So no one answered my questions about the American and British Constitutional Referendums?
I ask again then since you are all so interested in my countries referendum, then I am interested in yours too.
What was voter turnout numbers and % of YES votes when American and British citizens voted in on their constitution?
Any Americans or British here?
Egyptian women take the lead.
55% of the votes who voted YES were women.
We don’t do that. We’re Representative Democracies, and not “Direct Democracies.”
The U.S. and Great Britain are simply too large to be governed by direct vote of the people. We elect people at a local level, who get together (Congress) and talk (Parliament) about what should be done.
The city-state of Athens, in the early centuries B.C., might have been able to run by direct democracy. Some townships and counties in New England have open meetings where policy is debated by everyone who shows up. But when you’re up in the hundreds of millions of citizens, it doesn’t work.
Egypt is double population of Britain.
Egypt has 2 chambers of Parliament like them.
Egypt is much bigger country and more spread out with much worse infrastructure organisation etc
How come Egyptians could organise it and British can’t? Isn’t Britain a first world country? G8 and all that.
America has only 200,000 voters. Egypt has 50 million. USA is a superpower G8 country. It can handle war all over the world but can’t be governed by direct vote of the people? That’s convenient for warlords and bankers etc, BUT you didn’t answer my question.
What % of Americans voted YES to your constitution when it was put to the people? whose population was a lot smaller I expect then.
You see the funny thing here is this.
You are all here debating about democracy and right to vote and referendums and results on Egypt.
Yet if I am right.
The Egyptians got to vote for their constitution.
Americans didn’t.
Egyptians got to choose to accept it or not.
Americans didn’t.
Egyptians could put their crosses and dip their finger in the ink and wave their hands and say they voted YES
BUT Americans didn’t.
The British is even worse. They don’t even have a dostour. They have a queen. They are not equal because they are subjects! She is the boss and they swear allegiance to her.
British say they have true democracy.
Where is it then?
They have 2 parties and if they don’t like either they have no one to lobby for them in Parliament.
They have a lower house of unelected lords. A monarch that was not elected. Their army and police and judiciary all swear allegiance to the crown not the people. British don’t get a referendum if the Queen wants to take the country to war. British have no say in whether they want nuclear weapons dotted all around the country. and a million other things.
So in fact there is zero democracy in the UK either.
So no comments back about the ‘Brotherhood infiltration’ in the US Administration either then?
Doesn’t that worry you all?
I guess it wouldn’t worry you if they are working FOR you I suppose.
Georgetown University DC
Infested with Muslim Brotherhood members :eek:
One of the reasons we don’t have direct democracy is that it doesn’t work on this scale. Egypt is an example of how and why it doesn’t work.
Off by a factor of a thousand.
It’s part of why we have bankers, but not warlords. There aren’t any soldiers patrolling my streets. There aren’t any tanks shooting at our Capitol building. We’ve worked out the principles of self-government. Egypt is still working on this. Meanwhile, Egypt is under the control of the military…and the U.S. is not.
Our democratic system is part (but not all) of why we aren’t under the control of the military.
We elected people to go and represent us, both at the Constitutional Convention, and at the State Capitals where the Constitution was ratified.
No system is perfect. No system ever can be perfect. But representative self-government, when it is allowed to function, works pretty damn well.
When it fails, then there is Civil War, and that’s damnably unpleasant.
So the boycott was, at most, a minor reason for the low turnout?
[QUOTE=Marmite Lover]
2. I already answered the ballot question.
[/QUOTE]
What, aloud? You didn’t answer it in this thread.
Egyptians have already been through a lot recently and they don’t want civil war. Most of them anyway. They also don’t want a military crackdown & dictatorship. What they’ve got right now is better than the immediate alternatives, but Egyptians aren’t going to stay quiet any longer than they did after Pharaoh Morsi apparently lied his way into power.
Fundamentalist Islam, or political Islam, or Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever you want to call it, will go away approximately the same time Christian Conservatives in the US go extinct and Israel & Iran join together wearing togas and worshiping Zeus.
One man one vote worked just fine this week
Same in Egypt. We have police like you patrolling streets.
Same in Egypt. Not heard any tank fire in my life in Egypt. However you army are firing tanks a plenty and selling tanks a plenty and are arming Israel with them to demolish houses and kill whole families. They ousted Gaddafy and handed the keys to his tanks to Al Qaeda etc etc etc…
So your president is not commander in chief then?
see above
So each citizen did not get to vote.
Americans are passive. When you have a protest you play guitars and sing because anything more than that you would be shot dead. Egyptians broke through that fear barrier.
Don’t worry that will never happen. Keeping the people in fear works fine for the government of USA.
at end of the day
Morsi dostour got 11 million Yes votes
Amr Moussa dostour got 20 million Yes votes
Enough said
Before Americans believe their media and their Western reporters who bring them the news. Remember this. It’s very easy to fool the public back home.
Sorry Uncle, but what you are peddling is racist bullshit from unreliable sources.
Large numbers of people boycotted the election. This is a problem.
You don’t know what the word “warlord” means. The U.S. has none.
The President is a civilian. He is not in the military.
You apparently know nothing about the U.S.
Well, if you find any people who said that, then you might have a point. But “probably” doesn’t cut it.
Yeah, since the current government got there via a coup!
I agree.
Uncle, your cite says nothing of the sort.
Did you link to the wrong one?
BTW, a friend and I were trying to recall the punch line to a popular anti-Mubarak joke from the 90s and early 2000s.
“What’s the difference between a camel’s ass and Mubarak?”
Thank you in advance for your answer.
What you’re trying to conveniently ignore is that the opposition is boycotting the vote.
No election in the USA from 1960-95 resulted in anything near 97% in favor of the victor. A 60-40 split in a presidential election is a landslide victory for the winner. A 97-3 split is a rigged election.
This is just sad, conspiratorial horseshit you’re trying to shovel here. I asked for a cite from something other than WND or rense.com, and while technically not from either of those sites I assumed “or of comparable quality” was implied. For youe edification, Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories.
Trinopus is right, you really don’t get how things work in the US or functioning democracies. The military answers to civilian leadership, not the other way around. Yes, the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. He is also a civilian. Eisenhower had to resign his commission in the Army before entering office; by law the president can not be a member of the military. See civilian control of the military.
To tell you the truth, I don’t understand the distinction. Eisenhower resigned - he just removed the title from himself. He was still the boss of the top general. And he was still the same person exactly that he was right before he resigned. So the difference was only symbolic, and did not affect anything. What if he didn’t resign - other than symbolism, what would have changed?
If Sisi runs for president/wins, resigns from the military but retains (let’s say according to the Egyptian Constitution, even though I don’t know exactly how it handles that) full control over the military, from the top general down, does that affect anything? Just because now he’s called “Mr.” vs. “General”?