• 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

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,377
Reaction score
57,529
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From Wikipedia:
Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2] Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes: equality and freedom.[4][dubious – discuss] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power.[5] and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7]

To me it seems that most of the time when people use the word democracy, they are using it as shorthand for representative democracy and not direct democracy. However, they will always draw a correction from someone.

My question is, are people simply mistaken about the word democracy and automatically assume that people speak of direct democracy or is something else going on?
 
Last edited:
Why would I be upset at one of the greatest terms ever invented?
 
I think I get a little bummed that people are so poorly educated that they don't understand how our form of democracy works. We are a constitutional republic, not a straight democracy, so our founding principles trump mass rule. I don't care how many Christians there are here, for instance, the rule of law trumps their wishes at times. I don't care how many people voted for Al Gore in 2000, our electoral college is what selects our president.

I wish all Americans were required to complete the citizenship classes required of those who become naturalized citizens. AND pass the ****ing test.

Just imagine how much more pleasant this board would become.
 
From Wikipedia:


To me it seems that most of the time when people use the word democracy, they are using it as shorthand for representative democracy and not direct democracy. However, they will always draw a correction from someone.

My question is, are people simply mistaken about the word democracy being somewhat undefined and automatically assume that people speak of direct democracy or is something else going on?
Not upset at all, but there are two camps that misuse it, those who want to use a populist aproach to circumvent the constitution and shorthanders. While it's true that our republic has an element of democracy, it is still carried out by a republic system of representation and limited by a constitution so I think even though the term democracy is in and of itself fine, when used as an appeal to popularity in lieu of protocol it needs correction.
 
I think I get a little bummed that people are so poorly educated that they don't understand how our form of democracy works. We are a constitutional republic, not a straight democracy, so our founding principles trump mass rule. I don't care how many Christians there are here, for instance, the rule of law trumps their wishes at times. I don't care how many people voted for Al Gore in 2000, our electoral college is what selects our president.

I wish all Americans were required to complete the citizenship classes required of those who become naturalized citizens. AND pass the ****ing test.

Just imagine how much more pleasant this board would become.
Quoted for truth.:2wave:
 
I think I get a little bummed that people are so poorly educated that they don't understand how our form of democracy works. We are a constitutional republic, not a straight democracy, so our founding principles trump mass rule. I don't care how many Christians there are here, for instance, the rule of law trumps their wishes at times. I don't care how many people voted for Al Gore in 2000, our electoral college is what selects our president.

I wish all Americans were required to complete the citizenship classes required of those who become naturalized citizens. AND pass the ****ing test.

Just imagine how much more pleasant this board would become.

The Electoral College has nothing to do with true direct or indirect democracy, it is just how the Founders decided to have the system work. The EC is one of the biggest flaws in this government, along with allowing Lobbying.
 
To me it seems that most of the time when people use the word democracy, they are using it as shorthand for representative democracy and not direct democracy. However, they will always draw a correction from someone.

Like me.

I hate the word "democracy" like I hate the word "controversy." Both are abused and overused.

My question is, are people simply mistaken about the word democracy being somewhat undefined and automatically assume that people speak of direct democracy or is something else going on?

People tend to use "democracy" encapsulate government where the people have some sort of say in what's going on. If they get to vote on something -- whether it is a vote cast directly on an issue on a ballot, or cast indirectly by voting for a candidate -- then that's what they call that phenomenon.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

-- Benjamin Franklin
 
The Electoral College has nothing to do with true direct or indirect democracy, it is just how the Founders decided to have the system work. The EC is one of the biggest flaws in this government, along with allowing Lobbying.

The electoral college is a way of mitigating some of the potentially negative effects of direct democracy. It was designed to give less populated areas as much of a voice in the campaign and election process as heavily populated urban areas. And, it may be one of the biggest flaws in this government, IN YOUR OPINION, but in my opinion, it's worked well for us for almost 300 years.

;)
 
The Electoral College has nothing to do with true direct or indirect democracy, it is just how the Founders decided to have the system work. The EC is one of the biggest flaws in this government, along with allowing Lobbying.
I disagree, while the popular vote seems to make sense, when you look at population densities and political leans it is not that simple, without the EC L.A., NYC, and a few other major cities would basically determine the direction of the federal, the electoral college to a degree prevents this IMO.
 
Do you know what word I hate? Terrorism. Talk about overused and on its way to becoming meaningless. :roll:
 
The electoral college is a way of mitigating some of the potentially negative effects of direct democracy. It was designed to give less populated areas as much of a voice in the campaign and election process as heavily populated urban areas. And, it may be one of the biggest flaws in this government, IN YOUR OPINION, but in my opinion, it's worked well for us for almost 300 years.

;)

I understand what it is for, the problem does not arise in why it was set up, but in how it was set up.
 
I disagree, while the popular vote seems to make sense, when you look at population densities and political leans it is not that simple, without the EC L.A., NYC, and a few other major cities would basically determine the direction of the federal, the electoral college to a degree prevents this IMO.

It also forces candidates to give face time to places like Vermont and Iowa.
 
I understand what it is for, the problem does not arise in why it was set up, but in how it was set up.

You say there's a problem, but in my opinion, it works just fine.

The problem I see is in our primary schedules, which give undue weight to selected states that may or may not be representative of the whole.
 
I get upset when someone uses "democracy" as an excuse for oppressing me and infringing on my rights, as if the fact that 51% of people thought raping red-headed people with pale skin and freckles was okay, would make it okay. :doh

The ignorance that many people seem to have about what democracy really means, and how the fundamental principle of the US is not "democracy" itself but limited government, is what makes me cringe when people throw the word around as if it were an inherent justification for anything.
 
You say there's a problem, but in my opinion, it works just fine.

The problem I see is in our primary schedules, which give undue weight to selected states that may or may not be representative of the whole.
I was thinking that myself. I see how it works for congressional elections, but when L.A is deciding electors for SanD, Oakland, and Joshua tree, or NYC for Albany, Buffalo, and the rest of New York we have a system in need of some minor tweaking.
 
Democracy is the most moral form of regime, in my opinion, but obviously not the most efficient by terms of states' advancement.

I see, however, absolutely no reason to get upset at it.
 
Democracy is the most moral form of regime, in my opinion, but obviously not the most efficient by terms of states' advancement.

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.
 
You say there's a problem, but in my opinion, it works just fine.

The problem I see is in our primary schedules, which give undue weight to selected states that may or may not be representative of the whole.

The problem is in that the elector does not even need to cast their vote as their constituency wants, as happened in the 2000 election. They are known as "Faithless Electors"

2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)
In the most recent act of Elector abstention, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic Elector from the District of Columbia, did not cast her vote for Al Gore as expected. Her abstention was meant to protest the lack of Congressional representation for Washington, DC.


The Electoral College - "Faithless Electors"


There is a list of the rest, and that is the problem. The people are not truly represented.
 
Last edited:
The problem is in that the elector does not even need to cast their vote as their constituency wants, as happened in the 2000 election. They are known as "Faithless Electors"

2000 - Barbara Lett-Simmons (Democrat, District of Columbia)
In the most recent act of Elector abstention, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Democratic Elector from the District of Columbia, did not cast her vote for Al Gore as expected. Her abstention was meant to protest the lack of Congressional representation for Washington, DC.


The Electoral College - "Faithless Electors"


There is a list of the rest, and that is the problem. The people are not truly represented.
It's not a problem, we elect the electoral college by voting for the representing side, and more often than not they will vote the correct way, 2000 could have just as easily seen someone jump for Bush as well, thankfully, we will never know the horrors that would have been a president Al Gore.
 
Last edited:
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.
Hah, but I have said "the most moral form of regime", meaning out of the forms that exist.

I have never said that there exists a form of regime that can never be immoral. ;)
 
It's not a problem, we elect the electoral college by voting for the representing side, and more often than not they will vote the correct way, 2000 could have just as easily seen someone jump for Bush as well, thankfully, we will never know the horrors that would have been a president Al Gore.

It is a problem. Plain and simple. Just because it has yet to completely negate the will of the people does not mean that it is not a problem. Be serious for a second.

As bad as Gore might have been, we faced horrors just the same under Bush.
 
It is a problem. Plain and simple. Just because it has yet to completely negate the will of the people does not mean that it is not a problem. Be serious for a second.

As bad as Gore might have been, we faced horrors just the same under Bush.
I don't see a problem, for this one instance where an elector jumped ship it didn't matter as the electors already had the process as a Bush win, as well 99.9 percent of the time the electorate falls right in line with the voting process. So this would lead me to believe that there would probably never be a situation in which an electoral college revolt would negate the will of the people.
 
I don't see a problem, for this one instance where an elector jumped ship it didn't matter as the electors already had the process as a Bush win, as well 99.9 percent of the time the electorate falls right in line with the voting process. So this would lead me to believe that there would probably never be a situation in which an electoral college revolt would negate the will of the people.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom