What if you lived in a Democracy?

[njtt]

@Stoneburg

At the moment, the Libertarians and the Green Party would be able to form a government. I’d assume the L party would get the majority of the positions, but a reasonable negotiation would probably land the Greens with positions regarding enviroment, energy and infrastructure, while the L would get the economic and social areas.

Oh yeah! That would work. :rolleyes:

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@gonzomax

The repubs are just a tool of big money and big business. They do not have the well being of the nation in their platforms.
The dems are too easy to fold under lobbying pressure. While they may actually state they have the correct values, it rarely comes to fruition.
The Libertarians are the most illogical, small minded, selfish and unrealistic people in politics. They are repubs on steroids with a vigilante ethic tossed in.
That leaves me with Green. At least they have an honest appraisal of what damage we are doing to our health and the planet.

Greens are equally illogical and irrational and will destroy the American economy. The already ridiculous restrictions on nuclear power plants and offshore and ANWR drilling will get worse and what little of the once great American manufacturing system especially the automotive industry will be destroyed.

[tomndebb]

We don’t do polls in GD. The poll has been closed.
[ /Modding ]

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@tomndebb

We don’t do polls in GD. The poll has been closed.
[ /Modding ]

Why not? What’s so wrong about a poll in GD?

[tomndebb]

Great Debates is set up to allow posters to establish positions and defend them with facts and logic or to challenge positions taken by other posters using the same tools.
If you want to know what a group of other people feel about a topic, then it belongs in In My Humble Opinion.
Polls add nothing to a debate. They cannot be used to support actual arguments, (other than saying more posters who bothered to respond to this thread in a totally unscientific selection process support my side, not yours, nyah nyah nyah), and they actually encourage that sort of behavior.

If someone wishes to take a poll in IMHO and then open a separate thread in GD to discuss issues raised in the IMHO poll, that is fine, but the two actions are separate and will be segregated on the SDMB.

[ /Modding ]

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Problem is, the Greens are downright Luddite when it comes to economic issues. They also border on authoritarian.

What exactly is Luddite about their platform?

And “authoritarian” is not how any reasonable person would describe the 10 Key Values.

[Derleth]

Americans do live in a Democracy. We live in a Republican Democracy, where ‘Republican’ is a form of Democracy, much like Direct Democracy is.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

@adaher

I think foreigners sometimes get confused about our system. First, our system wasn’t made to accomodate political parties. Political parties came about naturally, as they always do, but they had to set themselves up outside the system. Legally, political parties don’t have much power, at least not compared to systems where parties are integral to the system.

I’m probably not being clear enough here. I’m guilty of that a lot. So let’s compare the US system to a Parliamentary system. Take the vote on health care. In say, Britain, if a Labor member voted against health care, they could be expelled from the party, could they not? Aren’t party members often required to vote a certain way unless “released”? In the US, everyone is free to vote how they please and no one can be expelled from a party. Neither is there an entrance requirement. You are a Democrat if you say you are a Democrat. Nothing more is required.

Secondly, American political parties are big tents, historically overlapping each other on the political spectrum. A centrist can credibly belong to either party. Our elections are a lot like tournaments with two brackets: a bunch of lefties and centrists competing for the Democratic nomination, and a bunch of righties and centrists competing for the Republican nomination. So it’s not as if we don’t have choices. Almost all of the attributes people look for in a third party are at least partly represented in one of the existing parties unless it’s a truly fringe view.

Finally, if we wanted to get serious, we could strike a big blow against political parties: we could simply lobby our state legislatures to have all ballots printed without party affiliation listed. A town in North Carolina did this, although the Democratic Party sued them and won(I guess they figure their voters won’t know who to vote for otherwise?) But there is no constitutional right to have your party catered to by helpfully listing it on a ballot.

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about UK mp’s - who by the way are elected through a single member plurality system, like the represenattives in the US - in that they can decide themselves what they vote. Going against the party might of course have effects on the party’s support for the next election; just as what can happen in the US. In reality I do think it’s safe to say that british MP’s are more entrenched in their party than their US counterparts, and most of them are probably a member (with registration, annual fees etc.) of their party.

Your second point is quite valid. One way to look at this, is that the coaltion formations that take place after elections in proportional representation (PR)systems - most of europe and also what most developping (new) democracies seem to opt for nowadays - takes place before elections in systems where we have these ‘tent parties’. In the US, primaries are the arena where different interests from within the party come together and where candidates have to find a position that will give them enough support to become the candidate. This often entails a move to the left for democrats and to the right for republicans (for obvious reasons). After being nominated, both candidates will be most likely to move to the middle again (see Downsian models) to get as large a vote as possible.

What your last point is concerned, most countries tarted out this way (no constitutional mention of parties), but over the years more and more party-related provisions are being incorporated (in general) according to some reserch I’ve seen. (most of it is from a project by someone of my department and ahsn’t been published yet, afaik)
What the OP’s question is concerned, it is a bit provocative to declare the US not to be democratic, but I think it would be interesting to see what the US political land scape would look like in it had a PR system. It’s also funny to see how most reactions are (sometimes knee-jerkishly) in defence of the US system. One of my cleagues, who is American, says that it is realy funny how her polisci lectures here (the netherlands, probably [one of] the most proportional systems in the world) will end up in her having to show that one member plurality systems do have its benefits and poitive sides; while when teaching in the US, she had the exact opposite experience, ie defending PR systems. I gues you’ll learn to love what you’re used to.

[Frustrated_Wonderer]

America is not very close to being a direct Democracy.

Heck, even half the population does not vote because they know that voting won’t make much of a difference.

The Senate is composed of only 100 people, hardly a fair representation of the whole American populous whereas the House of Representatives has, what, 435 members? That is somewhat closer to a direct democracy but still way off the mark.

In most cases the more localized the politician elected, the more democratic the process.

Still, it falls quite short of Athenian Democracy, which was not perfect, but was much more lively in the political domain because virtually all Male Athenians had a say on the issue.

By the way, I consider myself an Anarchist, which is a dying breed.

I base my Anarchism on Noam Chomsky and George Orwell (as evidenced in his much ignored book “Homage to Catalonia”).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

I’m probably not being clear enough here. I’m guilty of that a lot. So let’s compare the US system to a Parliamentary system. Take the vote on health care. In say, Britain, if a Labor member voted against health care, they could be expelled from the party, could they not? Aren’t party members often required to vote a certain way unless “released”? In the US, everyone is free to vote how they please and no one can be expelled from a party. Neither is there an entrance requirement. You are a Democrat if you say you are a Democrat. Nothing more is required.

Doesn’t work that way. Although MPs are expected to vote along party lines, they don’t have to. In fact, it’s more likely that a backbench revolt (ie., MPs from the ruling party refusing to vote for a particular important piece of legislation) would bring down the government than that the government would expel an MP.

@Frustrated_Wonderer

The Senate is composed of only 100 people, hardly a fair representation of the whole American populous whereas the House of Representatives has, what, 435 members? That is somewhat closer to a direct democracy but still way off the mark.

In most cases the more localized the politician elected, the more democratic the process.

Still, it falls quite short of Athenian Democracy, which was not perfect, but was much more lively in the political domain because virtually all Male Athenians had a say on the issue.

You’re joking, right? Adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military service and were not in debt could vote, yes… which only left out the slaves, women, foreign-born, children, debtholders, physically disabled and conscientious objectors who made up the other ~85% of the population.