The United States is Not A Democracy

[drkitten]

I have to say to those who think the USA is a democracy that they are wrong.

Well, that's one of the nice things about this democracy of ours; you can say anything you like, regardless of whether or not it's true.

A democracy would have waited for the popular vote and/or a democracy would have waited for the electorial vote.

Not necessarily. Democracy doesn't have to mean mob rule, nor does it mean an abandonment of the rule of law. In fact, we generally prefer that it doesn't mean either of those. We have laws that govern the conduct of elections -- you can't just set up a polling place in the local 7-11 and expect anyone to take it seriously. We have a set of state and local executive agencies that oversee those elections and certify those results under those laws. And we similarly have a system of courts in place to judge cases and controversies that arise under our laws.

If you don't like the way the case was decided, take it to your elected representative and ask him to change the law on your behalf. Because that's why we have a democracy.

 

[AvalonXQ]

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Even so -- meaning, even with this account of events -- I have to say to those who think the USA is a democracy that they are wrong. A democracy would have waited for the popular vote and/or a democracy would have waited for the electorial vote. A democracy would not accept the input of the supreme court -- in this circumstance -- whose members are hand picked by the president for all practical purposes.

Why wouldn't a democracy have listened to the people that, by law, are supposed to make the decision?
It doesn't make sense to me that, in a democracy, you enact laws to follow, and then ignore them and do what you want instead.

 

[Kestrel]

We get a very, very rough estimate of the popular vote from each state. For example, most jurisdictions don't even count absentee votes at all unless the election is close enough for the absentee votes to matter.

A classic urban myth. Absentee votes are counted in elections the same as votes cast at a polling booth.

 

[Upchurch]

We get a very, very rough estimate of the popular vote from each state.

Sorry. I should have written more clearly:

Evidence?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sorry. I should have written more clearly:

Evidence?

The evidence for why the count isn't accurate depends on the specific source used for the count itself.
So, I'll turn it back around on you -- what evidence do you have of an accurate count of the popular vote from the 2000 election?

 

[Upchurch]

The evidence for why the count isn't accurate depends on the specific source used for the count itself.
So, I'll turn it back around on you -- what evidence do you have of an accurate count of the popular vote from the 2000 election?

Nope, that isn't how it works. You made the claim:

We don't know how the popular vote went, because the popular vote was not counted with sufficient accuracy to tell.

The burden is on you to support that claim. It is not my responsibility to disprove your claim.

I haven't made the claim that the count is accurate, only the claim that I hadn't heard of your claim before. So...

Evidence?

 

[rain]

The corruption level among politicians is scary, but the general ignorance of the masses is even scarier. Sadly, mob rule is becoming increasingly common in U.S. states that allow ballot initiatives.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nope, that isn't how it works.

That's exactly how it works.
The first statement made was: Gore won the popular vote. That is the claim under discussion.
Now, in the absence of any evidence, what should a skeptic's default position be? That Gore won the popular vote, or that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Gore won the popular vote?
I'm not the one making the affirmative claim; I'm the one challenging it.
So until you come up with some evidence, I'm happy to rest on the evidence both sides have presented here -- namely, none.

 

[Elizabeth I]

He had a way with words:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."​

An overused quote, but a recognition in practical terms of how hard it is to stay free. It sometimes seems that there is always someone, somewhere, who wants dominion over you.

DR

Too bad we can't figure out a way for it just to be the blood of tyrants.

 

[rain]

That's exactly how it works.
The first statement made was: Gore won the popular vote. That is the claim under discussion.
Now, in the absence of any evidence, what should a skeptic's default position be? That Gore won the popular vote, or that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Gore won the popular vote?
I'm not the one making the affirmative claim; I'm the one challenging it.
So until you come up with some evidence, I'm happy to rest on the evidence both sides have presented here -- namely, none.

You do realize that a skeptic shouldn't default to being skeptical about everything right? For example, if you are skeptical about things like basic nutritional requirements without evidence one way or other, it might not be too healthy for you.

In general, it's pretty irrational to lean on the side of suspecting such things if you have no evidence to support your position. At the very least, it's better to take a neutral position first.

 

[rain]

We get a very, very rough estimate of the popular vote from each state. For example, most jurisdictions don't even count absentee votes at all unless the election is close enough for the absentee votes to matter.

"Is it true that with early voting, which is the same as absentee voting in many states, the votes are only counted if there's a tie? Or are all votes counted regardless of the method used to cast them? I am seriously confused about whether I should vote early, or wait until Nov. 4."

— Namita Biggins, Charlotte, N.C.

All eligible absentee ballots and early votes are counted. It doesn't have to be a tie or even a close race for them to count. Usually they're tallied on Election Day, though sometimes absentee ballots — especially those from overseas — might not be counted until several days after the election. However, the votes are still included in the official results. Sometimes voters whose names aren't on the rolls or who don't have the proper ID will be asked to cast something called a provisional ballot. That ballot is counted only after election officials have verified that the voter is eligible. A fair number of provisional ballots get rejected, so it's best not to use one if you don't have to.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95573939

 

[Skeptic]

The electoral college is there for a reason: the idea is to stop the large states from dominating the small states. That is why large states have more electoral votes, based on their population -- making them more important -- but all the votes goes to the winner of the state -- making it impossible for the candidates to just ignore the less-populous states.

Same with the Senate. The house of representatives has representatives based on population -- making the large states more important -- but the senate has 2 senators from every state -- to stop the large states' votes from overwhelming the small states'.

Really, this is civics 101.

P.S.

Just wondering what the "The USA is not a democracy because Gore lost" folks think about the UN. In the UN there is no balance at all: a 500,000-strong dictatorship has as many votes (1) as the USA or China. Yet for some reason that institution's decisions are called, often by the same folks who claim Bush is a "dictator", the "world's public opinion" -- despite the fact that Trinidad & Tobago's opinion counts exactly as much as China's, and in most cases the citizens of the countries involved aren't even asked what their opinion is, the country being a dictatorship in the first place.

 

[firecoins]

The Us is not a DEMOCRACY. We are controlled by Freemasons, the Trilateral commission with 5 sides and Big Foot.

 

[firecoins]

The electoral college is there for a reason -- much like the senate has 2 senators from every state, large and small. The idea is to stop the large states from dominating the small states.

Unless you have been to dominatrix. Than the big states have 10 senatgors while the small states must submit with 1.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The electoral college is there for a reason: the idea is to stop the large states from dominating the small states. That is why large states have more electoral votes, based on their population -- making them more important -- but all the votes goes to the winner of the state -- making it impossible for the candidates to just ignore the less-populous states.

Same with the Senate. The house of representatives has representatives based on population -- making the large states more important -- but the senate has 2 senators from every state -- to stop the large states' votes from overwhelming the small states'.

Really, this is civics 101.

P.S.

Just wondering what the "The USA is not a democracy because Gore lost" folks think about the UN. In the UN there is no balance at all: a 500,000-strong dictatorship has as many votes (1) as the USA or China. Yet for some reason that institution's decisions are called, often by the same folks who claim Bush is a "dictator", the "world's public opinion" -- despite the fact that Trinidad & Tobago's opinion counts exactly as much as China's, and in most cases the citizens of the countries involved aren't even asked what their opinion is, the country being a dictatorship in the first place.

Heh, if it's 101 how come your EC explanation is so butchered? It never ceases to amaze me what after the fact info people will attribute to the prophetic Founders.

 

[KingMerv00]

A democracy would not accept the input of the supreme court...

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court is important. It is there to prevent illegal state action from influencing a federal election. You can certainly disagree with their decision but they did act within the scope of their power.

Still a democracy.

 

[Upchurch]

That's exactly how it works.

You haven't been here long, have you? "You can't prove me wrong so I must be correct" is a classic logical fallacy and not a rational argument.

The first statement made was: Gore won the popular vote. That is the claim under discussion.

You can question it all you like. I was questioning your claim, which you have yet to support.

Now, in the absence of any evidence, what should a skeptic's default position be? That Gore won the popular vote, or that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Gore won the popular vote?

Neither. The default position should be that we don't know.

I'm not the one making the affirmative claim; I'm the one challenging it.

But you did make an affirmative claim. You claimed that votes are not accurately counted. I would like to know what you are basing that claim on.

(A negative claim would be, for example, that votes don't exist.)

So until you come up with some evidence, I'm happy to rest on the evidence both sides have presented here -- namely, none.

I'm sorry, but why is it up to me to disprove your claim? I have not claimed that the vote count was accurate enough to determine who won the popular vote, so I have nothing to defend. (unless you intend to challenge the assertion that I've never heard your claim before, in which case, I only have anecdotal evidence.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have not claimed that the vote count was accurate enough to determine who won the popular vote

All right, then. When we encounter someone who does make that claim, there will be something to discuss.

 

[ZouPrime]

The US is not a democracy for the same reason that Bush is a terrorist: because unsophisticated peoples feel the need to redefine common words and enter into empty semantic arguments in order to push some ideological point.

 

[Upchurch]

All right, then. When we encounter someone who does make that claim, there will be something to discuss.

No, because you have already made the claim that the count was not accurate enough to make the determination. Are you withdrawing that claim?



(fwiw)