American democracy, (up for deletion)

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:13 pm UTC

Vanivier wrote:Or, maybe he's talking about the next guy, who took power as part of a bloodless coup. That's Mohammed Daoud Khan (who came to power in 1973, which is less than 50 years ago). He was the one who didn't take the title Shah, instead making himself the president of a new republic. He was assassinated by communist revolutionaries.


That would be him, and his "repressive regime" was based solely on trying to take out those planing a coup, and everyone was tried fairly, and your not so reputable source is not so reputable.

He was assasinated in a communist revolution that then, set up another democratic country, at which time America aided, people like Osama.

Point there was just that even though it wasn't a voting democracy, it was more 'democratic'
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:35 pm UTC

He was assasinated in a communist revolution that then, set up another democratic country, at which time America aided, people like Osama.
They lasted for a year before the Soviets moved in. I'm not sure that's all that relevant.

Point there was just that even though it wasn't a voting democracy, it was more 'democratic'
Under what definition of democratic can you consider this view non-contradictory?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:51 pm UTC

Vanivier wrote:Under what definition of democratic can you consider this view non-contradictory?

YES

Under the IDEALS for which democracy is based on, can you say calling America democratic, where candidates of government offices are biased by general amount money that is available to them is contradictory?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

3.14159265... wrote:
Vanivier wrote:Under what definition of democratic can you consider this view non-contradictory?

YES


It wasn't a yes or no question.

Under the IDEALS for which democracy is based on, can you say calling America democratic, where candidates of government offices are biased by general amount money that is available to them is contradictory?


American Government offices aren't for sale to the highest bidder- you may think they are, but you'd be wrong. The electorate vote those people into office. Voter education is a separate issue entirely.

My bad I meant Arar


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

It should all make sense now


Yeah, did you read my post? Foreign affairs != America being a democracy. Your anti-US agenda is an ugly bitch which needs a firm slap across the face. Go argue foreign affairs in another thread, but don't go claiming that the United States isn't a democratic republic just because we deported a few people.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

YES
I didn't realize YES was a definition of democratic. Is that an acronym or something?

Under the IDEALS for which democracy is based on, can you say calling America democratic, where candidates of government offices are biased by general amount money that is available to them is contradictory?
Ideals? Again, this is the question I'm asking. What ideals are you talking about?

The best I'm coming up with now is "pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all". But... there isn't any significant government-enforced political inequality in the U.S.; George W. Bush doesn't get more votes for president than anyone else.
There isn't any significant government-enforced social inequality either (although I suppose I could complain that the government has programs that discriminate against whites and against males, but that wouldn't get me very far).

Does that mean everyone has an equal say in society? Well, everyone has the same number of votes and the same amount of possible opportunities. Other things will impact how many people they can convince to vote for them, and how many opportunities are economical for them to pursue, but those are generally economical issues, and democracy doesn't care about economic equality for all, and it shouldn't.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:06 am UTC

Sorry I read that as can you see it as contradictory under the definition of democracy, the answer to that would have been yes.

The answer to your questions is under no definition.

The ideals I am talking about are, just giving everyone an equal say, which clearly not true.

If election education isn't there the democracy isn't that awsome.

ex) In afghanistan, I was there when they had one of thier elections, and I volunteered at the voting station for the fun of it, people would come and go, "so what is going everyone said to come here"?

That is NOT a democracy

The goal of democracy is NOT to meet a definiton
It IS to give everyone an equal say

If America doesn't respect the human rights of citizens of another country (i.e. Canadian, Maher Arar", I think that takes away from its OWN democracies.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:14 am UTC

The answer to your questions is under no definition.
So... you think your statement was contradictory? Did you change your mind, or why did you say it in the first place?

[edit]
If election education isn't there the democracy isn't that awsome.
Ok. You won't find many people disagreeing with this. But, a poor democracy is more democratic than an enlightened dictatorship. It's not necessarily better to live under, but that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about scales of democracy. [/edit]

The goal of democracy is NOT to meet a definiton
It IS to give everyone an equal say
What if we're using the definition of "giving everyone an equal say"?

If America doesn't respect the human rights of citizens of another country (i.e. Canadian, Maher Arar", I think that takes away from its OWN democracies.
Governments are focused primarily on their citizens. If defending its citizens (the general goal of detaining terror suspects) requires harming the citizens of another country... that doesn't say much about the country in question's style of government. All it talks about is their foreign policy.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Postby Owijad » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:20 am UTC

As an aside, it is true that not all voting citizens in U.S.A. have equal voting power, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Pi is talking about.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:22 am UTC

3.14159265... wrote:The goal of democracy is NOT to meet a definiton
It IS to give everyone an equal say


...yeah... you pretty much owned yourself with that one. It sums up everything we've been trying to tell you, except you're not listening, at all.

ex) In afghanistan, I was there when they had one of thier elections, and I volunteered at the voting station for the fun of it, people would come and go, "so what is going everyone said to come here"?


Voter apathy is not an issue with democracy, it's an issue with your citizens being, well, apathetic.

And yes, yes it is a democracy. They have the right to vote for their officials, which is more than any communist, monarchy, or otherwise dictatorial nation can say.

I've said what I had to say. I'm not replying to anymore of your inane remarks about democracy, democratic republic, or other various democratic types of government.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:00 am UTC

I was being contradictory in that statment many posts before

Vanivier wrote:Ok. You won't find many people disagreeing with this. But, a poor democracy is more democratic than an enlightened dictatorship. It's not necessarily better to live under...

Oh I thought they were. We are in agreement then.

Peshmerga wrote:...yeah... you pretty much owned yourself with that one. It sums up everything we've been trying to tell you, except you're not listening, at all.


How can I listen, when you have just written stuff :P

Yes it was a misunderstanding then, I thought were arguing about giving everyone an equal say.

America is a democracy as in citizens have the right to vote for representatives who in turn make decisioins.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:31 am UTC

As an aside, it is true that not all voting citizens in U.S.A. have equal voting power, but I'm pretty sure that's not what Pi is talking about.
Well, every voter for every election, given that the president is elected by the electoral college, instead of the people.

But yes, it's true that coming from a small state I have more "say" in the Senate than someone coming from a large state.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Hex
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:07 pm UTC

Postby Hex » Tue May 01, 2007 3:39 pm UTC

Whoever does the counting decides who wins the election, even if it's a machine.

The basis of democracy is the idea that the people have a choice in who represents them. However, that idea is broken when the voting system is flawed and the people only think they have a choice.

Futility.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Tue May 01, 2007 4:45 pm UTC

Having a functional election for a single decision is easy. It doesn't require a machine.

1> Allow representatives of any candidate to be present at each voting location.

2> Ballot counting takes place in the plain air, at the site in question, recorded using multiple video cameras, with any of the representatives allowed to dispute a ballot. The disputed ballots are put aside, and the non-disputed ballots are counted and sealed. The disputed ballots are recounted in detail in a second pass at the location.

3> The results from each location are posted publicly.

#1 means you need every person running to be in on the fix.
#2 means that it is hard to lie about the ballot count, as the representatives see it.
#3 means that if you trust each regional ballot count, you can trust the global ballot count, as you can repeat the summation yourself.

This requires a fair number of volunteers for each candidate in an election, and a fair amount of time to count ballots, and a ballot simple enough that counting is easy.

In order to corrupt this system, you need to corrupt your opponents representatives, or pull of ballot-stuffing before it is counted.

And the amount of corruption you can generate is limited by the number of corrupted representatives, times the number of votes per voting station. This means to steal an election, you need a wide-spread conspiracy. Which is hard to keep secret.

Lastly, the video camera means that blatant cheating can be tracked down after the fact.

User avatar
The Cosmic Fool
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 4:54 pm UTC
Location: Canada, eh?
Contact:

Postby The Cosmic Fool » Wed May 02, 2007 5:26 pm UTC

As to restate what someone else said on here:

The United States is a Federal constitutional republic. Not a democracy.
Canada is a Parliamentary democracy and Federal constitutional monarchy. Not a democracy.
China is a Socialist republic. Definately not a democracy.

Democracy is an ideal that many governments can claim to adhere to. The United States was probably designed with democracy in mind, but the Founding Fathers had nothing to work with. The only reason why everyone complains about how the U.S. isn't a democracy is because the rest of the world is affected by it. Nobody complains outside of Canada that it isn't "democratic" because Canada has no say in anything anymore.
"The future is dark, the present burdensome. Only the past, dead and buried, bears contemplation."

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Peshmerga » Wed May 02, 2007 6:30 pm UTC

The Cosmic Fool wrote:Democracy is an ideal that many governments can claim to adhere to. The United States was probably designed with democracy in mind, but the Founding Fathers had nothing to work with. The only reason why everyone complains about how the U.S. isn't a democracy is because the rest of the world is affected by it. Nobody complains outside of Canada that it isn't "democratic" because Canada has no say in anything anymore.


A constitutional republic is the exact same thing as a representative democracy.

The United States is a representative democracy. Federal defines the US as a body of individual self-governing states. Constitutional republic defines the US as a representative democracy. Thus, federal constitutional republic == representative democracy + individual self governing states.
i hurd u liek mudkips???

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed May 02, 2007 6:42 pm UTC

The Cosmic Fool wrote:As to restate what someone else said on here:

The United States is a Federal constitutional republic. Not a democracy.
Canada is a Parliamentary democracy and Federal constitutional monarchy. Not a democracy.
China is a Socialist republic. Definately not a democracy.

Democracy is an ideal that many governments can claim to adhere to. The United States was probably designed with democracy in mind, but the Founding Fathers had nothing to work with. The only reason why everyone complains about how the U.S. isn't a democracy is because the rest of the world is affected by it. Nobody complains outside of Canada that it isn't "democratic" because Canada has no say in anything anymore.


I repeat:
A democracy doesn't have to be the "platonic ideal" of democracy to be a democracy.


Re-defining the English language so that commonly used and understood terms have uselessly narrow meaning is a bad semantic arguement.

If you want to use "platonic ideal of democracy", or something equally precise and technical, don't assign them to common English words and then complain when other people don't use them in the same way you do.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests