 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom201
Switzerland is the only true democracy, there ppl. can vote on issues themselves, ... |
That's also what I thought until some Swiss explained me that for some votations they need 2 majorities: the # votes majority AND the canton majority (don't ask me how it works).
When it is about to change something (like joining the EU), even if 60% of the voters agree, the fact that some small (usually rural and conservative) canton did not agree, makes the change fail.
This lead to some very conservative behaviour, sometimes against the will of the pure majority.
Kind of redneck dictatorship.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
That's why a man can be elected as President while getting less votes than his adversary. |
This is the case in all democracies I know. There has always been an over-representation of the small provinces/districts in all parliements I know.
I think it is the Gl de Gaule who has the 'best score' at this kind of game.
Have just one look at the current European parliament. Small countries have relatively more deputies than big countries.
A Luxemburger european citizen has much more power than a German one.
If, when the europeans deputies vote, you compute how many electors each of them really represents, you would easily find hundreds of cases where in facts, a minority has decide against the majority.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
There are no true democracies in the world today. In some really small towns in the USA and other countries people of the town go to a town metting and vote on all kinds of stuff, that would be a true democracy. Allmost all countries in the world are a republic, people in the government represent the people of what ever country you are looking at. Some coutries elect the representivies through popular elections, others like in China the communist party decides who will represent the people. All governements have flaws and problems with them, the reason is that humans are imperfect and do bad things all the time, there is corruption in all governments, the degree of that corruption would vary to being limited in one hand, to very bad on the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
Hehehe, well I guess my title did its job. Obviously my title wasn't a calm plantive statement about world democracies. It was a purely inflamatory statement, and it got you all worked up and here. Which was the point. 
Also the deffinition of 'democracy' is a sticking point it seems, this is a quibbling point, but ok, i'll address it. I didn't say the US is the only democracy I said it is the most democratic. Surely I know that the US could be more accurately described as a Constitutional Republic, but I would argue that the US model is more democratic than any "true democracies".
"True Democracy" is mob-rule, which is dangerous and harmful to the people. This is part of the point I was making, sure the US is less of a "true democracy" than other countries, and that is precisely the reason why our system is more stable and democratic and respectful of the wishes of the people.
Demagougery is much more difficult in the United States because of our solid structure and well thought out system of checks and balances and sepperation of powers. A demagouge like a Hitler could easily rise again in a parlimentary country like the UK.
As some noted this thread grew out of another thread that asked if democracies should be able to democratically throw away their democracy to a dictator. This is very possible in a "true democracy" and thus is dangerous, so I am very glad the US is not a "true democracy".
Now, as for criticisms of the American system.
The 2000 election was a mess, of course. Is this a sign of a weak democracy? Does this show a failure of our system? Not at all. The Electoral College isn't quite as terrible as many people make it out to be (it sure ain't peaches and cream either), it is important to prevent large jurisdictions from dominating the country. Having this system in place makes sure that the President represents the entire country, not just the big cities and the coasts where all the people are. If we had a straight popular election then no one would ever give a damn about South Dakota for example. This is unrepresentative.
Of course it leads to problems of a split popular vote and electoral vote like we saw in 2000. All this means is that Al Gore's appeal was slightly more consentrated into fewer areas, while Bush's appeal was spread slightly more evenly across the country. I based on this view and this rationale, Bush is indeed the candidate who represents the country best and should have won.
As for charges of corruption... gimmie a break. Anyone who followed the story knows that the problem was senile old folks in Florida who couldn't handle a simple concept of punching a hole through a voting card without screwing it up. If they couldn't tell the difference between Pat Buchanan and Al Gore, then its their own fault.
Finally, money does not run Washington. The charges of corruption are vastly misunderstood and overblown. I fail to see the problem with "Special Interests" People only complain about "special interests" that aren't their "special interest". Everyone has different opinions and views on politics, so they join together in voluntary organizations. Whether it be the Sierra Club, NAACP, NOW, NRA, Christian Coalition, etc. They are all citizens groups who represent common folks. In a democratic country, this is how it should be, i wouldn't have it any other way.
Also what is the problem with giving campaign contributions? Everyone can contribute to politics in their own way based on their own talents and attributes. Should fat middle aged men be very upset that good looking young women dominate public relations and media jobs? Do attractive young women have an unfair advantage because they are better able to communicate their candidate's message? No, they just bring different things to the table. If I have lots of time to spend on a campaign I'll go down and help volunteer for many hours doing Get out the vote to help my favorite candidate, that would be my contribution to the campaign. Someone else who isn't attractive enough to do stuff in front of the camera, or doesn't have enough time to volunteer may have some money saved up to contribute, that is just their way of helping out. Why is it any more invalid than anyone else's way of helping a campaign?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
The way I see it, a system of government which is close to ideal for one country may not be for another. Aristotle came to that conclusion in his survey of the city-states of his time. He felt Athenian democracy was the best system for Athens, but not for Sparta. I think he was right. Each society needs to evolve its own system in order for that system to work properly... in order for it to feel right. Britain's government, and by extension the governments of her former colonies, didn't just pop up out of nowhere. It has slowly developed over time.
So to claim that "our way is the bestest!" without an exhaustive study of each country (its history, its demographics, etc.) and its government is just plain silly. And annoying.
-Arrian |
I agree and I disagree. I never claimed that the American system works for all people in all cases at all times. I agree with you that some systems work better for different people. But on the other hand when one believes in universal notions of human rights and dignity it is very hard to say that Germans work best under Facism because thats just the way they are.
I personally find it hard to justify tyranny for any country or people. You may assert that tyranny may go over better in some places than others, but I don't think systems of oppression and tyranny are acceptable to any human, and the thirst for freedom is universal to humanity. Thus the best way to protect against tyranny is the American system of government.
My initial assertion was bold, brash, and perhaps unwise, but do not distort it into things it wasn't.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2002 17:48
Ooooh. Good one. Your witty repartee has defeated me. [clutches chest from imaginary shot and falls to floor]
|