• 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
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.
This proves my point - in a couple of different ways.
:mrgreen:
 
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.

For the most part.
 
This proves my point - in a couple of different ways.
Saying so doesn't change a thing.
Your point has been debunked and shown as a false statement.

That you have decided not to create a rebuttal implies that you were unable to do so.
 
Indeed, the democratic value of "the majority rules" in modern democracies is represented mainly by the elections themselves.

True. But in a constitutional republic, the will of the majority can be overturned by the will of a few, namely, the presidential veto and/or a supreme court decision by 9 judges.
 
Saying so doesn't change a thing.
Your point has been debunked and shown as a false statement.

That you have decided not to create a rebuttal implies that you were unable to do so.

Not really, no. You don't understand our system of government as well as you believe you do.
 
Not really, no. You don't understand our system of government as well as you believe you do.
That's the easy thing to say.
However that's not the case here.
It's more around the average American not understanding the forms of regime that exist beyond his country's borders.

If you wish to show me that I'm wrong, as you obviously think so, then by all means respond to post #100 in this thread.
 
Give a name of a democracy where the will of people always prevails.

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.

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.

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

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 basically just said the same thing Goobieman said. Then you turn around and say he is wrong????

I think you either misread his statement or don't realize what you said.
 
Last edited:
True. But in a constitutional republic, the will of the majority can be overturned by the will of a few, namely, the presidential veto and/or a supreme court decision by 9 judges.
That is true for many forms of regime, Constitutional republic being only one of them.
 
Blackdog,

What I disagree with Goobieman about is that he was referring to the US alone ("our form of regime"), while his statement is true for craploads of other nations.
 
Blackdog,

What I disagree with Goobieman about is that he was referring to the US alone ("our form of regime"), while his statement is true for craploads of other nations.

We are talking about the US government. What does that have to do with representative democracy's anyplace else?
 
Still has nothing to do with the point she was making?
Still read up on the thread?

"I disagree. A constitutional republic is more moral, because it protects the rights of the minority."

-Catz referring to why she believes that democracy is not the most moral of regimes
 
For the most part.

Yup, I mean the worst thing in there was that we would be using government; and they knew the course of unconstrained government. The People have direct representation in the government, it's the House. The States were supposed to be represented to in the Senate; but we've taken care of that. The President (now almost King thanks to the powers Congress has ceded away over the decades) was to be chosen with influence from the People but isolated somewhat from the ebbs and flows of irrational popularism. That's the idea, but somewhere down the road we've forgotten that. We want fast government, responsive government, caring government; and in doing so, we've removed the restrictions and checks which helped us to control the government. This is why popularism is bad.
 
We are talking about the US government. What does that have to do with representative democracy's anyplace else?
This thread is by no means about the US, but about democracy.
 
Still read up on the thread?

"I disagree. A constitutional republic is more moral, because it protects the rights of the minority."

-Catz referring to why she believes that democracy is not the most moral of regimes

i'm still correct, 20 pages later. And, you have yet to debunk my points. But that's okay, you're still hot. :2wave:
 
This thread is by no means about the US, but about democracy.

Yes, and your claim is that "democracy" is the most moral type of government. I debunked that claim within the first 3 pages of the thread, and quite well, too, I might add. A constitutional republic is more moral than a straight democracy.

You already lost, I don't know why you're still struggling. Just lay still and look cute, aight?
 
This thread is by no means about the US, but about democracy.

Who said anything about the thread? In this case Goob was talking about the US government. You then agreed with his statement and proved it. Then you say because this includes other governments, somehow his statement is wrong?

That is nothing more than a fallacy man.
 
Still read up on the thread?

"I disagree. A constitutional republic is more moral, because it protects the rights of the minority."

-Catz referring to why she believes that democracy is not the most moral of regimes

It's not, and she has already proved such. Since we are going with a moral judgment, wouldn't that be subjective anyway?
 
Yes, and your claim is that "democracy" is the most moral type of government. I debunked that claim within the first 3 pages of the thread, and quite well, too, I might add. A constitutional republic is more moral than a straight democracy.
Point out to the debunking moment, as I've apparently missed it.

1)The US is a full democracy, I have already proven that.
2)The US is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic
 
Back
Top Bottom