The US-"Democracy" conspiracy theory

[Oliver]

Actually, the biggest flaw in the US as a democracy is that it wasn't set up as one.

Marc

What was the initial setup?

 

[Marc L]

What was the initial setup?

A federal republic. The difference, as I understand it, is that a democracy is literally ruled by all eligible citizens (as you mentioned above). A republic is ruled by elected/appointed representatives. *

*admittedly, my understanding of what a republic is may be shaky, so if someone else knows better, feel free to correct me.

Marc

 

[Zygar]

A federal republic. The difference, as I understand it, is that a democracy is literally ruled by all eligible citizens (as you mentioned above). A republic is ruled by elected/appointed representatives. *

*admittedly, my understanding of what a republic is may be shaky, so if someone else knows better, feel free to correct me.

Marc

No, you are right. We are a Republic, and not a true Democracy.

 

[Oliver]

No, you are right. We are a Republic, and not a true Democracy.

May i ask where did this system come from, who invented it and for
what reason? It´s hard to understand - living in a democracy with
13 parties.

 

[gumboot]

May i ask where did this system come from, who invented it and for
what reason? It´s hard to understand - living in a democracy with
13 parties.

A modern country cannot function as a true democracy...

Hence a modern country has to determine representatives whom vote on behalf of the population.

It happens that it was determined these representatives would ALSO be selected by vote, and over time, people have (wrongfully) identified the process of democracy as the process of voting for representatives in government. This is incorrect. The process of democracy is when said representatives vote on laws etc...

A republic is a "non-monarchy" - that is a form of government in which the political powers of the leaders are based on principals that are not beyond the control of the general population.

This is in contrast to, say, a divine monarchy where the political powers of the leaders are based on religious and unquestionable principals, that the population have no influence over.

Thus, ALL democracies, by definition, are republics.

The term "republic" originates from Rome, which was, of course, a republic. The American form of democracy is much more in keeping with the Roman form of democracy than the Athenian one - that is the emphasis on electing a head of state whom acts as a single leader for the governing council. In the US, being the President and Congress, in Rome being initially the Consuls and later the Imperatas and the Senate.

In contrast, the entire purpose behind the creation of Athenian democracy was to prevent there even being a head of state.

I feel that, at least in smaller countries, modern telecommunications technology makes more traditional Athenian democracy possible - that is all citizens would vote on the passing of key laws in a referendum type scenario. Thus the primary function of various political parties would be to educate the population regarding the various bills.

I believe one of the Scandanavian nations (I think it's Norway or Sweden?) already uses extensive referendums which are legally binding.

(There has been much fuss in NZ because our referendums are not legally binding - some years ago we had a referendum in which 98% of the voters demanded certain action from the government - the government has not acted accordingly)

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

At least the swiss citizens have the possibility to vote directly in important questions via referendum. But i don´t know which other states also share this possibility.

 

[Oliver]

There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

The Democrats's paucity of cash might suggest they represent the common people a lot more than the Republicans do--and this hypothesis is borne out by examining the records of both parties. The Democrats fight for the environment; the Republicans fight against it. The Democrats fight for civil rights; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats fight for food and workplace safety laws; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats got you the Freedom of Information Act, while the Republicans fought against it. And on and on.

You see? There goes your theory.

Well i guess the different budgets didn´t exist
in the beginning - so my conspiracy theory
still makes sense.

And to be honest: I see no big fights between
D´s and R´s. If 2 parties have to agree with
each other, it´s a pretty small problem to find
a shared curse compared to 5 or more parties.

 

[chran]

At least the swiss citizens have the possibility to vote directly in important questions via referendum. But i don´t know which other states also share this possibility.

Denmark does. I actually found a page about it at the Danish Parliament. Didn't know that existed - it's pretty cool.

http://www.folketinget.dk/baggrund/00000044/00232606.htm

1916 was a referendum about the sale of the West Indies Islands to the US, which today are the Virgin Islands (I did not know that!)!

The we have a bunch of referendums about changing the Constitution, mainly lovering the eligibility for being elected to Parliament from 25 (1953) to 18 (1978).

In 1973 we joined the EEC (referendum in 1972), in 1993 we adopted the Maastricht Treaty, with the Edinburgh changes (leading to riots in Copenhagen ). We adopted the Amsterdam Treaty in 1998, and we rejected the Euro in 2000.

Sorry for the list, I kinda geeked out for a moment after finding that page

 

[Oliver]

Denmark does. I actually found a page about it at the Danish Parliament. Didn't know that existed - it's pretty cool.

http://www.folketinget.dk/baggrund/00000044/00232606.htm

1916 was a referendum about the sale of the West Indies Islands to the US, which today are the Virgin Islands (I did not know that!)!

The we have a bunch of referendums about changing the Constitution, mainly lovering the eligibility for being elected to Parliament from 25 (1953) to 18 (1978).

In 1973 we joined the EEC (referendum in 1972), in 1993 we adopted the Maastricht Treaty, with the Edinburgh changes (leading to riots in Copenhagen ). We adopted the Amsterdam Treaty in 1998, and we rejected the Euro in 2000.

Sorry for the list, I kinda geeked out for a moment after finding that page

I didn´t knew that Denmarks citizens also have the possibility
to vote directly concerning important issues. I wish we would
have the same opportunity.

But who descides between parliamentary poll and plebiscite?
The Parlament during a separate poll, right?

 

[chran]

But who descides between parliamentary poll and plebiscite?
The Parlament during a separate poll, right?

If it's constitutional changes, there has to be a referendum (it's in the Constitution ), also if the law includes loss of sovereignty (for example, certain treaties with the EU where decisions made by The European Parliament would directly effect Denmark) there has to be a referendum.

But everything can be put to a referendum, as far as I know.

 

[Oliver]

If it's constitutional changes, there has to be a referendum (it's in the Constitution ), also if the law includes loss of sovereignty (for example, certain treaties with the EU where decisions made by The European Parliament would directly effect Denmark) there has to be a referendum.

But everything can be put to a referendum, as far as I know.

Sounds pretty cool and i would pack my bags immediately
if it wouldn´t be literally so cold up there.

So how does the american system sound to you? Conspiracy?

 

[chran]

So how does the american system sound to you? Conspiracy?

No, just kinda stupid

Election in November, and inauguration in January? Definitely designed for a time where communication happened by horse back! And a two-party system sounds limited.

But I don't think it's a conspiracy. Unless, that's what they WANT us to think!

 

[Oliver]

No, just kinda stupid

Election in November, and inauguration in January? Definitely designed for a time where communication happened by horse back! And a two-party system sounds limited.

But I don't think it's a conspiracy. Unless, that's what they WANT us to think!

I´m not sure - i´m still learning. Would you like to
get convinced that it is indeed a conspiracy?

Well, it´s the "sounds limited" part that made me
think about the conspiracy. And of course the circus
performances every 4 years.

 

[JimBenArm]

I´m not sure - i´m still learning. Would you like to
get convinced that it is indeed a conspiracy?

Well, it´s the "sounds limited" part that made me
think about the conspiracy. And of course the circus
performances every 4 years.

That's what makes it the bestest! The circus comes every four years, and we get to see all the crazies crawl out from under the rocks!

 

[Oliver]

That's what makes it the bestest! The circus comes every four years, and we get to see all the crazies crawl out from under the rocks!

But to me it looks like voting for the funniest clown instead voting
for the in intellectual terms smartest and most proper candidate.
And a political genius without money has no chance at all.

 

[Brainster]

No, just kinda stupid

Election in November, and inauguration in January? Definitely designed for a time where communication happened by horse back! And a two-party system sounds limited.

Actually it used to be election in November and inauguration on March 4th.

We do not have a two-party system. What we have is an electoral system that has, as a side-effect, made it extremely difficult for third party candidates to succeed. But in effect, we also have an infinite number of parties in that elected officials are much freer to vote their own individual conscience on a bill without deference to the party line. The Democrats could lose a bill or two in this Congress without a vote of no-confidence, unlike most European parliaments. Although to outsiders Republicans and Democrats may seem monolithic, in fact they range quite widely in their opinions on the individual issues--there are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. There are Republicans who want us out of Iraq now and Democrats who support the president on Iraq.

The interesting thing is that because the parties are both fighting over the middle, they must be more moderate than their activists might otherwise prefer. But a vote in the middle is worth two on the wings, because if a rightwinger decides not to vote for the Republican, he's not going to vote for the Democrat, and vice versa for leftwingers who decided not to vote for the Democrat. It is this tendency that causes much of the bitterness in politics, because activists inevitably are disappointed in the relative moderation of their representatives when they are actually elected. Hence the appeal of third parties, but as others have observed, third parties are the pop-off valves in American politics. The Green Party attracted quite a bit of attention in the United States during the 1990s; it was a way for Leftists to blow off a little steam. But the Green Party effectively died in 2000, when people realized that the Green vote in Florida arguably gave the election to Bush. Suddenly Leftists discovered that despite all their claims to the contrary, there was quite a substantial difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

Of course, I fully expect to see a third-party candidacy on the Right this time around, because a bunch of conservatives are saying they can't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain (arguably the frontrunners for their respective party nominations).