Liberals against democracy

[DrZoidberg]

Nah, you're wrong. USA is a democracy. It's a very healthy democracy. It follows all the rules and definitions. The electoral collage doesn't make it less of a democracy. So far the electoral collage have followed the spirit of the constitution. So that's a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

The fact that your candidate doesn't win isn't evidence that the democracy isn't working. A well functioning democracy doesn't mean that voters are intelligent or well read. It just means that citizens feel empowered and have political opinions that they feel they can express freely. Public opinion actually matters in informing policy. All this is evidently true. Still.

You also seem to have bad grasp of how and why a democracy works. Which also is worrying since you're supposed to be a rationalist.

I'm just worried that USA will at some point stop being democratic because it gets pissed away by ignorant citizens who don't understand how it works. After all Trump is elected to represent a democracy, and he clearly doesn't value any of the democratic ideals. He has shown contempt for the democratic process and it's institutions. And that's the guy Americans chose to represent them.

No, we don't have a democracy in the US. The Electoral College, inability to appoint democratic supreme court judges, gerrymandering, weakening of minority power in the house, increasing presidential power, hanging chads and etc. have allowed a party with less popular votes (the republicans) to completely control the US. The republicans control every single branch of the US government.

So there's no difference between the USA, China and USA? Here's a big difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. Corruption is huge in dictatorships. I hate to break it to you but corruption in USA is relatively low. It's higher than Sweden. But then again most countries are. In a dictatorship power tends to stay in a small group of families. The fact that some familes re-appear now and again is not evidence of a lack of democracy. USA has no tell-tale signs of dictatorship (or an oligarchy). If you seriously think USA isn't a democracy than you have no idea what's it's like to live in a dictatorship. Just the fact that cops doesn't regularly hassle random people and shake them down for cash should be enough of a reason to be happy. Or no?

The Electoral Collage is a quaint holdover. The problem with it is that it has the potential for abuse. If they would chose to ignore the voting system and install a dictator, they could, in theory do it. But then there's the little thing of power being distributed. Unless the Electoral Collage control the army there's just no way they could ever do that. If they would try to coup USA, I'm willing to bet large sums of money it'll backfire spectacularly. And they'd all get shot for treason in no time. What's my evidence? Because they haven't abused this power yet. Since the inception they've been well behaved.

Gerrymandering isn't evidence of a lack of democracy. Look, only having federal elections is untenable. They need to divide it up into districts somehow. We only have one tool with which to do so, democracy. Gerrymandering isn't evidence of the lack of democracy. It's evidence of democracy. Dictatorships don't have to bother with it.

The weakening of minority power in the house (ie increased polarization) isn't evidence of lack of democracy. It's actually evidence of the reverse. The public discourse has become more polarized. The fact that the US parliaments mirror what is happening in the general population is evidence of democracy working.

Increased presidential power also isn't evidence of a lack of democracy. This is a worrying development. But then again, the US president is a comparatively weak executive branch leader. Compare him to other democratically elected leaders. The lack of American presidential power has been argued hampers the presidents job. In Trump's case, that may prove to be a wise decision (by the founders).

I don't think the Republicans are the less popular party. I agree that their popularity is a mystery. But we have the same situation in Sweden. Most of the voters for the far-right party are working class. Makes no sense. But that's how the world works.

 

[KeepTalking]

As others have noted, the USA is not a Democracy, it is a Republic wrapped in a Democratic illusion. The illusion has finally been shattered for many of those who still thought it was a Democracy. As a result, those people are now demonstrating against the system, which they previously thought was a Democracy, as well as the insufferable pig that the system installed in the highest office of the land against the will of the majority.

Nah, you're wrong. USA is a democracy. It's a very healthy democracy. It follows all the rules and definitions. The electoral collage doesn't make it less of a democracy. So far the electoral collage have followed the spirit of the constitution. So that's a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

The fact that you have to qualify the word "democracy" by adding "liberal" in front of it should tell you that you aren't speaking of an actual democracy, but rather a modified form of the concept of democracy. Then there is this, from the summary of the wikipedia article you linked:

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States).

As I said above, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Our republic has democratic aspects, which provides the illusion for many that it is a true democracy, but ultimately most of the decisions that affect the citizens of the USA are made by representatives, rather than by direct vote from the people.

The fact that your candidate doesn't win isn't evidence that the democracy isn't working.

I never said it did. It would be odd for me to think that the democracy is not working when the point I am making is that the USA is not a democracy (at least not an unqualified democracy).

A well functioning democracy doesn't mean that voters are intelligent or well read. It just means that citizens feel empowered and have political opinions that they feel they can express freely. Public opinion actually matters in informing policy. All this is evidently true. Still.

It doesn't just mean the citizens feel empowered, it means that they are empowered to govern by majority vote. People in nearly any form of government can be made to feel empowered by providing them some democratic trappings, like being able to vote in an election, even if the results of that election do not represent the will of the majority, either by hook or by crook. In the USA, it is the hook, also known as the Electoral college.

You also seem to have bad grasp of how and why a democracy works. Which also is worrying since you're supposed to be a rationalist.

A democracy works by rule of the commons, that is the etymological definition of the word. The government of the USA is not currently working in this manner, probably because it was not designed to work in that manner. Our founding fathers were worried about things like tyranny of the majority, and slaves being able to vote for freedom for themselves. This is why they designed a republican form of government that includes some democratic processes.

I'm just worried that USA will at some point stop being democratic because it gets pissed away by ignorant citizens who don't understand how it works. After all Trump is elected to represent a democracy, and he clearly doesn't value any of the democratic ideals. He has shown contempt for the democratic process and it's institutions. And that's the guy Americans chose to represent them.

Not the majority, and that is what keeps it from being an unqualified democracy, and makes it a "liberal democracy" and a "representative democracy", which is more accurately described as a republic.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nah, you're wrong. USA is a democracy. It's a very healthy democracy. It follows all the rules and definitions. The electoral collage doesn't make it less of a democracy. So far the electoral collage have followed the spirit of the constitution. So that's a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

The fact that you have to qualify the word "democracy" by adding "liberal" in front of it should tell you that you aren't speaking of an actual democracy, but rather a modified form of the concept of democracy. Then there is this, from the summary of the wikipedia article you linked:

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States).

As I said above, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Our republic has democratic aspects, which provides the illusion for many that it is a true democracy, but ultimately most of the decisions that affect the citizens of the USA are made by representatives, rather than by direct vote from the people.

The fact that your candidate doesn't win isn't evidence that the democracy isn't working.

I never said it did. It would be odd for me to think that the democracy is not working when the point I am making is that the USA is not a democracy (at least not an unqualified democracy).

A well functioning democracy doesn't mean that voters are intelligent or well read. It just means that citizens feel empowered and have political opinions that they feel they can express freely. Public opinion actually matters in informing policy. All this is evidently true. Still.

It doesn't just mean the citizens feel empowered, it means that they are empowered to govern by majority vote. People in nearly any form of government can be made to feel empowered by providing them some democratic trappings, like being able to vote in an election, even if the results of that election do not represent the will of the majority, either by hook or by crook. In the USA, it is the hook, also known as the Electoral college.

You also seem to have bad grasp of how and why a democracy works. Which also is worrying since you're supposed to be a rationalist.

A democracy works by rule of the commons, that is the etymological definition of the word. The government of the USA is not currently working in this manner, probably because it was not designed to work in that manner. Our founding fathers were worried about things like tyranny of the majority, and slaves being able to vote for freedom for themselves. This is why they designed a republican form of government that includes some democratic processes.

I'm just worried that USA will at some point stop being democratic because it gets pissed away by ignorant citizens who don't understand how it works. After all Trump is elected to represent a democracy, and he clearly doesn't value any of the democratic ideals. He has shown contempt for the democratic process and it's institutions. And that's the guy Americans chose to represent them.

Not the majority, and that is what keeps it from being an unqualified democracy, and makes it a "liberal democracy" and a "representative democracy", which is more accurately described as a republic.

BTW: the founding fathers answer to "tyranny of the majority" was to set up checks on the government. The three branches were meant to be roughly equal in power. Well now we have the tyranny of the minority. The minority party has captured the presidency. Then the minority (republicans) neutralized their opposition by not filling the supreme court and gerrymandering.

 

[LordKiran]

So there's no difference between the USA, China and USA? Here's a big difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. Corruption is huge in dictatorships. I hate to break it to you but corruption in USA is relatively low. It's higher than Sweden. But then again most countries are. In a dictatorship power tends to stay in a small group of families. The fact that some familes re-appear now and again is not evidence of a lack of democracy. USA has no tell-tale signs of dictatorship (or an oligarchy). If you seriously think USA isn't a democracy than you have no idea what's it's like to live in a dictatorship. Just the fact that cops doesn't regularly hassle random people and shake them down for cash should be enough of a reason to be happy. Or no?

Uhh, you sure about that, doc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

The Electoral Collage is a quaint holdover. The problem with it is that it has the potential for abuse. If they would chose to ignore the voting system and install a dictator, they could, in theory do it. But then there's the little thing of power being distributed. Unless the Electoral Collage control the army there's just no way they could ever do that. If they would try to coup USA, I'm willing to bet large sums of money it'll backfire spectacularly. And they'd all get shot for treason in no time. What's my evidence? Because they haven't abused this power yet. Since the inception they've been well behaved.

There is no justification for the Electoral Collage's continued existence. The one(?) time we actually needed it to serve its purpose and it failed. The ultimate irony is that the EC does a worse job at picking presidents than the Country would by popular vote alone. I really cannot emphasis enough that the country did not vote for Trump. The EC did.

Gerrymandering isn't evidence of a lack of democracy. Look, only having federal elections is untenable. They need to divide it up into districts somehow. We only have one tool with which to do so, democracy. Gerrymandering isn't evidence of the lack of democracy. It's evidence of democracy. Dictatorships don't have to bother with it.

A democracy with rampant and unchecked gerrymandering sounds an awful lot like a quasi-dictatorship with extra steps.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nah, you're wrong. USA is a democracy. It's a very healthy democracy. It follows all the rules and definitions. The electoral collage doesn't make it less of a democracy. So far the electoral collage have followed the spirit of the constitution. So that's a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

The fact that you have to qualify the word "democracy" by adding "liberal" in front of it should tell you that you aren't speaking of an actual democracy, but rather a modified form of the concept of democracy. Then there is this, from the summary of the wikipedia article you linked:

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States).

Ha ha.. Captain clueless. When we colloquially say "democracy" today what we mean is always liberal democracy. China is democratic. Iran is democratic. But they're not liberal democracies. USA, France and Sweden are all liberal democracies.

It is frightening that an adult living in a modern democratic state doesn't understand the basic terminology or the requirements for being a (liberal) democracy.

As I said above, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Our republic has democratic aspects, which provides the illusion for many that it is a true democracy, but ultimately most of the decisions that affect the citizens of the USA are made by representatives, rather than by direct vote from the people.

Stop using words you don't understand. Liberal democracies are all representative democracies. Whether or not that is a "true democracy" is beside the point. I am against direct democracy. I think that would be a disaster. I'm in full support of the liberal democratic paradigm. I think this is as close to utopia we'll ever come.

The wikpipedia article was a bit messy. So here's a simpler Quora article. When we talk about liberal democracy we mean these four pillars (which it rests on)

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-four-pillars-of-democracy

Legislative :
Legislative pillar basically is responsible for making laws that will govern a state . These laws are either formed directly by people (Direct democracy) or through representatives elected by people(Indirect democracy). Bharat follows Indirect democracy.

Executive:
This pillar of democracy is responsible for implementing the laws formed by Legislative section, and issue orders for their proper implementation. Executive section is selected on the basis of election system, spoil system or merit system or a mixture of above.

Judiciary :
It is again very important pillar of democracy and it keeps a check on laws (given by legislative) and orders (issued by executive) and ensures that these laws and orders do not curtail the fundamental rights of citizens of a country.

Press/Newspaper :
This pillar of democracy ensures tut all people living in far off areas of country are aware of what's happening in rest part of it. It ensures the transparency in the working of all the above three systems.

These are the four pillars of democracy and if any of these pillars are not working properly, then somewhere democracy is still not fully implied.

The powers to all these pillars vary depending on country to country. In Bharat, no pillar is.made too strong. In American constitution, Court is made powerful whereas in UK, legislative dominates over judiciary .

All these have to be present. Otherwise it's not a liberal democracy. If these are all present and functional, then it is.

These are the prerequisites that Freedom House uses to evaluate whether or not a country is "truly" democratic. USA has since Freedom House founded gotten top scores.

https://freedomhouse.org

If you want to live in the modern world I suggest you learn all this. The future of our democracies depend on the citizens being educated about it.

The fact that your candidate doesn't win isn't evidence that the democracy isn't working.

I never said it did. It would be odd for me to think that the democracy is not working when the point I am making is that the USA is not a democracy (at least not an unqualified democracy).

If you don't qualify it it is meaningless. Like I said, China and Iran are democratic. So is Russia. How's that working out for the citizens of those countries?

A well functioning democracy doesn't mean that voters are intelligent or well read. It just means that citizens feel empowered and have political opinions that they feel they can express freely. Public opinion actually matters in informing policy. All this is evidently true. Still.

It doesn't just mean the citizens feel empowered, it means that they are empowered to govern by majority vote. People in nearly any form of government can be made to feel empowered by providing them some democratic trappings, like being able to vote in an election, even if the results of that election do not represent the will of the majority, either by hook or by crook.

Nobody watched the USSR election debates because everybody knew they were a sham. But people actually give a shit about the US presidential election debates. That tells us everything we need to know. Those debates matter. The election campaigns matter. Polling matters. Voting in USA matters = liberal democracy.

In the USA, it is the hook, also known as the Electoral college.

Until the electoral collage misbehaves I don't think you have an actual argument. The fact that they always do what they're told (by the people) proves you wrong.

You also seem to have bad grasp of how and why a democracy works. Which also is worrying since you're supposed to be a rationalist.

A democracy works by rule of the commons, that is the etymological definition of the word. The government of the USA is not currently working in this manner, probably because it was not designed to work in that manner. Our founding fathers were worried about things like tyranny of the majority, and slaves being able to vote for freedom for themselves. This is why they designed a republican form of government that includes some democratic processes.

Fuck etymology. How about caring about what the words actually mean. I still maintain that you don't understand how the political system, in which you live, works, or why it works. That's astoundingly ignorant of you. That's like the most basic fact we need to learn for us to be a citizen of a (liberal) democratic state.

The problem with being as ignorant as you, is that you might lose your freedom, and you won't know what hit you, or what went wrong. As long as you focus on the wrong things you're a prime target by people who want to derail the American democratic system. It's people who don't understand how democracy works that elect blatantly undemocratic people like Trump to power. He doesn't either understand democracy, or what the American Constitution is all about.

I'm just worried that USA will at some point stop being democratic because it gets pissed away by ignorant citizens who don't understand how it works. After all Trump is elected to represent a democracy, and he clearly doesn't value any of the democratic ideals. He has shown contempt for the democratic process and it's institutions. And that's the guy Americans chose to represent them.

Not the majority, and that is what keeps it from being an unqualified democracy, and makes it a "liberal democracy" and a "representative democracy", which is more accurately described as a republic.

Many democracies have weighted voting. To prevent the largest states to dominate the political landscape. Liberal democracy and personal freedoms rest on a distribution of power. As soon as too much power lands in the hands of limited people things start going south for democracy and it reverts to tribalism. This is incredibly easy to do. Democracy is hard to maintain.

That is why USA isn't a perfect 1-to-1 democracy and you should be very happy that it isn't.

Look, I learned all this in school. It was required reading. It was all basic training in being a citizen. Did you really not learn this? I find it terrifying. Our future rests upon a majority of all people in democratic countries understanding how this works.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Uhh, you sure about that, doc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

The fact that the state can seize property isn't evidence that it's corrupt. As long as it passes the proper channels then it's democratic. You've complete misunderstood how corruption works.

The Electoral Collage is a quaint holdover. The problem with it is that it has the potential for abuse. If they would chose to ignore the voting system and install a dictator, they could, in theory do it. But then there's the little thing of power being distributed. Unless the Electoral Collage control the army there's just no way they could ever do that. If they would try to coup USA, I'm willing to bet large sums of money it'll backfire spectacularly. And they'd all get shot for treason in no time. What's my evidence? Because they haven't abused this power yet. Since the inception they've been well behaved.

There is no justification for the Electoral Collage's continued existence. The one(?) time we actually needed it to serve its purpose and it failed. The ultimate irony is that the EC does a worse job at picking presidents than the Country would by popular vote alone. I really cannot emphasis enough that the country did not vote for Trump. The EC did.

All liberal democratic constitutions has it's oddities. The American constitution was the first attempt. It's not a very good constitution. Which South America learned the hard way when they imported the American version rather than one of the European (updated) versions.

But now it's become tradition. And it actually works. USA is a very successful liberal democracy. That's just a fact. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Gerrymandering isn't evidence of a lack of democracy. Look, only having federal elections is untenable. They need to divide it up into districts somehow. We only have one tool with which to do so, democracy. Gerrymandering isn't evidence of the lack of democracy. It's evidence of democracy. Dictatorships don't have to bother with it.

A democracy with rampant and unchecked gerrymandering sounds an awful lot like a quasi-dictatorship with extra steps.

If it's such a huge stink and bother for the Americans it will be changed. But people like it. So it stays = democracy

USA has put loads of laws in place that are only designed around preventing poor people to move into affluent neighborhoods. This isn't particularly helpful. It pretty much fucks up the American dream. Prevents free movement on people. And creates all manner of inequalities and social problems. But the Americans, democratically, have voted for these laws. They're terrible... but still democratic.

Do you remember when the Egyptians in a free and fair election elected a rampant anti-democratic Islamist to power? Like it or not, that was democracy working. People often don't vote in their best interest. People are fucking stupid. But that still isn't evidence democracy isn't working.

 

[KeepTalking]

DrZ, I generally respect you as a poster here, and often agree with you. I understand you position, I simply do not agree with everything you have to say on this topic. The method of debate you are employing in this discussion, however, is causing me to rapidly lose respect for you. I can't tell you how to behave, but I would like to ask you to treat me with the same respect I afford you, and stop with the name calling. We will never get anywhere if you keep referring to me as "clueless", and "ignorant". It only serves to provoke me into wanting to reply with unhelpful phrases like "Go fuck yourself, asshole."

The fact that you have to qualify the word "democracy" by adding "liberal" in front of it should tell you that you aren't speaking of an actual democracy, but rather a modified form of the concept of democracy. Then there is this, from the summary of the wikipedia article you linked:

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States).

Ha ha.. Captain clueless. When we colloquially say "democracy" today what we mean is always liberal democracy.

Who is "we"? It certainly does not include me, nor does it include several other member of this forum who disagree with what you are saying.

China is democratic. Iran is democratic. But they're not liberal democracies. USA, France and Sweden are all liberal democracies.

Neither China nor Iran are democratic, both employ some democratic processes, but China is Communist, and Iran is a Theocracy.

It is frightening that an adult living in a modern democratic state doesn't understand the basic terminology or the requirements for being a (liberal) democracy.

There are many people in the USA who have no understanding of how our government does not work, I am not one of them. Just as I am sure that there are many people in Sweden who do not understand how your government works, but I don't think you are one of them. You probably should be frightened, but not by me.

As I said above, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. Our republic has democratic aspects, which provides the illusion for many that it is a true democracy, but ultimately most of the decisions that affect the citizens of the USA are made by representatives, rather than by direct vote from the people.

Stop using words you don't understand. Liberal democracies are all representative democracies.

A liberal democracy is a representative democracy, but a representative democracy is not necessarily a liberal democracy. I feel the need to point this out because I was speaking of things that make the USA a representative democracy (as well as a representative republic), and your response could lead one to believe that you think a representative democracy is necessarily a liberal democracy.

Whether or not that is a "true democracy" is beside the point.

Not it isn't, it is exactly my point.

I am against direct democracy. I think that would be a disaster. I'm in full support of the liberal democratic paradigm. I think this is as close to utopia we'll ever come.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but I do think we can, and just might, find a form of governance that is more utopian that the USA Republic. In Sweden your mileage may vary.

The wikpipedia article was a bit messy. So here's a simpler Quora article. When we talk about liberal democracy we mean these four pillars (which it rests on)

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-four-pillars-of-democracy

Legislative :
Legislative pillar basically is responsible for making laws that will govern a state . These laws are either formed directly by people (Direct democracy) or through representatives elected by people(Indirect democracy). Bharat follows Indirect democracy.

Executive:
This pillar of democracy is responsible for implementing the laws formed by Legislative section, and issue orders for their proper implementation. Executive section is selected on the basis of election system, spoil system or merit system or a mixture of above.

Judiciary :
It is again very important pillar of democracy and it keeps a check on laws (given by legislative) and orders (issued by executive) and ensures that these laws and orders do not curtail the fundamental rights of citizens of a country.

Press/Newspaper :
This pillar of democracy ensures tut all people living in far off areas of country are aware of what's happening in rest part of it. It ensures the transparency in the working of all the above three systems.

These are the four pillars of democracy and if any of these pillars are not working properly, then somewhere democracy is still not fully implied.

The powers to all these pillars vary depending on country to country. In Bharat, no pillar is.made too strong. In American constitution, Court is made powerful whereas in UK, legislative dominates over judiciary .

All these have to be present. Otherwise it's not a liberal democracy. If these are all present and functional, then it is.

These are the prerequisites that Freedom House uses to evaluate whether or not a country is democratic. USA has since Freedom House founded gotten top scores.

https://freedomhouse.org

If you want to live in the modern world I suggest you learn all this. The future of our democracies depend on the citizens being educated about it.

That's great, but it doesn't keep the USA from being more accurately described as a republic, rather than a democracy.

The fact that your candidate doesn't win isn't evidence that the democracy isn't working.

I never said it did. It would be odd for me to think that the democracy is not working when the point I am making is that the USA is not a democracy (at least not an unqualified democracy).

If you don't qualify it it is meaningless.

No it doesn't, not qualifying it makes it a true democracy, of which neither the USA nor Sweden are representative.

Like I said, China and Iran are democratic. So is Russia. How's that working out for the citizens of those countries?

Like I said when you said that, you are wrong. China is communist, and Iran is theocratic. Russia is a republic, much like the USA, but is rapidly moving towards autocracy. It isn't working out all that well for their citizens currently, the republic of the USA is doing much better, but recent events have me worried that we are heading in the same direction as Russia.

A well functioning democracy doesn't mean that voters are intelligent or well read. It just means that citizens feel empowered and have political opinions that they feel they can express freely. Public opinion actually matters in informing policy. All this is evidently true. Still.

It doesn't just mean the citizens feel empowered, it means that they are empowered to govern by majority vote. People in nearly any form of government can be made to feel empowered by providing them some democratic trappings, like being able to vote in an election, even if the results of that election do not represent the will of the majority, either by hook or by crook.

Nobody watched the USSR election debates because everybody knew they were a sham. But people actually give a shit about the US presidential election debates. That tells us everything we need to know. Those debates matter. The election campaigns matter. Polling matters. Voting in USA matters = liberal democracy.

Yes, the debates were watched by a record number of people, this was at least in part due to the celebrity status of Donald Trump. No, the debates did not matter. Donald Trump clearly lost all three debates, yet he still won the presidency. Polling did not matter, every poll had Clinton winning in a historic landslide, yet Trump still won. Voting did not (directly) matter. Clinton received more votes than Trump, but Trump still won. This is not surprising in a republic, but is unexpected in an unqualified democracy.

In the USA, it is the hook, also known as the Electoral college.

Until the electoral collage misbehaves I don't think you have an actual argument. The fact that they always do what they're told (by the people) proves you wrong.

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but the EC did misbehave this time around, more so than at any other point in history. They misbehaved to a degree that if Clinton had gone into Dec. 19th with a very small winning margin against Trump, Trump would likely still have been elected president.

You also seem to have bad grasp of how and why a democracy works. Which also is worrying since you're supposed to be a rationalist.

A democracy works by rule of the commons, that is the etymological definition of the word. The government of the USA is not currently working in this manner, probably because it was not designed to work in that manner. Our founding fathers were worried about things like tyranny of the majority, and slaves being able to vote for freedom for themselves. This is why they designed a republican form of government that includes some democratic processes.

Fuck etymology.

That is a worrying response from someone who is supposed to be a rationalist.

How about caring about what the words actually mean.

I do, and etymology can often inform one as to the meaning of words. I like how "democracy" means something different when you add a qualifying word like "liberal" in front of it. It reminds me very much of the conversations we have had around here about racism, and how systemic racism means something different, but certain posters here like to pretend that "racism" is always understood to mean "systemic racism".

I still maintain that you don't understand how the political system, in which you live, works, or why it works. That's astoundingly ignorant of you. That's like the most basic fact we need to learn for us to be a citizen of a (liberal) democratic state.

You are mistaken, but I will stop short of calling you ignorant for not realizing that.

The problem with being as ignorant as you, is that you might lose your freedom, and you won't know what hit you, or what went wrong. As long as you focus on the wrong things you're a prime target by people who want to derail the American democratic system. It's people who don't understand how democracy works that elect blatantly undemocratic people like Trump to power. He doesn't either understand democracy, or what the American Constitution is all about.

I understand what happened quite well, and I understood it could happen before it happened, because I understand that the USA is a republic, and not a democracy. I understand the American Constitution well enough to know that Article 4 of the Constitution says explicitly "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government". I agree with you that Donald Trump is likely ignorant of this, but unfortunately you seem to be ignorant in this regard as well.

I'm just worried that USA will at some point stop being democratic because it gets pissed away by ignorant citizens who don't understand how it works. After all Trump is elected to represent a democracy, and he clearly doesn't value any of the democratic ideals. He has shown contempt for the democratic process and it's institutions. And that's the guy Americans chose to represent them.

Not the majority, and that is what keeps it from being an unqualified democracy, and makes it a "liberal democracy" and a "representative democracy", which is more accurately described as a republic.

Many democracies have weighted voting. To prevent the largest states to dominate the political landscape.

And those countries are not true democracies as a result. They might try to make their citizens feel better by calling themselves democracies, but that doesn't make them unqualified democracies.

Liberal democracy and personal freedoms rest on a distribution of power. As soon as too much power lands in the hands of limited people things start going south for democracy and it reverts to tribalism. This is incredibly easy to do. Democracy is hard to maintain.

That is why USA isn't a perfect 1-to-1 democracy and you should be very happy that it is.

Whether I am happy about it, or not, is beside the point. What you just said proves my point that the USA is not an unqualified democracy. The founding document of the country itself refers to the system of governance as a republic. If you can find the words "liberal democracy" occurring in that order in the US Constitution, I would be interested to learn about it.

 

[LordKiran]

The fact that the state can seize property isn't evidence that it's corrupt. As long as it passes the proper channels then it's democratic. You've complete misunderstood how corruption works.

The Electoral Collage is a quaint holdover. The problem with it is that it has the potential for abuse. If they would chose to ignore the voting system and install a dictator, they could, in theory do it. But then there's the little thing of power being distributed. Unless the Electoral Collage control the army there's just no way they could ever do that. If they would try to coup USA, I'm willing to bet large sums of money it'll backfire spectacularly. And they'd all get shot for treason in no time. What's my evidence? Because they haven't abused this power yet. Since the inception they've been well behaved.

There is no justification for the Electoral Collage's continued existence. The one(?) time we actually needed it to serve its purpose and it failed. The ultimate irony is that the EC does a worse job at picking presidents than the Country would by popular vote alone. I really cannot emphasis enough that the country did not vote for Trump. The EC did.

All liberal democratic constitutions has it's oddities. The American constitution was the first attempt. It's not a very good constitution. Which South America learned the hard way when they imported the American version rather than one of the European (updated) versions.

But now it's become tradition. And it actually works. USA is a very successful liberal democracy. That's just a fact. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Gerrymandering isn't evidence of a lack of democracy. Look, only having federal elections is untenable. They need to divide it up into districts somehow. We only have one tool with which to do so, democracy. Gerrymandering isn't evidence of the lack of democracy. It's evidence of democracy. Dictatorships don't have to bother with it.

A democracy with rampant and unchecked gerrymandering sounds an awful lot like a quasi-dictatorship with extra steps.

If it's such a huge stink and bother for the Americans it will be changed. But people like it. So it stays = democracy

USA has put loads of laws in place that are only designed around preventing poor people to move into affluent neighborhoods. This isn't particularly helpful. It pretty much fucks up the American dream. Prevents free movement on people. And creates all manner of inequalities and social problems. But the Americans, democratically, have voted for these laws. They're terrible... but still democratic.

Do you remember when the Egyptians in a free and fair election elected a rampant anti-democratic Islamist to power? Like it or not, that was democracy working. People often don't vote in their best interest. People are fucking stupid. But that still isn't evidence democracy isn't working.

It's not that the state can seize property. Law enforcement can seize property (This is important because they keep what they seize for department use in civil seizure cases) Further, they can do so without charging you, and without compensating you for seized property. A clear violation of your civil liberties no matter what liberal democracy you live in. Also if you want your seized property back, you must prove your innocence in a special court without a formal judge. Call it what you want, I choose to call it Tyranny and completely unconstitutional.

 

[skepticalbip]

.....snip......
There is no justification for the Electoral Collage's continued existence. The one(?) time we actually needed it to serve its purpose and it failed. The ultimate irony is that the EC does a worse job at picking presidents than the Country would by popular vote alone. I really cannot emphasis enough that the country did not vote for Trump. The EC did.

.........snip.......

The electoral college worked just as it was intended. Under the federalist system of the US, it is the States that elect the president, not the national popular vote. The US is a federation of independent States and the system is set up to insure that the smaller, less populated States are not subjected to the rule solely of the population of more populated States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp

Federalist Papers Number 39

.....

"But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

.....

... The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

.....

 

[LordKiran]

The electoral college worked just as it was intended. Under the federalist system of the US, it is the States that elect the president, not the national popular vote. The US is a federation of independent States and the system is set up to insure that the smaller, less populated States are not subjected to the rule solely of the population of more populated States.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp

Federalist Papers Number 39

.....

"But it was not sufficient,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.'' And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

.....

... The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

.....

That might have made sense in a day and age when individual states were considered sovereign unto themselves. As it stands, we are first and foremost Americans and citizens of our individual states SECOND. Thus, the EC has outlived its usefulness.

 

[skepticalbip]

The electoral college worked just as it was intended. Under the federalist system of the US, it is the States that elect the president, not the national popular vote. The US is a federation of independent States and the system is set up to insure that the smaller, less populated States are not subjected to the rule solely of the population of more populated States.

That might have made sense in a day and age when individual states were considered sovereign unto themselves. As it stands, we are first and foremost Americans and citizens of our individual states SECOND. Thus, the EC has outlived its usefulness.

The Supreme Court and Congress (along with 50 Governors and legislatures) disagree with you.

Sovereign? Hardly, but States are independent members of the federation (a bit like the member States of the EU). There would be no such thing as State laws allowing marijuana or the many other laws particular to individual States otherwise.

 

[Toni]

The United States is a republic.

 

[LordKiran]

That might have made sense in a day and age when individual states were considered sovereign unto themselves. As it stands, we are first and foremost Americans and citizens of our individual states SECOND. Thus, the EC has outlived its usefulness.

The Supreme Court and Congress (along with 50 Governors and legislatures) disagree with you.

Sovereign? Hardly, but States are independent members of the federation (a bit like the member States of the EU). There would be no such thing as State laws allowing marijuana or the many other laws particular to individual States otherwise.

Would you say people vote for president with the well-being of their individual states in mind, their personal well-being as individuals, or the well-being of the country as a whole? That is what my statement refers to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZ, I generally respect you as a poster here, and often agree with you. I understand you position, I simply do not agree with everything you have to say on this topic. The method of debate you are employing in this discussion, however, is causing me to rapidly lose respect for you. I can't tell you how to behave, but I would like to ask you to treat me with the same respect I afford you, and stop with the name calling. We will never get anywhere if you keep referring to me as "clueless", and "ignorant". It only serves to provoke me into wanting to reply with unhelpful phrases like "Go fuck yourself, asshole."

Democracy is a fragile thing. If we don't understand how it works we might lose it. "We" is people who live in the "free" democratic world. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the fundamentals of how works or why it works. That is not ok. Your society has failed in educating you. This is important things to know for everybody living in a democracy. Obviously nobody can force you to learn it. But I would have thought that you'd be a little bit curious yourself.

I'm being forceful because this is serious. It's not cool, not to know this. Especially not in an age like this, where Trump has just been elected president.

Who is "we"? It certainly does not include me, nor does it include several other member of this forum who disagree with what you are saying.

Reality is true regardless if you agree with it or not. Please read the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

China is democratic. Iran is democratic. But they're not liberal democracies. USA, France and Sweden are all liberal democracies.

Neither China nor Iran are democratic, both employ some democratic processes, but China is Communist, and Iran is a Theocracy.
[/QUOTE]

I assure you that's what "democracy" means. This is the difference between "liberal democracy" and "democracy". This is heritage from the Greeks. In Athenian democracy it was only a minority who had the vote. Much like China, where the only people who can vote are members of the Communist party. Or Iran, where they all have a vote, much like any western liberal democracy, but they have a highest authority who can over-ride them. But Iran has all the same processes that USA or any Western European country has.

The only problem here is that you're not familiar with the terminology. Please look it up. I'm not making this up.

It is frightening that an adult living in a modern democratic state doesn't understand the basic terminology or the requirements for being a (liberal) democracy.

There are many people in the USA who have no understanding of how our government does not work, I am not one of them. Just as I am sure that there are many people in Sweden who do not understand how your government works, but I don't think you are one of them. You probably should be frightened, but not by me.

Ok. Prove that you understand it, by using the words correctly. Tip, first look them up. Don't trust me. Just do your homework.

A liberal democracy is a representative democracy, but a representative democracy is not necessarily a liberal democracy. I feel the need to point this out because I was speaking of things that make the USA a representative democracy (as well as a representative republic), and your response could lead one to believe that you think a representative democracy is necessarily a liberal democracy.

I never said they were. China and Iran are both representative democracies, while not liberal democracies.

Whether or not that is a "true democracy" is beside the point.

Not it isn't, it is exactly my point.

Look, the words you are using have meanings. You're just making up words as you go along. "True democracy" doesn't mean anything. It's just special pleading with no justification.

That's great, but it doesn't keep the USA from being more accurately described as a republic, rather than a democracy.

Whether it being a "republic" or not is completely irrelevant as regards to the degree it is democratic. I really don't know what you think it means. But you demonstrate that you don't understand how this works or what the words mean.

Sweden is a monarchy. We are a liberal democracy.
USA is a republic. They are a liberal democracy.
Russia is a republic. They are a democracy.
Constitutional monarchies with democratic political structures which in practice is authoritarian we, by tradition, just call absolute monarchies. I don't know why. That's just how the words are used.

Why do you think that a republic can't be democratic? I'm just curious how you're using the term. I honestly don't understand what you mean by it.

No it doesn't, not qualifying it makes it a true democracy, of which neither the USA nor Sweden are representative.

No true Scotsman.

Like I said, China and Iran are democratic. So is Russia. How's that working out for the citizens of those countries?

Like I said when you said that, you are wrong. China is communist, and Iran is theocratic.

"China's constitution states that The People's Republic of China "is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants," and that the state organs "apply the principle of democratic centralism"

"Iran is a founding member of the UN, ECO, NAM, OIC, and OPEC. Its political system is based on the 1979 Constitution which combines elements of a parliamentary democracy with a theocracy governed by Islamic jurists under the concept of a Supreme Leadership."

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but the EC did misbehave this time around, more so than at any other point in history. They misbehaved to a degree that if Clinton had gone into Dec. 19th with a very small winning margin against Trump, Trump would likely still have been elected president.

Obviously spreading the risk and having more than one elector worked. Because even though there were a record high number of electors ignoring what they should vote the correct candidate still won.

But I agree that it is a worrying development. It's similar to how the Roman Republic fell. Grachus figured out a loophole regarding how the tribunes operated. His abuses of it were pretty limited and arguably for a good cause. But it set a horrible precedent. And after him things just got increasingly unstable. Until it reached a point where the tribunes were routinely abused and the democratic republic had no hope of surviving.

But I don't think that will happen in USA. If the electors would ever exercise their full powers and pick somebody the people didn't elect, both parties will in the next election scrap the college. If they didn't nobody would vote for them. So I hope this is a one off thing.

A democracy works by rule of the commons, that is the etymological definition of the word. The government of the USA is not currently working in this manner, probably because it was not designed to work in that manner. Our founding fathers were worried about things like tyranny of the majority, and slaves being able to vote for freedom for themselves. This is why they designed a republican form of government that includes some democratic processes.

The phrase "the rule of the commons" is empty. It barely means anything. China has interpreted it as the dictatorship of non-nobles.

How about caring about what the words actually mean.

That is a worrying response from someone who is supposed to be a rationalist.
I do, and etymology can often inform one as to the meaning of words.

Etymology is fun for historical reasons. It's interesting for that reason. But you can't use etymological guides to learn what the words mean today. Words change meaning over time. The word "democracy" is one such word.

Whether I am happy about it, or not, is beside the point. What you just said proves my point that the USA is not an unqualified democracy.

But if you don't qualify it it doesn't mean anything. Then you'll get China or Iran. Those are democracy of the unqualified variety.

The founding document of the country itself refers to the system of governance as a republic. If you can find the words "liberal democracy" occurring in that order in the US Constitution, I would be interested to learn about it.

he he... because the American constitution is older than the term "liberal democracy". The term liberal democracy did exist at the time of writing of the American constitution but the terms back then were not set in stone yet. And we can't pinpoint an exact date when it happened. It was a long and slow process. When the USSR was founded one of their main critiques against the west was how it was undemocratic (by communist standards). They thought they were the only true democracy. That was the time when the west clearly defined itself as "liberal democratic" as opposed to just "democratic". To set itself apart from "democratic" USSR . And now the word has stuck. So if you don't qualify it today (well read) people are more likely to think you're talking about the communist type democratic government, rather than the western style democracy.

Yes, they called USA a republic. Because it is. There's no king. That is all it means. There's been hundreds of republics without democracy. Idi Amin ruled a republic. I don't think anybody thinks that was democratic in any shape or form.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Supreme Court and Congress (along with 50 Governors and legislatures) disagree with you.

Sovereign? Hardly, but States are independent members of the federation (a bit like the member States of the EU). There would be no such thing as State laws allowing marijuana or the many other laws particular to individual States otherwise.

Would you say people vote for president with the well-being of their individual states in mind, their personal well-being as individuals, or the well-being of the country as a whole? That is what my statement refers to.

People vote for many things at the same time. I would say that the primary concern would be self interest, then local concerns, then national concerns. As the old Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, was fond of saying, "All politics is local".

 

[KeepTalking]

This is the difference between "liberal democracy" and "democracy".

This point is the only one that needs to be made. Yes, I agree, there is a difference between a democracy, and a liberal democracy. I have said all along that the USA is not a "democracy", I never disagreed that the USA is a "liberal democracy", but it is more accurately described as a "republic", which is one form of liberal democratic governance. It is what contrasts the difference between the liberal democracies of the USA, and Australia, which is not a republic.

I have a feeling we have simply been talking past each other, and we agree more than we disagree, but for some reason you decided to get on your high horse and start impugning my intelligence and rationality. That was less than helpful, and such debate tactics will seldom have a positive influence on a discussion, as it only serves to put people on the defensive, and makes them less likely to to take a charitable view of your argument.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38374749

This is very worrying. First Trump wins who obviously doesn't understand how or why democracy works. And then you've got this. Large numbers of people demonstrating against the system doing what it should. So they're also clearly against democracy.

It seems to me that less than the majority of Americans are for democracy. Considering USA is the world's second biggest democracy, this is very worrying.

Thoughts? Will it get crazier before it gets better?

No, it will get crazier before it gets crazier.

We've been on a path to Idiocracy ever since before the movie came out. If you divide up a path toward Idiocracy into 7 levels with a baseline of utopian democratic society, we've probably made it to Level 4 by now because of Presidential candidate tweets, fake news, low brow insults etc. And before that we were probably at Level 3. Right now, we're in a national Movement but we don't know it. When archaeologists someday look back on what happened, they will label this period of history right after the PostModern Era as the Virtual Era with characteristics of fake reality shows, fakeness in general, not to exclude virtual realities, and superficial everything. I mean, everyone gets their own personalized, fake news. Electing a bankrupted billionaire who chooses fake apprentices on a fake reality show and who chooses the worst people for cabinet positions possible while claiming they're qualified and while you're believing you can stop him from becoming a President because you live in a bubble is just the beginning of Level 4...

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is the difference between "liberal democracy" and "democracy".

This point is the only one that needs to be made. Yes, I agree, there is a difference between a democracy, and a liberal democracy. I have said all along that the USA is not a "democracy",

Oh, for fucks sake. It's not hard. "Democracy" is a wide concept that incorporates any form of government that elects stuff by the people. There can be different kinds of democracies. Which all have their own set of rules. "Liberal democracy" is one of these sets of rules.

The terms "true democracy" or "real democracy" doesn't mean anything. Any proponent of any version of democracy will call their the true form.

I never disagreed that the USA is a "liberal democracy", but it is more accurately described as a "republic", which is one form of liberal democratic governance. It is what contrasts the difference between the liberal democracies of the USA, and Australia, which is not a republic.

No, it's not. Did you even look at the link? You're just wrong. Whether USA is a republic or not has zero bearing on whether it's democratic or not. It has nothing to do with it.

The founding fathers, when they wrote the constitution, they were heavily influenced by the Roman republic. That's no secret. It had to do with legitimacy. The two versions of governments that existed back then was by the grace of God, or by the will of the people (res publica). Those were the only two. If it's not one, it's the other.

Kings rule by the grace of God. They don't have to justify their power to other people. Only to God. And only God can depose them. In practice this, is might makes right. Whoever manages to grab power violently, obviously has God on their side.

A Republican government on the other hand, exists because it is (according to Plato) in the best interest of those that are ruled by it. A republic has to have a secular justification. This can be might makes right. As in the case of Idi Amin (or any of the other dictators). Or it can mean liberal democracy, as in the case of USA. It does NOT imply how it's leaders are elected.

In the modern world this distinction is archaic and irrelevant. The fact that a country is a republic is completely meaningless today.

This is a very important distinction to know. Trump can decide to suspend any further election and make himself president for life. But keep the republic. In your head, everything would be fine. That is what you are saying. Because you don't understand the words you are using.

I have a feeling we have simply been talking past each other, and we agree more than we disagree, but for some reason you decided to get on your high horse and start impugning my intelligence and rationality. That was less than helpful, and such debate tactics will seldom have a positive influence on a discussion, as it only serves to put people on the defensive, and makes them less likely to to take a charitable view of your argument.

I don't think we are. You've systematically used the words wrongly. When I explain it, and show you links, you obviously can't be bothered to read them. You're just wrong and you don't seem wiling to learn. And that is serious. We live in democratic societies they depend upon a population that understands how it works. And you clearly don't.

And it's not just that you use the words wrongly. I haven't gotten the impression that you understand the magic sauce of the American Constitution. You seem hung up about irrelevancies. It doesn't take much to fuck it up, and with enough people like you, I think we will.

 

[KeepTalking]

This point is the only one that needs to be made. Yes, I agree, there is a difference between a democracy, and a liberal democracy. I have said all along that the USA is not a "democracy",

Oh, for fucks sake. It's not hard. "Democracy" is a wide concept that incorporates any form of government that elects stuff by the people. There can be different kinds of democracies. Which all have their own set of rules. "Liberal democracy" is one of these sets of rules.

The terms "true democracy" or "real democracy" doesn't mean anything. Any proponent of any version of democracy will call their the true form.

I never disagreed that the USA is a "liberal democracy", but it is more accurately described as a "republic", which is one form of liberal democratic governance. It is what contrasts the difference between the liberal democracies of the USA, and Australia, which is not a republic.

No, it's not. Did you even look at the link? You're just wrong. Whether USA is a republic or not has zero bearing on whether it's democratic or not. It has nothing to do with it.

The founding fathers, when they wrote the constitution, they were heavily influenced by the Roman republic. That's no secret. It had to do with legitimacy. The two versions of governments that existed back then was by the grace of God, or by the will of the people (res publica). Those were the only two. If it's not one, it's the other.

Kings rule by the grace of God. They don't have to justify their power to other people. Only to God. And only God can depose them. In practice this, is might makes right. Whoever manages to grab power violently, obviously has God on their side.

A Republican government on the other hand, exists because it is (according to Plato) in the best interest of those that are ruled by it. A republic has to have a secular justification. This can be might makes right. As in the case of Idi Amin (or any of the other dictators). Or it can mean liberal democracy, as in the case of USA. It does NOT imply how it's leaders are elected.

In the modern world this distinction is archaic and irrelevant. The fact that a country is a republic is completely meaningless today.

This is a very important distinction to know. Trump can decide to suspend any further election and make himself president for life. But keep the republic. In your head, everything would be fine. That is what you are saying. Because you don't understand the words you are using.

I have a feeling we have simply been talking past each other, and we agree more than we disagree, but for some reason you decided to get on your high horse and start impugning my intelligence and rationality. That was less than helpful, and such debate tactics will seldom have a positive influence on a discussion, as it only serves to put people on the defensive, and makes them less likely to to take a charitable view of your argument.

I don't think we are. You've systematically used the words wrongly. When I explain it, and show you links, you obviously can't be bothered to read them. You're just wrong and you don't seem wiling to learn. And that is serious. We live in democratic societies they depend upon a population that understands how it works. And you clearly don't.

And it's not just that you use the words wrongly. I haven't gotten the impression that you understand the magic sauce of the American Constitution. You seem hung up about irrelevancies. It doesn't take much to fuck it up, and with enough people like you, we will.

For FSM's sake, DrZ, I have tried to be charitable in this conversation, but you are making it difficult. You keep ascribing views to me that I do not hold, and then impugning me for holding those views that I have never put forward. You have said that "democracy" = "liberal democracy", to which I disagreed. You later said that democracy and liberal democracy are different, to which I agreed. You now seem to take issue with that. Make up your fucking mind. you are the one using words wrongly by imagining that democracy means "liberal democracy", when it clearly does not. If it did, you wouldn't need to add the word liberal in front of it to say the that USA is a democracy. If we shift the meaning of "democracy" to mean "liberal democracy", then what the fuck do we call a democracy that is not liberal, and is otherwise not qualified? you didn't seem to like it when I called it a true democracy, and made some lame attempt to contrast that with "no true Scotsman". So what the fuck should I use instead of "democracy"? Tell me that, oh Arbiter of All Words and Their True Meanings.

That's the big problem here, you are using shifting definitions, and then getting all bent out of shape why you are called on it. I read your fucking link, and even quoted back part of it to you that specifically said one form a liberal democracy can take is a republic, and it named the USA as an example of that. Don't provide links that contradict what you say, and support what I say if you don't like being wrong (and obviously you don't like being wrong). Don't contradict yourself if you don't like being called on it.

Just because I recognize that the USA is a republic, and not a democracy, does not mean I would be fine with it if Trump turned it into an autocracy, which, by the fucking way, would no longer be a republic.

Characterize my insistence to call things what they actually are irrelevant if you want, but don't pretend that you are the only one who understands the American system of governance, it just makes you sound like a self righteous prick.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For FSM's sake, DrZ, I have tried to be charitable in this conversation, but you are making it difficult. You keep ascribing views to me that I do not hold, and then impugning me for holding those views that I have never put forward. You have said that "democracy" = "liberal democracy", to which I disagreed. You later said that democracy and liberal democracy are different, to which I agreed. You now seem to take issue with that. Make up your fucking mind.

you are the one using words wrongly by imagining that democracy means "liberal democracy", when it clearly does not. If it did, you wouldn't need to add the word liberal in front of it to say the that USA is a democracy. If we shift the meaning of "democracy" to mean "liberal democracy", then what the fuck do we call a democracy that is not liberal, and is otherwise not qualified? you didn't seem to like it when I called it a true democracy, and made some lame attempt to contrast that with "no true Scotsman". So what the fuck should I use instead of "democracy"? Tell me that, oh Arbiter of All Words and Their True Meanings.

You started out saying that USA was not a "true democracy" whatever that means. I then pointed out that the term "democracy" is vague. In today's parlance we often sloppily say "democracy" when we mean "liberal democracy". Since we're discussing "real" and "true" democracy then precise terminology matters. Continuing to use colloquialisms doesn't add clarity.

And because you're so imprecise in your language I still haven't been able to figure out what you would define as "true democracy". Using the correct words for things matters.

That's the big problem here, you are using shifting definitions, and then getting all bent out of shape why you are called on it. I read your fucking link, and even quoted back part of it to you that specifically said one form a liberal democracy can take is a republic, and it named the USA as an example of that. Don't provide links that contradict what you say, and support what I say if you don't like being wrong (and obviously you don't like being wrong). Don't contradict yourself if you don't like being called on it.

It seems to be a question of reading comprehension. You've several times mentioned that USA is a republic as if that has any importance as regards to its level of democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition.

The founding fathers thought that monarchies would inevitably lead to increasing degrees of despotism. While republics would inevitably lead to increasing degrees of freedom. That's why they stress the republic so much in the American constitution. But they wrote this before the French revolution, fascism, Nazism and communism. I think their ignorance can be excused. But you're not in 1776. Your ignorance can't be excused.

The founding fathers thought it was really really important not to have kings. But it just isn't. Monarchies can be wonderfully democratic. The founding fathers in this respect were just wrong. History might have proven them right. But it didn't. They were right about lots of things. But not this.

And you're using the same implication of republicanism as the founding fathers. I'm sorry, but that implication is false.

Just because I recognize that the USA is a republic, and not a democracy, does not mean I would be fine with it if Trump turned it into an autocracy, which, by the fucking way, would no longer be a republic.

I refer to the Wikipedia article. Yes, a dictatorship under Trump would still be a republic. Until he crowns himself emperor. And then it wouldn't be. Nothing would change in practice. But it would shift from a republic to a monarchy.

That's why I'm stressing the importance of understanding the words. It's really important to understand what politicians argue for or against. And you can only do that if you know the words. The world is full of almost liberal democracies. They've got all the trappings, but only little thing that's not right. And that makes it a dictatorship. So it is super important to know ALL the factors that make up a healthy and functioning liberal democracy.

And that's you. Since you're a citizen in a liberal democratic state you're one of the guardians of our democratic freedom. There's nobody else that will protect it. Any government unchecked will inevitably strive toward authoritarianism and despotism. Citizens need to constantly be vigilant. Something, BTW, that Americans are really good at. They tend to be much better than Europeans. They still elected Trump. Which is a shame. But Americans really are good at democracy. I think USA has a much more vibrant and healthy public discourse than most European countries. So I don't think our world is going down the toilet just yet.

Characterize my insistence to call things what they actually are irrelevant if you want, but don't pretend that you are the only one who understands the American system of governance, it just makes you sound like a self righteous prick.

This isn't about the American system of government. This is way more basic. These are just fundamentals of how every country on this planet defines itself. And it's all the same everywhere. Everybody uses the same terminology.

I'm sorry if I come across as a dick. But like I said, I find your level of ignorance alarming. This is so basic, and stuff which the enlightenment philosophers who brought us liberal democracy, just assumed all citizens would learn, once the world had become democratic. Just out of self interest. I guess they were wrong.