• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Don't cuss me but what if....

  • Thread starter Thread starter BH
  • Start date Start date
The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy.
No, it's not.

It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.
Not really. With longevity of service comes accumulated power as is seen when we have Senators and Representatives serving, at the will of the people, many, many years.

I understand that you sympathize with your system where governments are formed and fall...not by vote of the people but by vote of other elected officials.
Sounds like your impeachment process to me
I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic, even though I also support as close to 100% registration and voting of the eligible electorate.
We do not have compulsory voting. We do have , essentially, compulsory voter registration (but with the crucial distinction that whom who may vote for is not important). We also have compulsory attendance but we do not have compulsory voting.
Once my name is ticked off and I have the ballots in my hand I can do almost what I wish with those ballots. I can tear them up, set them on fire (might spook the horses though), deface them, throw them on the ground and storm out, put them into the boxes unmarked etc. With no penalty apart from perhaps being a public nuisance. One thing I cannot do is give them to another person to use, nor can i remove them from the polling station.
Anti-democratic is where electorates are chosen based upon previous polling intentions, or your skin colour, or any other criteria, apart from purely numeric.
An Australian friend on his way back to Australia was worried about his flight arriving on time so that he could participate in the mandatory vote —for which ejection I don’t remember but it was last year.
 
Elixir said:
"I can easily envision Brownshirts in the streets,"
tRump's brownshirts have already stormed the capital building on 1/6/2021.

I strongly suggest that us nons in the US change our voter registration to republican before the primary election in your state,
so as to vote against tRump, and try to keep him from being nominated.
I have changed my registration. I don't care who the Dems nominate.
I live in Pennsylvania. My informal man-in-the-street poll indicates that Democrat voters have taken the anti-Biden propaganda to heart, and may vote for tRump.
So I'm worried.
We have open primaries here in Michigan. All I have to do is tell the poll worker I want a dem or rep ballot.

I actually don't like open primaries. Why should someone who's not a member of the party have a say in who will represent the party?
 
Guilty until proven innocent? (Don't get me wrong Trump is a clown and should never have been elected.) But he is also entitled (however reluctantly) to the presumption of innocence and a fair (sic) trial. Even as an ex-president.
Toni is neither judge, jury or prosecutor. Not even sure she's a lawyer. So having an opinion based on context is definitely legit.

An Australian friend on his way back to Australia was worried about his flight arriving on time so that he could participate in the mandatory vote —for which ejection I don’t remember but it was last year.
There was the Federal Election. And if they lived in New South Wales or Victoria it could have been the state one as well.
 
The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy.
As I remember it, that law was passed to stop Nixon from running for a third term. He was looking a little power hungry.

If voting could change anything ... it would be illegal.
If not voting could change anything ... that too would be illegal.
I don't remember where that quote is from.
 
It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.
I disagree. The intrinsic value of regularly turning over the office IMO exceeds the value of retaining any individual’s power (with very limited exception e.g. WWII), as far as long term democratic system viability is concerned.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm saying that it's antidemocratic. Because it is.

Democracy isn't always a good thing. In fact, it should be reserved solely for matters in which a sensible way forward cannot be agreed upon by other means.

Term limits are (as I said), a strength of your system, but they are very obviously antidemocratic, because they overrule the opinion of the voters.
 
I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic
Then you don't understand what "democracy" is.

Hint: It's not synonymous with "good government", not is it the antonym of "oppression".

Saying "X is democratic" or "Y is antidemocratic" tells us nothing about the speaker's opinion on whether X or Y are good or bad ideas.
 
The fact that a hugely popular president is still only legally allowed to serve 2 terms is a strength of our democracy.
No, it's not.

It might be a strength of your system, but telling voters that they can't keep a popular ruler is as antidemocratic as telling them that they must keep an unpopular one.
Not really. With longevity of service comes accumulated power as is seen when we have Senators and Representatives serving, at the will of the people, many, many years.

I understand that you sympathize with your system where governments are formed and fall...not by vote of the people but by vote of other elected officials.
Sounds like your impeachment process to me
I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic, even though I also support as close to 100% registration and voting of the eligible electorate.
We do not have compulsory voting. We do have , essentially, compulsory voter registration (but with the crucial distinction that whom who may vote for is not important). We also have compulsory attendance but we do not have compulsory voting.
Once my name is ticked off and I have the ballots in my hand I can do almost what I wish with those ballots. I can tear them up, set them on fire (might spook the horses though), deface them, throw them on the ground and storm out, put them into the boxes unmarked etc. With no penalty apart from perhaps being a public nuisance. One thing I cannot do is give them to another person to use, nor can i remove them from the polling station.
Anti-democratic is where electorates are chosen based upon previous polling intentions, or your skin colour, or any other criteria, apart from purely numeric.
An Australian friend on his way back to Australia was worried about his flight arriving on time so that he could participate in the mandatory vote —for which ejection I don’t remember but it was last year.
Being outside the country is considered a valid excuse not to vote - if you're not in Australia, you are eligible to vote, but not required to.
 
Democracy isn't always a good thing. In fact, it should be reserved solely for matters in which a sensible way forward cannot be agreed upon by other means.
I think we’re talking past each other somewhat. I agree that it is a compromise of pure democratic process. I just consider it more important to preserve that process, imperfect as it is, than to eliminate imperfections when doing so could (would) imperil it in its entirety.
So I don’t consider term limits anti democratic, even though they are a undemocratic component, because they promote the continuation of imperfect democracy.
I think they are not just a good idea but suspect they are necessary to sustaining a “somewhat democracy”, and not a terribly imposing “evil” for the insurance it should provide against tyrants. I also suspect that due to human nature, we aren’t likely to see anything more “democratic”. We shall see if the term limit failsafe works, if Trump “wins”. Seems like most hopeful democracies fall to populism eventually.
 
Last edited:
Democracy isn't always a good thing. In fact, it should be reserved solely for matters in which a sensible way forward cannot be agreed upon by other means.
I think we’re talking past each other somewhat. I agree that it is a compromise of pure democratic process. I just consider it more important to preserve that process, imperfect as it is, than to eliminate imperfections when doing so could (would) imperil it in its entirety.
So I don’t consider term limits anti democratic, even though they are a undemocratic component, because they promote the continuation of imperfect democracy.
I think they are not just a good idea but suspect they are necessary to sustaining a “somewhat democracy”, and not a terribly imposing “evil” for the insurance it should provide against tyrants. I also suspect that due to human nature, we aren’t likely to see anything more “democratic”. We shall see if the term limit failsafe works, if Trump “wins”. Seems like most hopeful democracies fall to populism eventually.
Here’s where term limits give me pause: there is an enormous cadre of civil servants who do almost all of the work necessary to keep the country functioning. Elected officials pontificate, take up a lot of news time and make lots of noise—occasionally passing a piece of legislation and the civil employees not only carry out most of the functioning but are also responsible for generating reports containing g information pertinent to legislation as various agencies’ workings. It’s an enormous amount of power. If we gave a perpetual cycle of newbie legislators, it’s hard to see how any of them can accumulate sufficient understanding of the various wheels at play.
 
I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic
Then you don't understand what "democracy" is.

Hint: It's not synonymous with "good government", not is it the antonym of "oppression".

Saying "X is democratic" or "Y is antidemocratic" tells us nothing about the speaker's opinion on whether X or Y are good or bad ideas.
No: I DO have a very good understanding of democracy. Hint: a democracy does not have a king or queen.

Really what you and I both are saying is that we have different views of what dies and dies not make a good democracy, what features are necessary and which are desirable. I don’t feel any particular reason to critique Australian politics even if Australia gave us that demon family Murdoch. Yes, yes: our fault entirely fir admitting the biggers s d granting them citizenship but still..
 
Elixir said:
"I can easily envision Brownshirts in the streets,"
tRump's brownshirts have already stormed the capital building on 1/6/2021.

I strongly suggest that us nons in the US change our voter registration to republican before the primary election in your state,
so as to vote against tRump, and try to keep him from being nominated.
I have changed my registration. I don't care who the Dems nominate.
I live in Pennsylvania. My informal man-in-the-street poll indicates that Democrat voters have taken the anti-Biden propaganda to heart, and may vote for tRump.
So I'm worried.
We have open primaries here in Michigan. All I have to do is tell the poll worker I want a dem or rep ballot.

I actually don't like open primaries. Why should someone who's not a member of the party have a say in who will represent the party?
Because even members of minority parties have a vested interest in who rules the polity they are a part of. I've voted on the Republican ticket on multiple occasions, as a vaguely Left person in a strongly Democrat-controlled state. Not out of a desire to "game the system", but because I genuinely felt that the Republican race was the more critical. I knew, for instance, that my state would be re-electing Obama. Foregone conclusion. There were no other serious candidates. But it was less clear whether Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum would be occupying the Republican seat. And I truly believed that I had a dog in that fight. Romney and I aren't on the same team, but he's nothing compared what a Santorum presidency would have been like. As, I believe, subsequent events bore out.
 
Democracy isn't always a good thing. In fact, it should be reserved solely for matters in which a sensible way forward cannot be agreed upon by other means.
I think we’re talking past each other somewhat. I agree that it is a compromise of pure democratic process. I just consider it more important to preserve that process, imperfect as it is, than to eliminate imperfections when doing so could (would) imperil it in its entirety.
So I don’t consider term limits anti democratic, even though they are a undemocratic component, because they promote the continuation of imperfect democracy.
I think they are not just a good idea but suspect they are necessary to sustaining a “somewhat democracy”, and not a terribly imposing “evil” for the insurance it should provide against tyrants. I also suspect that due to human nature, we aren’t likely to see anything more “democratic”. We shall see if the term limit failsafe works, if Trump “wins”. Seems like most hopeful democracies fall to populism eventually.
Here’s where term limits give me pause: there is an enormous cadre of civil servants who do almost all of the work necessary to keep the country functioning. Elected officials pontificate, take up a lot of news time and make lots of noise—occasionally passing a piece of legislation and the civil employees not only carry out most of the functioning but are also responsible for generating reports containing g information pertinent to legislation as various agencies’ workings. It’s an enormous amount of power. If we gave a perpetual cycle of newbie legislators, it’s hard to see how any of them can accumulate sufficient understanding of the various wheels at play.
I see that as a problem, but mostly on the right side of the aisle, where narcissism and egotism dictate that lowly pages, interns and career people only exist to serve the elected [trumpsucking moron] elites’ capricious and often idiotic whims.

Most reasonably competent leaders OTOH are able to recognize and utilize the skills and talents of the people actually manning the ropes.
 
Democracy isn't always a good thing. In fact, it should be reserved solely for matters in which a sensible way forward cannot be agreed upon by other means.
I think we’re talking past each other somewhat. I agree that it is a compromise of pure democratic process. I just consider it more important to preserve that process, imperfect as it is, than to eliminate imperfections when doing so could (would) imperil it in its entirety.
So I don’t consider term limits anti democratic, even though they are a undemocratic component, because they promote the continuation of imperfect democracy.
I think they are not just a good idea but suspect they are necessary to sustaining a “somewhat democracy”, and not a terribly imposing “evil” for the insurance it should provide against tyrants. I also suspect that due to human nature, we aren’t likely to see anything more “democratic”. We shall see if the term limit failsafe works, if Trump “wins”. Seems like most hopeful democracies fall to populism eventually.
Here’s where term limits give me pause: there is an enormous cadre of civil servants who do almost all of the work necessary to keep the country functioning. Elected officials pontificate, take up a lot of news time and make lots of noise—occasionally passing a piece of legislation and the civil employees not only carry out most of the functioning but are also responsible for generating reports containing g information pertinent to legislation as various agencies’ workings. It’s an enormous amount of power. If we gave a perpetual cycle of newbie legislators, it’s hard to see how any of them can accumulate sufficient understanding of the various wheels at play.
I see that as a problem, but mostly on the right side of the aisle, where narcissism and egotism dictate that lowly pages, interns and career people only exist to serve the elected [trumpsucking moron] elites’ capricious and often idiotic whims.

Most reasonably competent leaders OTOH are able to recognize and utilize the skills and talents of the people actually manning the ropes.
I spent 6 years of my youth working in Washington DC. You know all those comedy bits about IT treating office workers with disdain?

Trust me: Civil servants know their areas far better than any or collectively all of the legislators, past, present and future. They make things work while legislators smile for cameras.
 
I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic
Then you don't understand what "democracy" is.

Hint: It's not synonymous with "good government", not is it the antonym of "oppression".

Saying "X is democratic" or "Y is antidemocratic" tells us nothing about the speaker's opinion on whether X or Y are good or bad ideas.
No: I DO have a very good understanding of democracy. Hint: a democracy does not have a king or queen.

Really what you and I both are saying is that we have different views of what dies and dies not make a good democracy, what features are necessary and which are desirable. I don’t feel any particular reason to critique Australian politics even if Australia gave us that demon family Murdoch. Yes, yes: our fault entirely fir admitting the biggers s d granting them citizenship but still..
It occurred to me that compulsory voting could very possibly be a great thing for America, especially black urban areas. If people have to vote, the resources have to exist to enable it. Huge lines in urban centers would need to disappear, else lawsuits. (well... until the rabid right-wing SCOTUS rules voting is unconstitutional).
 
I would argue that compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting are anti-democratic
Then you don't understand what "democracy" is.

Hint: It's not synonymous with "good government", not is it the antonym of "oppression".

Saying "X is democratic" or "Y is antidemocratic" tells us nothing about the speaker's opinion on whether X or Y are good or bad ideas.
No: I DO have a very good understanding of democracy. Hint: a democracy does not have a king or queen.

Really what you and I both are saying is that we have different views of what dies and dies not make a good democracy, what features are necessary and which are desirable. I don’t feel any particular reason to critique Australian politics even if Australia gave us that demon family Murdoch. Yes, yes: our fault entirely fir admitting the biggers s d granting them citizenship but still..
It occurred to me that compulsory voting could very possibly be a great thing for America, especially black urban areas. If people have to vote, the resources have to exist to enable it. Huge lines in urban centers would need to disappear, else lawsuits. (well... until the rabid right-wing SCOTUS rules voting is unconstitutional).
How has that worked with compulsory education? By which I mean: excellent idea but as always, resources to make it a high quality and useful resource have depended very much upon socioeconomic class and skin color. It should NOT be that way.
 
How has that worked with compulsory education? By which I mean: excellent idea but as always, resources to make it a high quality and useful resource have depended very much upon socioeconomic class and skin color.
I has actually worked quite well. So well in fact, that the rabid right wants to de-fund it.
Compulsory voting would be VASTLY easier, both to provide for and to enforce.
The infrastructure only has to exist during voting windows, and it doesn’t involve underage gangbangers and miscreants.
It wouldn’t involve massive personnel
Democracy isn't always a good thing. In fact, it should be reserved solely for matters in which a sensible way forward cannot be agreed upon by other means.
I think we’re talking past each other somewhat. I agree that it is a compromise of pure democratic process. I just consider it more important to preserve that process, imperfect as it is, than to eliminate imperfections when doing so could (would) imperil it in its entirety.
So I don’t consider term limits anti democratic, even though they are a undemocratic component, because they promote the continuation of imperfect democracy.
I think they are not just a good idea but suspect they are necessary to sustaining a “somewhat democracy”, and not a terribly imposing “evil” for the insurance it should provide against tyrants. I also suspect that due to human nature, we aren’t likely to see anything more “democratic”. We shall see if the term limit failsafe works, if Trump “wins”. Seems like most hopeful democracies fall to populism eventually.
Here’s where term limits give me pause: there is an enormous cadre of civil servants who do almost all of the work necessary to keep the country functioning. Elected officials pontificate, take up a lot of news time and make lots of noise—occasionally passing a piece of legislation and the civil employees not only carry out most of the functioning but are also responsible for generating reports containing g information pertinent to legislation as various agencies’ workings. It’s an enormous amount of power. If we gave a perpetual cycle of newbie legislators, it’s hard to see how any of them can accumulate sufficient understanding of the various wheels at play.
I see that as a problem, but mostly on the right side of the aisle, where narcissism and egotism dictate that lowly pages, interns and career people only exist to serve the elected [trumpsucking moron] elites’ capricious and often idiotic whims.

Most reasonably competent leaders OTOH are able to recognize and utilize the skills and talents of the people actually manning the ropes.
I spent 6 years of my youth working in Washington DC. You know all those comedy bits about IT treating office workers with disdain?

Trust me: Civil servants know their areas far better than any or collectively all of the legislators, past, present and future. They make things work while legislators smile for cameras.
That’s a good reason to not subject their jobs to term limits. Not a good reason to oppose term limits for elected officials.
 
Back
Top Bottom