|
Originally Posted by germanaviator
(Post 3147235)
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. The US is either a democracy, and it’s elections are democratic or it is not and it’s elections are not. You cannot have a democracy with legally undemocratic elections. |
Originally Posted by germanaviator
(Post 3147239)
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.
I chose not to engage with you in this debate for good reasons. Anyone who knows my post history will agree that I love a good debate but this one is going to get ugly unless you let it go. I will stay clear. |
Originally Posted by NE_Pilot
(Post 3147240)
So then you were mistaken when you said “I think it is extremely undemocratic and unjust when a candidate who did not win the popular vote wins the Presidency”. If the US is a democracy (as you claim) then its elections must be, by nature, democratic. Yet you claim US elections are “extremely undemocratic” but are also well within the confines of the Constitution.
The US is either a democracy, and it’s elections are democratic or it is not and it’s elections are not. You cannot have a democracy with legally undemocratic elections. |
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
(Post 3147241)
I chose not to engage with you in this debate for good reasons. Anyone who knows my post history will agree that I love a good debate but this one is going to get ugly unless you let it go. I will stay clear.
|
Originally Posted by germanaviator
(Post 3147287)
Don't be afraid to engage. I'm not afraid to learn and change my mind on any issue. It doesn't have to get ugly if we choose to keep it civilized.
|
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
(Post 3147154)
Not interested in a deep debate here so I am just going to stick this here for some reference.
|
Originally Posted by germanaviator
(Post 3147282)
I can see why you could think that I'm contradicting myself. So just to be clear: I have no doubt that the U.S. has a democracy. Not a direct democracy of course but a democracy nonetheless. I just think it's a flawed democracy that makes it possible for a candidate to become president when more people voted for the other candidate. I find that particular aspect of this democracy
undemocratic. Unless, of course, an “indirect” democracy is in fact not democratic by its nature. A “direct” democracy is the only type of democracy because that is what democracy is, once you add in representatives, etc. you are no longer a democracy. The essence of government is law. Who decides what the laws are is a good way in figuring out what type of government exists. If the people vote on all the laws you are a democracy. Electing officials, alone, does not make a democracy. Generally, a government in which legislators are elected, who then make laws, is referred to as a republic. |
Originally Posted by NE_Pilot
(Post 3147421)
A democracy cannot be undemocratic and remain a democracy. Either, it is a democracy and it’s elections are democratic or not. If you believe in such a thing as “indirect” democracy and believe that it applies to the US, then it would be perfectly democratic that the President could be elected without a majority of the votes.
Unless, of course, an “indirect” democracy is in fact not democratic by its nature. A “direct” democracy is the only type of democracy because that is what democracy is, once you add in representatives, etc. you are no longer a democracy. The essence of government is law. Who decides what the laws are is a good way in figuring out what type of government exists. If the people vote on all the laws you are a democracy. Electing officials, alone, does not make a democracy. Generally, a government in which legislators are elected, who then make laws, is referred to as a republic. It is an element of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government and is typically used in a lower chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or Lok Sabha of India, and may be curtailed by constitutional constraints such as an upper chamber. It has been described by some political theorists including Robert A. Dahl, Gregory Houston and Ian Liebenberg as polyarchy.[3][4] In it the power is in the hands of the representatives who are elected by the people. Political parties are often central to this form of democracy because electoral systems require voters to vote for political parties as opposed to individual representatives.[5] Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy or representative government, is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, France is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the United States is a federal presidential republic.[2] It is an element of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government and is typically used in a lower chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or Lok Sabha of India, and may be curtailed by constitutional constraints such as an upper chamber. It has been described by some political theorists including Robert A. Dahl, Gregory Houston and Ian Liebenberg as polyarchy.[3][4] In it the power is in the hands of the representatives who are elected by the people. Political parties are often central to this form of democracy because electoral systems require voters to vote for political parties as opposed to individual representatives.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy |
Originally Posted by germanaviator
(Post 3147444)
Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy or representative government, is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, France is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the United States is a federal presidential republic.[2]
It is an element of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government and is typically used in a lower chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or Lok Sabha of India, and may be curtailed by constitutional constraints such as an upper chamber. It has been described by some political theorists including Robert A. Dahl, Gregory Houston and Ian Liebenberg as polyarchy.[3][4] In it the power is in the hands of the representatives who are elected by the people. Political parties are often central to this form of democracy because electoral systems require voters to vote for political parties as opposed to individual representatives.[5] Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy or representative government, is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy, France is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the United States is a federal presidential republic.[2] It is an element of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government and is typically used in a lower chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or Lok Sabha of India, and may be curtailed by constitutional constraints such as an upper chamber. It has been described by some political theorists including Robert A. Dahl, Gregory Houston and Ian Liebenberg as polyarchy.[3][4] In it the power is in the hands of the representatives who are elected by the people. Political parties are often central to this form of democracy because electoral systems require voters to vote for political parties as opposed to individual representatives.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy Of course Wikipedia cannot be wrong, and supposedly a monarchy can also be a democracy. Leaving all that double think aside for the moment, I guess then you were mistaken in saying the US elections were undemocratic. According to your own copy and paste, it would be very democratic. Or do you still think the Presidential election is undemocratic, even though you “proved” it democratic? Further, in the US, the President can veto a law created by a majority vote in both the House and Senate, seems a bit undemocratic or do you believe that is democratic? Why would we call a form of government that is clearly not a democracy, democratic? |
Germanaviator is correct in the sense that our system is underpinned with democratic principles and mechanisms. But the hazard of blithely identifying ourselves as a democracy is that people get the mistaken impression that they can or should weigh in on every little thing... those activists have no consideration for budgets or second/third order effects.
For example, ballot propositions, which have proliferated in the last few decades. They can serve as a useful safety valve in some situations, such as one-party states where the opposition party has effectively been removed from the ballot and government (ex CA). One notable safety-valve example was CA Prop 13, which capped property taxes to prevent people from getting forced out of their long-time homes by skyrocketing property taxes. But propositions are usually sponsored by special interests with ulterior motives, and are typically written, branded, and marketed to conceal (or even mislead) their true purpose and impact. Voters get sucked into that without realizing or considering the budgetary impacts and second, third, etc order effects which is part and parcel of the legislative process. Generally if you think you need propositions, you probably should ask yourself why your elected reps aren't taking care of business. My reaction to propositions is "The answer is No. What's the question?" 99% of propositions are BS and don't need to be given the time of day. Nothing bad will happen if every prop on your ballot is defeated. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:53 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands