Systems of government -- definitions

[amadeus]

"True democracy" cannot exist, because there will always be factors in the way of everyone being equally able to vote.

A man that lives on a cattle ranch fifty miles from the election booths is not going to have the same advantage as a man in New York City.

People that live in cold climates, where weather could interfere with voter turnout. Which do you choose, the potential for death, or a single vote?

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
"True democracy" cannot exist, because there will always be factors in the way of everyone being equally able to vote.

In fact "true democracy" is almost for sure a non-sense. Sociological studies clearely show that the reality is that only 15-20% of people have a firmly opinion ( and not just in electoral buissness - here is a good trick !! ).

The other are influenced by this "buffer part" !!!

Regards

 

[Baleog]

Most people talk about the western democracies, but surely it should be the Western republics. I think the meaning of democracy has been used in relation to republics for too long. Democracy, these days seems to be associated more with freedom of speech/opinion etc. rather than it's actual meaning; as stated previously every one votes on every issue.
Maybe you could class different republics to how much they resemble democracy.
If the people just vote for their leaders, who decide everything from then till to the next election; this could be a bit lower on the sclae to the likes of a country whose people would vote on constitution amendments, if the politicians felt an amendment could be made.
This would lead to a mix up though. A republic which was more democratic (as in the proper definition) then another would still be equal in democracy (as in the altered definition) to other republics. The first country is by no means better than the second. It's just a political definition with no relation to actual freedom of speech/opinion and the usual stuff related to the altered meaning of democracy.

 

[amadeus]

But, democracy is defined as "government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."

 

[bobgote]

How many people in the US vote purely out of thought for who the best leader would be? Only 50% of the people actually vote at all, don't care about democracy. Here in Australia we have a compulsory voting law which prevents this. Also in America, most people will vote for the same party no matter what...only a minority are swinging voters who follow the issues. What's the results of a system like this? President George Dubya, that's what.

 

[amadeus]

The result of a system like ours is the greatest superpower in the history of mankind.

Speaking of democracy...isn't the official leader of the British Commonwealth Queen Elizabeth II?

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Baleog
Most people talk about the western democracies, but surely it should be the Western republics

You know, you can change the name of "Democracy" to "Modern Republic" or "Indirect Democracy" in the editor. But I take the name "Democracy" to mean "Indirect Democracy." But I really understand that 200,000,000 voters in the USA don't actually go to the capitol building to vote every day or even send 200,000,000 email votes to the capitol every day.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by bobgote
How many people in the US vote purely out of thought for who the best leader would be? Only 50% of the people actually vote at all, don't care about democracy. Here in Australia we have a compulsory voting law which prevents this.

I actually find compulsory voting very undemocratic. The major problem with representative democracy and equal votes has always been they are unable to gauge the intensity of the voters towards the issue or the candidates. I think compulsory voting just makes that problem worse, since people will Christmas tree a ballot to avoid a fine. That is democracy?

Originally posted by bobgote Also in America, most people will vote for the same party no matter what...only a minority are swinging voters who follow the issues. What's the results of a system like this? President George Dubya, that's what.

Simplistic analysis of American politics. Its kind of strange for me when I read these because, as a matter of my academic pursuit, I spend HOURS & HOURS pouring over data, polls, results, conclusions relating to why people participate in American politics the way they do.
Then some guy from Australia sums it up in a sentence
People in the conservative right base get very, very excited about W. I don't know why, I can't understand it. Understand, though, you are in essence saying "I don't like the results so the system must be broken". A very perilous path to walk down.

Originally posted by sumthinelse
You know, you can change the name of "Democracy" to "Modern Republic" or "Indirect Democracy" in the editor. But I take the name "Democracy" to mean "Indirect Democracy."

I've always viewed 'democracy' in that context to be rule by the people. Ultimately, the people are in charge. Democracy in such a system of government, is, in my opinion, the right and ability of people to change their government by voting.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Greadius
you are in essence saying "I don't like the results so the system must be broken". A very perilous path to walk down.

[/B]

I went to a bar in Edinbourgh to hear some folk music and drink whisky just after the last US presidential election. But the bar patrons were obsessed with the US election results, and felt compelled to talk politics since I was an American, and to explain the American voting/political system to me. (I do think GW has made some bad decisions, like the steel tariff, but they all make mistakes). I thought I was listening to a tape recorder. "George W. Bush is so stupid..." His opponent in the Governer's race in Texas would disagree, I replied. "He is going to push the button to start World War III..." I could have said that Al Gore would do a lot of the same things as GW if he got elected. It didn't take long to realize that they were all going to repeat the same mantra so I just focused on the music and whisky, both of which were excellent.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
It didn't take long to realize that they were all going to repeat the same mantra so I just focused on the music and whisky, both of which were excellent.

He he ...

Unfortunatelly this is another inherited problem with the human nature - many people ( if not the most ) strongly belive in some "mantras". And unscrupulous politicians used this kind of technique to manipulate the people.

For example - here in Romania - so-called "right-wing" politicians - but who in fact are some greedy incompetent realise that the social-democrats will stay in power probably for the next decade and - having no real alternatives use some kind of mantras : "This social-democrats are nothing else than the old communists ... bla, bla " ...

Regards

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Trinity
Socially, there are times when legislation is required to protect the rights of individuals who are part of an social minority. Anti-discrimination laws are an example. They, IMO, are necessary.

He he ... tricky point.

What do you belive that only people from a minority should be defended ??? Historically there are far more examples when a minority exploit a majority !!

And BTW - did you refered only to economically aspects ?

Regards

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


I thought I was listening to a tape recorder. "George W. Bush is so stupid..." His opponent in the Governer's race in Texas would disagree, I replied. "He is going to push the button to start World War III..." I could have said that Al Gore would do a lot of the same things as GW if he got elected. It didn't take long to realize that they were all going to repeat the same mantra so I just focused on the music and whisky, both of which were excellent.

Some things need to be said. Some things are so unbelievable you have to tell everyone all the time.

Internationally, George Dubya has done nothing right as far as I see. If you had a visionary leader, things might've turned out very differently. It's hard for one man to change the course of history. It's even harder if that man is George Dubya.

also compulsory voting means you are more likely to get true representation.

 

[amadeus]

So, we didn't do Afghanistan right? How about the tax cuts? GNP growth at 5.6 percent? I don't mind it.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by bobgote


Some things are so unbelievable you have to tell everyone all the time.

So you believe that I will be convinced by a bunch of parrots? They not only were stating the same ideas, but they were phrasing them in exactly the same way. As I said, GW is wrong sometimes. But I much prefer him to his predecessor.

Do you believe that GW Bush is being unfair to your country? Australia? He could wave a magic wand and everyone in the whole world would live happily ever after?

I don't think Gore could do that either.

When the elder George Bush lost to Clinton, Saddam Hussein may have thought things would change. Until Clinton ordered an air strike on Iraq. And I don't believe Gore, if he had been President, would have done much different from GW with repect to Afghanistan.

 

[Baleog]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
Do you believe that GW Bush is being unfair to your country? Australia? He could wave a magic wand and everyone in the whole world would live happily ever after?

Sometimes you get the impression he doesn't try. (Refering to his feelings on Kyoto)

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by bobgote
compulsory voting means you are more likely to get true representation.

Compulsory voting gives a disproportionate amount of power to the voters who care the least, and gives tremendous incentives for parties to appeal to the lowest common denominator in opinions.

Originally posted by Baleog
Sometimes you get the impression he doesn't try. (Refering to his feelings on Kyoto)

He doesn't. Please Australia isn't in the job description.

 

[amadeus]

Why should the U.S. sign Kyoto when it doesn't apply to the People's Republic of China, the world's SECOND largest "polluter?"

 

[Trinity]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


In fact "true democracy" is almost for sure a non-sense. Sociological studies clearely show that the reality is that only 15-20% of people have a firmly opinion ( and not just in electoral buissness - here is a good trick !! ).

The other are influenced by this "buffer part" !!!

in a second post: What do you belive that only people from a minority should be defended ??? Historically there are far more examples when a minority exploit a majority !!

Regards

Comment on the first post regarding sociological studies.... True. And they also vote by impulse. This is precisely why I don't think democracies are immune from propaganda. We have enough propaganda to sift through from special interest groups in our own nation. People tend to be easily swayed to different view points --- for a while. Then after reflection, they may change their minds. We've all heard it.

Propaganda: This property tax cut will put more money in your pocket. It will keep the crooked bureaucrats from leaching you dry.

Voter: Yeah! I hate bureaucrats! I could use that money.

Bureaucrats: This cut will hurt services.

Propaganda: Don't listen to them. They waste your money.

Voter votes for tax cut. Schools can't make their budgets and lay off teachers. Pot holes in the roads go unrepaired. Quality people leave public sector for private sector. Services slow down.

Bureaucrats: We told you so.

Voter tries to pass a special assessment, but then finds out that the tax law prohibits passing of special assessment unless 2/3 vote in favor. And they find they only saved $100 per year per household.

Propaganda: The schools aren't educating our kids. Let's create vouchers, and set standards. Make them earn increased funding.

etc. etc. etc.
--------------------

Second post regarding minority rights: I'm just talking about leveling the playing field by making it illegal to discriminate based upon various criteria. The latest push in this struggle is for gays and lesbians. There are a lot of brilliant people out there who still get terminated from employment because their boss is a fundamentalist and the way they are is against his/her religion. Equal rights for all citizens should be the way it is, and not favor one group over another. It's just that lawmakers tend to leave out certain groups when they write the laws. Small businesses complain -- I don't care if they might have to retain a lesbian who works in the tool department, or a gay male who works in the womens department. God knows we might see better attired people out there. I know these are stereotypes, but I can get away with it.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by deepfreeze
You do seem well schooled in politics,

Thanks. I would certainly like to think so, I'm starting a degree in it soon.

Originally posted by deepfreeze
therefore doesn't it seem like Communist are looking for an impossible cause?

Yes.

Originally posted by deepfreeze
If Utopia can't be achieved then what is their goal?

They believe it can be achieved. I don't.

Originally posted by deepfreeze
Dictatorial Socialists such as Mao only make their people poor.

Well yes, because the central economic structuring associated with the old style regimes was often an utter mess. Hence why almost every regime that wants to get anywhere has given it up.

Originally posted by deepfreeze
Look at China now, their economy is very poor.

Actually no, I would like to correct this. China is by no means an economic superpower (yet), and it's people are by no means super-prosperous, even by Eastern standards.

However, this situation is rapidly improving. China has one of the highest growing economies in the world, it has recently joined the WTO and many analysists believe that it has overtaken Italy economically.

Potentially, it has the posibility to overtake France in the not too distant future.

This is, of course, because of China's abandonment of most old style dictatorial socialist economics since Deng Xiaoping took over.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Greadius

He doesn't. Please Australia isn't in the job description.

Yes. Most US citizens I know don't think that elections in Europe will affect their domestic well-being, but many citizens of of non-US countries seem to believe that they have a vested interest in US politics. Why?

Of course, if China had a coup and the new goverment started attacking India, for example, that would be a different matter.

And from the other point of view, some in the Middle East feel that the US feels too free to bomb other counties. We should consider this point of view. Is the US like the Athenians in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War XVII, who told the Melians, in effect, "justice" is the will of the stronger force? Is it OK for the US to bomb weaker nations, but not OK for anyone to bomb the US?

Note, however, that this question would apply to Clinton, GW Bush, and Al Gore. The results of a presidential election would not really change this aspect of US foriegn policy.