Seneca Pilot

Not interested in a deep debate here so I am just going to stick this here for some reference.

rickair7777

I disagree.

I guess you can twist to the literal definitions to mean anything you like, but then you have issues with people who think they're entitled to get their way when they're really not.

germanaviator

Sorry, that's terribly inaccurate. Democracy does not equal direct democracy. And why personal and property rights should be unprotected in a democracy, even a direct democracy, is beyond me. A direct democracy may be undesirable for other reasons, though.

If you read the link I provided above you will see that the term democracy has been used by many Presidents to describe the United States' form of government.

Seneca Pilot

In a pure democracy a majority can simply vote out property rights and other protections. Democracy is mob rule and is dangerous.

germanaviator

No twisting needed. There are many ways to organize a democracy. The U.S. has a form of representative democracy, as have most other countries in the free world.

NE_Pilot

If the President winning an election without the popular vote is, as you put it, “extremely undemocratic”, yet in keeping with the Constitution, is the US then a democracy? How could it be a democracy if it’s elections are “extremely undemocratic” by nature. Your own words are contradictory.

To answer another question you posed, a “direct” democracy has no protection for private property rights, as majority rules in a “direct” democracy. The majority votes to take your stuff and it is so.

germanaviator

Trappy

Citizens elect representatives who draft laws and govern. Same as every other Western country except for some differences. The US is a de facto indirect democracy, whether or not we call ourselves one.

germanaviator

It's still a democracy just not as democratic as it could be. Sure, just how democratic it should be is open to debate. But democracy is not black or white. There are several ways to implement democracy, and what was deemed the most appropriate way 250 years ago may not be the most appropriate today.

A more direct form of democracy may involve electing the president directly or at least proportionately, but it may well be that a change of the constitution should only be allowed if two thirds of elected representatives agree. This is common in other democracies. All I'm saying is you can protect constitutional rights and still achieve most of the intended aims of the constitution whilst at the same time avoiding a situation where a candidate becomes president without winning the popular vote. I think we need to be open to the idea that the current system has flaws which can be fixed without introducing unwanted side effects which could outweigh the advantages of reform.

I say to this as a citizen of the federal republic of Germany. Our system is also not perfect, but to my knowledge has never resulted in us having a chancellor whose party did not receive the majority of the votes of the people. Typically that party cannot rule alone as they normally don't have an absolute majority, making a coalition government necessary. That could either be a grand coalition of the two most successful parties such as the social democrats and the conservative christian democrats (current situation) or a coalition between one of the two big parties plus a "junior partner" such as the greens or the liberal democrats. All these combinations have been in power in the last few decades. It makes for more nuanced and more inclusive policy making, requiring compromise. Not a bad thing in my opinion.

germanaviator

Not sure how relevant this wikipedia entry is to the discussion at hand. Europe is not the United States of Europe. So you would have to look at the track record of each country's constituton. Looking at the three largest democracies in Europe, Germany, France and the UK, I'd say their systems have been a success. The UK are a bit of an odd one as they are a monarchy without a written constitution but a democratically elected parliament, and by extension Prime Minister. But all three countries have managed without civil war since their respective constitutions/forms of government have been established.