The United States: a pseudo dictatorship?

[Phlegmak]

I don't have a lot of time to write right now. I'll add more information later.

I've been pondering this notion that the United States is no longer a "democracy". That is, Americans cannot vote out their leaders. During the last elections for Congress? in California, 99% of the incumbents stayed in power. Gerrymandering exists for Congressmen to stay in power. Lobbyists are essentially legal bribers. They provide money to Congressmen to change laws in the favor of lobbyists. The lobbyists represent corporations; therefore, giving corporations a tremendous amount of political power.

The most obvious nondemocratic feature of American politics is the presidential races. In a dictatorship, you have one party ruling everything, typically lead by a single person. The Soviet Union is a good example of that. In the US, we obviously have many parties, but there are only two that have any hope of ever winning the presidential elections. The presidential debates ONLY have the candidates from the two major parties. No other parties are represented. The newspapers primarily focus on the two candidates from the two major parties. In short, the media favors the two major parties TREMENDOUSLY. The system is basically set up to maintain the dominance of the two major parties. Also, the two major parties want the other to never dissipate. Each party is the other's scapegoat for all the problems in the US. The two parties feed from each other.

Obviously, there's a tremendous amount of information I'm lacking in my statements above. I simply don't have the time right now to look it all up. My example of California Congressmen might be wrong; I might have the wrong state. Also, my statement about Americans not being able to vote out their leaders is technically incorrect; however, the political system as it is in the US today is built to maintain the dominance of the two parties.

Please provide your thoughts.

 

[MobBoss]

I
I've been pondering this notion that the United States is no longer a "democracy". That is, Americans cannot vote out their leaders. During the last elections for Congress? in California, 99% of the incumbents stayed in power. Gerrymandering exists for Congressmen to stay in power. Lobbyists are essentially legal bribers. They provide money to Congressmen to change laws in the favor of lobbyists. The lobbyists represent corporations; therefore, giving corporations a tremendous amount of political power.

Uhm....was Gov Gray Davis of California voted out of office in a special election by the people?

The most obvious nondemocratic feature of American politics is the presidential races. In a dictatorship, you have one party ruling everything, typically lead by a single person. The Soviet Union is a good example of that. In the US, we obviously have many parties, but there are only two that have any hope of ever winning the presidential elections. The presidential debates ONLY have the candidates from the two major parties. No other parties are represented.

I dont see the point of having the American Communist Party involved in debate since they have zero chance of winning anything. I dont see the presidential races as undemocratic at all.

Obviously, there's a tremendous amount of information I'm lacking in my statements above. I simply don't have the time right now to look it all up. My example of California Congressmen might be wrong; I might have the wrong state. Also, my statement about Americans not being able to vote out their leaders is technically incorrect; however, the political system as it is in the US today is built to maintain the dominance of the two parties.

Question. If you are not American why the interest in American politics?

 

[DragonRunner]

Throughout American history, there have ALWAYS been two political parties. However, what you fail to realize is that these parties reflect the views of their constituents. For example, the formation of the Republican party immediately prior to the Civil War was based on the northern anti-slavery consensus. The parties change to reflect the goals of the people who vote for them. There's your democracy. A more than two party system simply doesn't work in American politics- because a candidate is required to recieve a majority of the votes before he is elected, too many candidates would mean that no one would gain a majority. Within the parties, there is still ample room for different opinions. For example- the Republican party has those christian conservatives, neocons, ultra-right wingers, and more moderates such as John McCain. It is the same in the Democratic party.
Two-Party rule is simply necessary. Parties fluctuate in their goals and ideals. Overall, however, America is still a very democratic country, thanks to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Look at the uproar that has been created over the wiretapping of a few thousand citizens in a country with 300 million people. America is still definitely a republic, and in no way a dictatorship.

 

[DragonRunner]

Question. If you are not American why the interest in American politics?

Yes he is American- he's from a town very near where I live.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I think it would be better described as an oligarchy with a split personality disorder. There is no one man in charge, so it is not a dictatorship. Americans also can vote out their leaders, it is just that most people either don't care or aren't pissed off enough to want to. Grey Davis got himself evicted from the governor's office pretty quick because he had angered enough people to make them want to get rid of him pretty bad. The reason I call the country an oligarchy with a split personality disorder is because there is no one dominant political ideology in the country, and it swings back and forth with half the country telling the other half what to do for a number of years, then the other half running the country in a completely different manner for a number of years. About the only thing that can be counted as consistent in our government is pork and corruption, which both parties make considerable use of.

 

[mike p]

The most obvious nondemocratic feature of American politics is the presidential races. In a dictatorship, you have one party ruling everything, typically lead by a single person. The Soviet Union is a good example of that. In the US, we obviously have many parties, but there are only two that have any hope of ever winning the presidential elections. The presidential debates ONLY have the candidates from the two major parties. No other parties are represented. The newspapers primarily focus on the two candidates from the two major parties. In short, the media favors the two major parties TREMENDOUSLY. The system is basically set up to maintain the dominance of the two major parties. Also, the two major parties want the other to never dissipate. Each party is the other's scapegoat for all the problems in the US. The two parties feed from each other.

The two party system is a consequence of our election methods. Since the largest plurality wins the natural course of action for any special interest group is too line up with a preexisiting coalition. A European parlaiment model, with representation in the legislature based on the percentage each party receives in each election would tend to result in a more than two party government a lot more often. But that is actually a bad thing!

The fact that we have two broad coalitions of interests mean that special interests need to compromise and dilute their goals. If getting 2% of the vote was all you needed to get 2% of the seats in Congress, Congress would look a whole lot different. I see no benefit in having a few members of Congress who would be outright Communists, Nazis, or White Supremicists. For that matter the Dixiecrats might still be in power in the south. But since these marginal groups don't have any measure of broad electoral appeal, they are officially shunned by the two major parties, instead of rewarded with a couple of seats in the legislature.

In my opinion, the 2 party aspect of the US electoral system is a benefit, not a problem. Almost half the country seems to hate Clinton, and almost half Bush, but the fact of the matter is that 90% of the time their policies would be indistinguishable because they both play to the middle. Most of the heat in US politics is due to personalities and wedge issues, rather than broad fundamental doctrinal differences.

I will agree that gerrymandering and congressional districting could be handled more fairly, but that's a separate issue from 2 party v multiparty.

 

[Urederra]

I am not american an I don't know what exactly the lobbyists do, but it seems to me that is not very democratic. Perhaps somebody could tell us what a lobbyist really does so the rest of the non-american posters can have a better idea. My impression, though, is that money can change laws and buy decisions, which is not very democratic, as I say.

The other thing that worries me is the lack of response from the US citizens. The number or people who votes in the presidential elections seems very low to me. It doesn't reach 50 %. That doesn't make the US a dictatorship but it is something to worry about.

The US democracy is the oldest in the world. On one hand you can argue that is obsolete, but on the other hand, you have to agree that it works, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so long.

I dont see the point of having the American Communist Party involved in debate since they have zero chance of winning anything. I dont see the presidential races as undemocratic at all.

Maybe a third party with ideas located in the middle of the other two won't hurt. There are options other than the communists.BTW, I think that the communist ideas are not compatible with democracy, and as history tells, communist parties have used democracy to reach the power and then and change the regime. There is no room for a communist party in a democracy.


EDIT: Oh... I forgot. My impression is that there are only two parties because in the presidential elections the party who win a state wins all the congressmen, or all the votes (please correct me if i am wrong) no matter if the party who wins does it by 10 or 1 million votes. So a third party does not have the chance. (EDIT2: Mike explains it very well in his post)

 

[CartesianFart]

I think it would be better described as an oligarchy

I wouldnt say oligarchy,unless there is a secret group of men and women that really run things. Maybe you can ascribe the word oligarchy to the judicial branch of the Supreme Court.But oligarcy is definately not our form of government.

The president and the senate do have to be lenient toward the businessmen from via lobbyist,i guess you can call all corporate policy makers oligarchs.But our government in the public sector is not oligarchy.

 

[mike p]

The US democracy is the oldest in the world. On one hand you can argue that is obsolete, but on the other hand, you have to agree that it works, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted so long.

You stole my next point! Almost word for word.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I wouldnt say oligarchy,unless there is a secret group of men and women that really run things. Maybe you can ascribe the word oligarchy to the judicial branch of the Supreme Court.But oligarcy is definately not our form of government.

The president and the senate do have to be lenient toward the businessmen from via lobbyist,i guess you can call all corporate policy makers oligarchs.But our government in the public sector is not oligarchy.

A fair point, but that was the only word I could think of to describe our system. Roughly half the country rules for a while, then the other half becomes marginally popular enough to take over and run things in a completely different manner.

 

[Samson]

Throughout American history, there have ALWAYS been two political parties.

The way I understood it was that the people who set up the system explicetly set it up to PREVENT the party system, but it did not work well (only took 20 years for the parties to form IIRC?).

Two-Party rule is simply necessary.

Evidence (or at least some sort of explanation)?

Look at the uproar that has been created over the wiretapping of a few thousand citizens in a country with 300 million people. America is still definitely a republic, and in no way a dictatorship.

Yeah, people may be in uproar over the law protecting peoples essential personal rights being broken by the people who are supposed to be protecting them, but what is the chance of those poeple losing there jobs, let alone being sent down?

My personal belief is that unless there are significant differences in the political staces of the parties that have a chance of winning the elction then there is no real democracy. I belive france has this difference, and we in the UK had it until Blair took over the labour party. If I could belive the Lib Dems had a chance, we may be close. In the important issues, I cannot find much to distingish the 2 parties in america. From the people I have met over there I do not belive this tiny range of political options in any way relates to the distribution of views in the population.

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

You realize that we've never had a true democracy on the federal level for voting in the executive right? It is all up to the electoral college and most of the time they follow the people's wishes, but other times they don't, like the "Corrupt Bargain" that elected Rutherford B. Hayes.

 

[HannibalBarka]

America, I mean the US of A are a fine democracy, It is the least country I'll see becoming a dictatorship. Really, I lived in the US for some 3 years, and if there is some thing I'll take my hat to the Americans for is their love and comittment to freedom. And God (I don't know if I can say that being an atheist) knows that I am not found of American politics. Actually the world would be a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better place would the American Government shows the same kind of respect they have to their citizens to other people. If some thing bad would happen, it would be more like a "religious government" than a dictatorship.

 

[CartesianFart]

A fair point, but that was the only word I could think of to describe our system. Roughly half the country rules for a while, then the other half becomes marginally popular enough to take over and run things in a completely different manner.

Sometimes i get confuse on what really is our government.Probably the old saying of "Tyranny by the Majority."

 

[Sidhe]

THe US is not the oldest democracy in the world? What kind of nonsense is that exactly? I think you'll find Athens/Sparta etc etc all had a system of democracy long before The US, and England and France also became democratic before America did? I'm not sure I understand that? Do you mean the youngest democracy in the world

Mob boss said why would you be interested in American politics if you were not from america, If only the complete oposite were true why would you be interested in world politics if you were from America

 

[Odin2006]

More like a corporate-backed oligarchy than a dictatorship, and it will be that way until we have public financing of elections and get the media out of the hands of conglomerate corporations that have a vested intrest in slanting the news in a way to help the profits of the rest of the comglomerate.

 

[Phlegmak]

THe US is not the oldest democracy in the world? What kind of nonsense is that exactly? I think you'll find Athens/Sparta etc etc all had a system of democracy long before Sparta and England and france also became democratic before America did? I'm not sure I understand that? Do you mean the youngest democracy in the world

They mean the current oldest. Greek city states may be extremely ancient democracies, but they were conquered. The United States has one of the oldest governments on Earth, right now. Let me illustrate. China is a communist nation now. For how long? Around 50 years. Ergo, China's government is extremely young. Greece has been occupied for a very long time. It's a democracy now, but it only became an independent democracy in the 20th century, ergo, Greece is a younger democracy than the US.

By the way, the real definition of democracy is one person, one vote. The citizenry votes for everything. A republic is where the citizenry votes for representatives, who handle the government. The US is actually a republic. I used democracy in my initial post because that's how the US is most often described. So the definition of democracy for this discussion is a republic with a high level of freedoms.

 

[MamboJoel]

The major election (the presidential) is based on a federal winner takes it all system : this statistically allmost every time leads to a 1 vs 1 battle. Do you guys think this implication spreaded on the other big elections (say mayor, gov, sen and house) ?
I think the overall system isn't completly democratic, but what system is completly ? Should we have a populist all referundum democracy or tune the system to make it stronger ? That's all the dilemma of the founders of any constitution.
I like the High Chamber representing the institutions and the more reactive Low Chamber true bicameral system you have in the state (in France, the low chamber allways has the last world), but I still feel you're presidential election can't be considered a success of Democracy.
It makes candidates spend 95% of their campaign time in 5% of the country but when they're elected their policy is to be applied to the whole country.
I really wonder why a Rep voter even bother voting in California or New York in a presidential election. Besides beeing unfair, it doesn't promote democracy. And as a result we can take a look at the very low amount of people voting.

Also, having only two parties supported by the medias makes them look more and more the same : you have a right wing and a left wing in both parties they tend to position themselves more depending on the regions in fact (compare an Alabama Democrate and a New York Republican).

Having only too parties makes lobbying more profitable, you allways have the same guys in the chambers (for decades !), it tends to make the democracy falling a sleep in a sort of oligarchy dominated by two dominant parties if not families, that don't look so much different at the end of the day.

 

[CartesianFart]

More like a corporate-backed oligarchy than a dictatorship, and it will be that way until we have public financing of elections and get the media out of the hands of conglomerate corporations that have a vested intrest in slanting the news in a way to help the profits of the rest of the comglomerate.

PREACH ON ! BROTHER ODIN! PREACH ON!

 

[Phlegmak]

If "dictatorship" is the wrong word for American government, then I think a better description is "plutocracy": government by the rich. Or, if you prefer, "oligarchical plutocracy" or "plutocratic oligarchy." I cannot believe that we have fair elections when 99% of incumbents are always reelected to Congress and two parties are always represented in the media during presidential elections.

Lobbyists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist
http://www.princetonreview.com/cte/profiles/dayInLife.asp?careerID=88
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp

I cannot accept the notion that two parties are the ideal way to run the US. It's irrelevant if the current laws work best with two parties. The laws can be changed. For example, a simple plebiscite can be used to elect presidents. That means whoever gets the most popular votes wins. No more electoral college.

I'm going to have to go with public funding of elections. That way, the rich aren't the only people to be able to run for office. Also, televised debates must include all of the candidates. Perhaps candidates can raise 1 million signatures first to allow them to participate in the debates. Obviously, there are a lot of problems with all of this.