US Democracy, why I like it

[Anathema]

Sorry about that Edric, you are correct IMO. Federal leaders would only have to concern themselves with a limited number of issues like foreign policy.

Yet another reason Bush is a bad president in my eyes.

[emprworm]

Ahh, that's an awesome way of looking at it, Egeides. Remember the name of that program? The Secret Service calls the permitted areas for dissenters---which are anywhere between 20 yards and a mile away---"free speech zones." I was under the impression that the entire country was a free speech zone, but what do I know?

The problem with the American system of government is that it's a representative democracy. A politician only has to appeal to the majority to keep himself in power. That's why so many of our politicians are wishy-washy cowards who make their decisions based upon the polls: keep appealing to the largest block of the American public and you'll keep getting elected. This is very much what Kerry does, and the Democrats think that makes him "electable." I think it makes him weak.

It's too easy for the polity to ignore minorities in America; too easy to sweep them under the metaphorical rug until convenient. (Like President Bush did with homosexuals: ignore gay rights for four years, then when your reelection bid is in trouble because you degraded the nation so severely, start a culture war over it. Or like he did with immigrants: fight against their rights for years, then pass a pseudo-amnesty policy to appease them.) That's why you don't see the polity coming up with progressive ideals to keep us moving forward: progressive change comes from the people.

Furthermore, the electoral college is an antiquated artifact of the federal government. It comes from a time in which people were hardly informed about the issues, had virtually no access to information about candidates, and were not as knowledgeable about the workings of their government. I say it's about time we moved into the future and started letting the people chose their leaders.

huh?  These are bad arguments.  First of all Egiedes doesn't really know what he is talking about.  People who hate bush do so openly, and in front of the whitehouse.  The only ones that are "removed" are the ones that commit criminal activity (a lot of peace protesters like to comit crimes of violence and vandalism).  Otherwise, free speach here is a protected right.  Bush-hating is fully legal.

"It's too easy for the polity to ignore minorities in America; too easy to sweep them under the metaphorical rug until convenient."

Idiocy.  With the wide open internet and media sources, anyone who is uninformed is 100% at fault.  Minorities in America are virtually everone.  America has every culture, every race on earth.  We are the most diverse nation on the planet.  Ignoring minorities is an automatic loss for any politician.  Your argument is so absurd, i'd rather smell the old head of lettuce I once left in my refrigerator for a year as a bachelor.

"I say it's about time we moved into the future and started letting the people chose their leaders."

A democratic republic does exactly that.  Pure democracy is bad for any multicultural, multi-state nation.  The UN agrees.  (otherwise representation in the UN would be based on population, rather than countries.)

If you don't like the US system of representative democracy, that is your problem.  DONT LIVE HERE.  It is a superior form of democracy to a pure democracy, which is subject to mob rule, and tyrrany of the majority.  Democratic republics protect minorties far better than mob rule pure democracy.  The UN agrees.  If you oppose US democracy, you oppose UN democracy.

"moved into the future and started letting the people chose their leaders."

A great defense for the IRAQ war.  I agree with you.  Nice to hear you endorsing George Bush's actions in Iraq.  And we chose Bush last election.  I hope we dont choose Kerry this time around, but we'll see.

[emprworm]

The rule of the minority is NEVER superior to the rule of the majority.

Where do you stop on this slippery slope? Why is France a single state instead of a multitude of states?

The fact is that this entire system of cutting up a country into "states" for electoral purposes is arbitrary, and it allows a tiny minority (almost 1/3) to dictate its wishes to the overwhelming majority (almost 2/3), as I explained further above.

A pure democracy works only in a single state.

[danielsh]

Actually, maybe you should look it up. (I found a source that you cannot accuse of being a part of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.) People who want to protest Bush's policies will likely be sent to "Free Speech Zones" far away from the leader himself. Sure, it's a protected right, but only in certain places. (Great quotation in that article, by the way: "The Bush family must love the poor, they make so many of us.")

This isn't a question of how informed people are, it's a question of how the government behaves towards minorities. Despite the fact that gay rights were a pressing concern for all of Bush's presidency, he ignored the issue until popular support for his other policies dropped, whereupon he found a wedge issue to campaign on. I used that example and the example of immigrants' rights to illustrate my point. Minorities in America are not "virtually everyone" by any stretch of the imagination. Can you give me an example of how we're "protecting minorities" in America now? Some of the pressing minority-related issues before the nation include affirmative action (intended to protect African-Americans, being fought by politicians), gay marriage (intended to protect homosexuals, being fought by politicians), full amnesty (intended to protect immigrants, being fought by politicians)... the list goes on and on.

Oh, okay. Good point, though. If I don't like the way things in this country work, I should move out. Because no one ever changes anything.

The people did not choose President Bush. The electoral college would have, the Supreme Court actually did. And I don't recall the people voting on the Iraq war.

Wolfwiz, I think that the only bias that the media has is towards the sensational. Liberal/conservative biases may exist within certain elements of the media (e.g., the New York Times and Fox News, respectively), but the media as a body just wants readers/listeners/viewers.

[Wolf]

Actually, that's what I thought as well, however, after the good old AP Government class, I discovered the there actually is a liberal media bias, as it is taught to students. Perhaps this is a mistake in the structure of the whole course, but I was just as surprised as you were.

[Warskum]

Example:

A country has 3 stated, 1 big(with 1mil people) and 2 small(each with 10 people).

We have 3 candidates, A and B, The big state votes for A(1 mil people) the 2 small states elect B with US democracy this would mean B won, it measn 20 people "ruled" 1mil.

Wich is wrong and cannot be called democracy IMO.

[Wolf]

No, that's incorrect. The state that voted with A would have more power than both smaller states combined. Remember, the amount of power that a state has to elect a candidate is proportional to the number of people within the state. A would win your election in American democracy.

Warskum, you misunderstand how US democracy works; its not the number of states that elect a candidate, its the electoral votes within a state that elects a candidate.

[HasimirFenring]

"its not the number of states that elect a candidate, its the electoral votes within a state that elects a candidate. "

Yes but each state has a minimum of 3 electoral votes, no matter the population.  Therefore, a voter in a state with 10 people represents a larger fraction of an electoral vote than a voter in a large state.  The result of this is that all of the midwestern states exert a disproportional influence on presidential elections.

[Wolf]

Is the disproportion in midwestern states really that large? Like, wouldn't the population-to-electoral-vote ratio be the same as with other states, since all states work from the 3-vote minimum? Or is it counterbalanced because there are more midwestern states?

[Anathema]

Just wondering, is the number of electoral counties in a state proportionally related to the population of that state (with a minimum of 3 electoral votes)?

[Wolf]

I thught there was, but looking at this data...

http://www.misunderstood.cc/politics/representation.html

...it seems that the number of electoral votes to population ranges from 200,000 to 600,000 individuals.

I knew the system was flawed, I just didn't think it was that bad.

[thomas]

I like california, BTW it contains 1/8th of the population of the US, and allows a huge advantage to whomever recieves it's support.

[otheymzefedaykin]

For me, an election where one have to recount the votes is not serious!  Then, the American elections are not an example of democracy! ;D

[emprworm]

Actually, maybe you should look it up. (I found a source that you cannot accuse of being a part of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.) People who want to protest Bush's policies will likely be sent to "Free Speech Zones" far away from the leader himself. Sure, it's a protected right, but only in certain places. (Great quotation in that article, by the way: "The Bush family must love the poor, they make so many of us.")

This isn't a question of how informed people are, it's a question of how the government behaves towards minorities. Despite the fact that gay rights were a pressing concern for all of Bush's presidency,

the problem is Danish, is some people dont believe in "gay rights" and that gay people do not deserve special rights any more than a polygamist does.  Polygamy has been around as long as homosexuality.  Gays demand attention.  So do polygamists (the media just doesn't 'endorse' polygamy...yet) I cast my vote for a the political leader that doesn't pander to every special interest group.  You keep talking about 'gay rights'....I completely disagree with such a concept.  gays dont need additional rights anymore than a polygamist does, or an alduterer.  If you want to be the Champion of Gays, thats your perogative.  You wont get my vote.

Fundamental Christians are a minority in the US.  And you ignore them as well, do you not?

"Minorities in America are not "virtually everyone" by any stretch of the imagination. "  You do not know the US too well then.  There is no combination of race and ideology that makes up more than 50% of the united states.  None. 

You do not like American democracy because your idol Gore lost.  Until then, I wonder if you had a problem with it?

I am not saying America is a perfect ideal democratic system, but what I am saying is that the philosophy and principle of a democratic republic is superior to that of a pure democracy.

You still have not given any refutation to that.  I find it odd that an atheist like yourself (who always talk about tyrranny of the majority) would favor a pure democracy...????  Go to www.infidels.org and you will find support for my point of view.

[Wolf]

Don't Caucasians make up more than 50% of the US population? Or, are you referring to ethno-religious groups? That, even though there are more than 50% Caucasians, there are not more than 50% Caucasian Protestants, or Caucasian Cathloics, or Jewish Caucasians, for that matter.

[emprworm]

Don't Caucasians make up more than 50% of the US population? Or, are you referring to ethno-religious groups? That, even though there are more than 50% Caucasians, there are not more than 50% Caucasian Protestants, or Caucasian Cathloics, or Jewish Caucasians, for that matter.

ethno-religious groups, yes.

[HasimirFenring]

"You keep talking about 'gay rights'....I completely disagree with such a concept.  gays dont need additional rights anymore than a polygamist does, or an alduterer.  If you want to be the Champion of Gays, thats your perogative.  You wont get my vote."

Gays don't want 'special rights'...  They just want EQUAL PROTECTION, which some politicians *cough*bush*cough* seem reluctant to give them.  Gays are discriminated against in many regards; wanting to put an end to this hardly makes them a 'special interest group'.

[danielsh]

It's not a question of race, creed or color, it's a question of ideology, as that's what people vote with. If 75% of Americans oppose gay rights, then we have an ideological majority. Under a system of representative democracy, that majority is allowed to oppress the minority. Some political ideologies (*cough* conservatism *cough*) even encourage the oppression of minorities for---as we all know---giving rights to some people starts us on a slippery slope, down which we will slide until everyone has equal rights! Gasp!

If you oppose gay rights, then you're wrong. I don't have to defend that, because a free state is unquestionably a good thing and restricting any minority's natural rights keeps a state from being free. Your point that us queers are demanding "additional rights" is, unsurprisingly, crap: we're asking for equal rights. Hasimir pointed this out, and I agree with him. I did not start to realize the problems with American democracy when Gore lost the election. Far from it, I've only begun awakening to the injustice of representative democracy since studying history from a new viewpoint. Once I started to question the nationalistic garbage that teachers had been spoon-feeding me for years, I started to understand what needs to be changed in this nation.

Yes, fundamental Christians are a minority. (I hope!) However, they're not a minority whose natural rights have been taken away by the state. I like pure democracy because it does not allow for tyranny of the majority---or have you not been reading Edric's posts on the topic?

I am not saying America is a perfect ideal democratic system, but what I am saying is that the philosophy and principle of a democratic republic is superior to that of a pure democracy.

You're right, I have failed to refute the first part of this statement (America does not have an ideal democratic system), because I don't have to. I agree: the American system of democracy is not ideal. I therefore draw the conclusion that it needs to be changed. Pure democracy is a superior system, as I have stated. It gives the power of government to the people themselves, and therefore could not be more ideal.

[emprworm]

Pure democracy is a superior system, as I have stated. It gives the power of government to the people themselves, and therefore could not be more ideal.

what safeguard does a pure democracy have to tyrrany of the majority.  You keep saying "pure democracy is superior" yet you cannot give me any evidence of such.  If you want to say it all night long, thats fine.  But until you demonstrate how you avoid the abysmal failures that I illustrated pure democracy can create, your statements are just repetitive rhetoric. 

I gave a real example of how pure democracy can fail, and bring down the entire system.  Where is the refutations?  Just monotonous bantering

[emprworm]

Gays don't want 'special rights'...

[danielsh]

No, I'm trying to say that equality is a right. Can homosexuals marry anywhere in the United States? No. Therefore, they do not have equal protection under the law: a right that is both natural and constitutional. And I would greatly appreciate it if you dropped the obscene and mocking descriptions of gay sex. It offends me. And if you choose not to drop those descriptions, then I promise you that I will do worse. I can and will.

Go ahead and say that my "lifestyle" is "unhealthy," but don't you dare codify your bigotry. You have the absolute right to believe what you will, but your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose. If we analyze the relative harms and benefits of gay marriage, we find that your right to bigotry is still protected, while my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is finally enforced. Spout anti-gay propaganda until you're blue in the face. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That is my obligation, as a believer in the ultimate good of liberty. But if you wish to claim the same, then you must give me the liberty to which I am entitled.

Fine, don't accept me. Hate me, if it makes you feel better. Just don't make your hate---your lack of acceptance---your bigotry---into law. That is unjust. And since representative democracy permits that, it too is unjust.

[emprworm]

No, I'm trying to say that equality is a right. Can homosexuals marry anywhere in the United States? No. Therefore, they do not have equal protection under the law:

a rediculous argument.

[danielsh]

Would you like to hear my endorsement of polygamy? Here it is: I endorse polygamy. I endorse consensual anything, as long as it poses no harm to anyone but the consenters. I do not "abandon polygamists"---if a polygamist were to bring his case to the courts, I would shout for his rights as loudly as I am shouting for my own. Or perhaps you saw my comments in the thread "GAYS Getting Married in San Fran.", which read:

Frankly, I don't see what's wrong with polygamy. Don't polygamists deserve equal protection under the law as well---especially if it's a religious issue?

You're right, I shouldn't impose my views on the polygamist. So I don't.

It's becoming a pattern for me to be puzzled by your arguments and assumptions. For example, your claim that American homosexuals are fighting for "acceptance" rather than "equality." As homosexual and, to the best of my knowledge, member of the gay rights movement, I believe that I am in a better position to explain what homosexuals want. We want legal acceptance and legal equality. The law has no power over society, but it does have the power and responsibility to take the first step towards social acceptance. As to the role of schools in teaching morality, there are some absolutes that a school should be able to teach. For example, "Being attracted to men is not a sin, or a crime, or an abomination, or a disease."

The homosexual agenda is one that wants to impose their sexual behavoirs as an academic subject for children.

Ahh, yes. Because clearly, you were taught to be straight, so it's possible for a school to teach a child to be gay. Not only that, but homosexuals ultimately desire that to happen. Damn, you caught us! We were busy trying to turn the whole world gay, but you've foiled yet another left-wing conspiracy with your incisive logic.

...but it [marriage] should have no value at a state or federal level unless it is explicitly defined as man and woman.

So it's okay for the state to grant a man and a woman certain protections, but not to do the same for a man and a man. That makes sense.

And I'd love to hear your 'scientific' and 'moral' arguments against homosexuality.

[emprworm]

It's becoming a pattern for me to be puzzled by your arguments and assumptions. For example, your claim that American homosexuals are fighting for "acceptance" rather than "equality."

yes they are.

[danielsh]

Well, this argument just became about five times less mature:

yes they are.