We're supposed to have limited government and seperation of powers that are intended to protect us even if Dr. Evil wins the Presidency. Some of our Founders actually thought this through, and attempted to create a system that could survive even the incompetent or ill-intentioned. It is our departure from the Constitution that has put us in this mess, not the EC.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because of it's rarity. There are blips in any system, so to declare failure because of one or two isn't sufficient IMO. If, say......this happened once every 2-3 elections you'd have a strong point.
Click to expand...

Not once did I say failure. Try again bud.
 
Goshin said:
Frankly, the Presidency and the Federal Government should never have become so powerful, that who gets elected President could make us or break us. We're supposed to have limited government and seperation of powers that are intended to protect us even if Dr. Evil wins the Presidency. Some of our Founders actually thought this through, and attempted to create a system that could survive even the incompetent or ill-intentioned. It is our departure from the Constitution that has put us in this mess, not the EC.
Click to expand...

One of my primary objections to Bush the Lesser was that he fundamentally expanded the power of the presidency through the use of executive orders and breaching the rights enshrined in the constitution & bill of rights. The presidency became significantly more powerful during his presidency.
 
Flea said:
Not once did I say failure. Try again bud.
Click to expand...

You've expressed your opinion, it's been duly noted, but in the dearth of evidence you've provided, the majority of us have given your opinion the credit it deserves, which is very little.
 
Goshin said:
Frankly, the Presidency and the Federal Government should never have become so powerful, that who gets elected President could make us or break us. We're supposed to have limited government and seperation of powers that are intended to protect us even if Dr. Evil wins the Presidency. Some of our Founders actually thought this through, and attempted to create a system that could survive even the incompetent or ill-intentioned. It is our departure from the Constitution that has put us in this mess, not the EC.
Click to expand...

I agree, nor did I ever state that the EC was the end of freedom or that all other checks and balances regarding separation of powers would be null and void simply because one candidate was elected due to an EC error or flaw. Can you dig it?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You've expressed your opinion, it's been duly noted, but in the dearth of evidence you've provided, the majority of us have given your opinion the credit it deserves, which is very little.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you lack the insight to notice the degree of the flaw instead. Move along cheerleader.
 
Flea said:
Perhaps you lack the insight to notice the degree of the flaw instead. Move along cheerleader.
Click to expand...

My insight is sufficient to digest the evidence you've provided to bolster your views, which has been negligible. :2wave:
 
Flea said:
I agree, nor did I ever state that the EC was the end of freedom or that all other checks and balances regarding separation of powers would be null and void simply because one candidate was elected due to an EC error or flaw. Can you dig it?
Click to expand...

Yup. I just don't agree that the EC is a problem. It is one of the ways in which we were intended to be something other than a pure democracy, as was the State appointment of Senators (another thing we probably should not have thrown out.)
 
Catz Part Deux said:
My insight is sufficient to digest the evidence you've provided to bolster your views, which has been negligible. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Your insight is sufficient enough to digest Lonney Tunes. Appeal to Popularity is one of the most innane and pathetic attempts at undermining a persons argument and completely and utterly fallicious, meaning that it has no merit. Can you digest that? How does that evidence factor in?

Like I said, go play cheerleader somewhere else. :lol:
 
Goshin said:
Yup. I just don't agree that the EC is a problem. It is one of the ways in which we were intended to be something other than a pure democracy, as was the State appointment of Senators (another thing we probably should not have thrown out.)
Click to expand...

The EC would not have any problems if we simply addressed this one problem, then the EC would perhaps be the one true best and most efficient methods of election that the world has ever seen.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
One of my primary objections to Bush the Lesser was that he fundamentally expanded the power of the presidency through the use of executive orders and breaching the rights enshrined in the constitution & bill of rights. The presidency became significantly more powerful during his presidency.
Click to expand...
It wasn't unprecedented however problematic, Clinton used the EO quite frequently, in fact the largest two expansions of presidential power were Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, the latter being dangerously so.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It wasn't unprecedented however problematic, Clinton used the EO quite frequently, in fact the largest two expansions of presidential power were Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, the latter being dangerously so.
Click to expand...


Didn't you mean FDR?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I disagree. A constitutional republic is more moral, because it protects the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...
You Americans sure do have funny ways to describe a political regime.

America is a representative democracy for that matter, and all existing democracies have laws that are made to prevent what is called "the majority's tyranny".
 
Flea said:
Appeal to Popularity is one of the most innane and pathetic attempts at undermining a persons argument and completely and utterly fallicious, meaning that it has no merit.
Click to expand...

What argument? Did you provide evidence?
 
Goshin said:
Didn't you mean FDR?
Click to expand...
Nope, TR actually expanded the power of presidency by creating the first conservation laws and overseeing boards he appointed, the presidency became more powerful by cabinet appointments, though nowhere near the levels it is now. FDR expanded the role of the federal though via New Deal legislation.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
What argument? Did you provide evidence?
Click to expand...

Of course I did, but go ahead and play your juvenile games. Hopefully they amuse you. Does nothing for you status in this debate unfortunately.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Actually, straight democracy can be highly immoral and result in the trampling of the rights of the minority. Just because the majority wants something at a particular point in time does not mean that what they want will subscribe to liberty and the protection of human rights.

Remember, the majority of Germany supported the National Socialists.
Click to expand...
By the way, also noting that Nazi Germany was not a democracy.
Hitler has achieved power by democratic means, but the regime he was leading was an authoritarian, fascist regime, and not a democracy.
 
Apocalypse said:
You Americans sure do have funny ways to describe a political regime.

America is a representative democracy for that matter, and all existing democracies have laws that are made to prevent what is called "the majority's tyranny".
Click to expand...
And a source, in case you will ask for one, that constitutional republics can be democracies:

Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Click to expand...
So it is a form of a representative democracy.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
By the way, also noting that Nazi Germany was not a democracy.
Hitler has achieved power by democratic means, but the regime he was leading was an authoritarian, fascist regime, and not a democracy.
Click to expand...
That is correct......for the record.
 
Apocalypse said:
And a source, in case you will ask for one, that constitutional republics can be democracies:

So it is a form of a representative democracy.
Click to expand...
It's a form of democracy, but not in the sense that some people use the term.
 
Apocalypse said:
By the way, also noting that Nazi Germany was not a democracy.
Hitler has achieved power by democratic means, but the regime he was leading was an authoritarian, fascist regime, and not a democracy.
Click to expand...

THat's why I used the term national socialist...:roll:
 
Apocalypse said:
And a source, in case you will ask for one, that constitutional republics can be democracies:

So it is a form of a representative democracy.
Click to expand...

It is. You're using a flawed syllogism.

A constitutional republic can be a democracy.
A constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy.
Thus democracy equals a constitutional republic.

Ummm, no. A constitutional republic is a specific form of democracy that has evolved to counter some of the major flaws present in straight democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom