Every election year, a smaller percentage of eligible voters actually goes to the polls. As a result, elections in america seem to be decided by highly motivated issue voters-the Religious Right, for example. Since many Americans don’t participate in this representative democracy, do you think they would notice if we had no vote? Do you think most Americans would be happier with a monarchy or a benevolent dictatorship to make their choices for them?
I wonder if “benevolent dictatorship” is not an oxymoron. I think we are doing just fine. Part of being a democracy is having the right not to vote if you don’t wish to. Yes that means that the more motivated get better representation, but such is life.
Benevolent dictators are quite common through out history. Do you think royal Europe of days past was just one big bloodbath?
As long as the government can’t make any laws that are unconstitutional, I don’t see too much of a reason anybody has to put their two cents in and vote. If they make like they want to repeal the bill of rights, people might get upset. On local issues, if you don’t participate, there’s always some one else out there willing to.
Most people are basically good, and the republicrats are the only real party. If it doesn’t matter who wins, why vote?
yes
…ceased to be a democracy in 1933, with the assumption of imperial powers by President Roosevelt. Basically, the US went to an imperial form of government-the Supreme Court became a rubber stamp, as did congress. The senate toady has become a hereditary body-witness the rise of the Kennedy and Gore dynasties, for example.
The real thing that prevents democracy now is the washingtom bureaucracy - it can neither be removed or changed.
So your vote isn’t worth much, unfortunately
I hold that the low voter turnout is more about being satasfied than being cynical. Look at teh voter turnout in Haiti or Africa, the Phillipines, or other countries where life is difficult and there arte a billion things wrong with the government. They will run in the high 90% range.
Why would people go out and vote when they don’t think that things are going to get worse and when they are perfectly happy?
…ceased to be a democracy in 1789, when the Founding Fathers set up an unconstitutional undemocratic system. The legalistic stretching of clauses and the strained contortions that the system is subjected to are the only thing that keep the system from collapsing from its own dead weight.
The real thing that prevents democracy now is the Constitution itself. And you never get to vote on it.
So your vote isn’t worth much, unfortunately.
Moderately on Topic:
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he said that the Dems will not leave anything to chance for the upcoming election. This is the reason that they put Daly in as head of AG’s campaign. Daly, obviously – because of his Dad and the Voting Dead in Chicago – knows how to fix an election with voter fraud!
(It is a good thing that Rush picks on political targets. Some of the stuff he says is so close to libel and slander!)
The USA ceased to be a democracy before it was formed. Powerful, wealthy, landed elites controlled politics in the colonial era, and the revolution merely reduced the power derived from the crown in England, essentially retaining the status quo of domestic politics. The plutocracy has never left power.
Up with the new boss, same as the old boss…
Some replies and feelings:
quote:
True, but you never can be SURE can you...from my recollections of history, the European monarchy system was PRETTY DARN CLOSE to one big bloodbath punctuated by the occaisional wise ruler.
quote:
~~~Most people are basically good, and the republicrats are the only real party.
the REPUBLICANS, eek, I'd rather the dictator.
quote:
~~~Gore dynasties
Just curious what you are referring too. The Kennedy dynasty of course I am familiar with, but Gore?
quote:
~~~...ceased to be a democracy in 1789, when the Founding Fathers set up an unconstitutional undemocratic system.
I agree. In fact technically the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Means we don't get to give a direct input on stuff (which does irk me)
quote:
~~~I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he said that the Dems *will not* leave anything to chance for the upcoming election.
Republicans accusing Democrats of moral turpitude is about as hypocritical as things can get.
quote:
~~~It is a good thing that Rush picks on political targets. Some of the stuff he says is so close to libel and slander!
Some?We never were a democracy…We are a representative democracy. Democracy means one “man” one vote for everything. In a republic you elect a person to vote for you.
Your definition is overly narrow. Representative democracy is a form of democracy. You are refering to what is called “direct” “simple” or “pure” democracy.
On a related note, when people say that the US is not a democracy but rather a constitutional republic, they are making the same error. By the broadest definition, a democracy is any system wherein the right to govern is theoretically derived from the consent of the people. As opposed to coming from divine right, right of royal blood, right of conquest, or any other justification.
From the AOL dictionary (the last authority on all matters)
democracy: government in which the supreme power is vested in the people directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held elections.
2Sense is correct, and I defer to her greater knowledge.
Well, I am sure that some of what he says is true, after all, even a blind pig finds acorns once in a while 8^)
I think too, when people refer to USofA as a “democracy” they are not necessarily referring to the federal gov’t but the tradition from New England of the town meeting. While it is now mostly memory, that was true democracy.
[quote]
Just curious what you are referring too. The Kennedy dynasty of course I am familiar with, but Gore?
[/quote
I believe he's referring to Al Gore's daddy, also named Al Gore, who was a U.S. Senator from Tennessee. i'm not sure that counts as a dynasty, but even using the word bothers me. We're supposed to be a free people, yet we seem to want to have a royal family, and we keep looking for folks like the Kennedys to fill the position.
[quote]
The USA ceased to be a democracy before it was formed. Powerful, wealthy, landed elites controlled politics in the
colonial era, and the revolution merely reduced the power derived from the crown in England, essentially retaining the
status quo of domestic politics. The plutocracy has never left power.
[/quote]
That's not entirely accurate. Yes, power ws in the hands of the landowners, and only free, white, propertied males had any say in the running of the country. However, thanks to the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution, those elites lost their influence and property. In addition, at least we had American nobs running the place. Now we have foreign multinationals essentially buying the candidates and running America to suit their interests.Uh, if they set up the constitution to be that way then how can it be unconstitutional?
Marc