Liberals against democracy

[KeepTalking]

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.

Your characterization of our discussion is incorrect. Here is how it actually went down, with the actual quotes:

As others have noted, the USA is not a Democracy, it is a Republic wrapped in a Democratic illusion.

Notice I did not say "true democracy" in my first post in this thread, however, it is implied by the lack of any qualification before the word "democracy".

Here was your response:

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

There is nothing there about the word "democracy" being vague, what we see in your post is an attempt to redefine "democracy" as "liberal democracy". It didn't work.

Continuing to use colloquialisms doesn't add clarity.

I agree, however, you are the one who would rather use the word "democracy" colloquially to mean "liberal democracy". Please take your own advice and stop doing that.

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.

It's simple. Democracy is a system of governance that recognizes the will of the majority as the controlling factor, which is done directly through voting. The USA republic seldom recognizes the will of the majority of it's citizens (the voters), as it seldom allows them a direct vote.

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.

I don't think there is a problem of reading comprehension, I think there is a problem with redefining words, and ascribing positions to people who do not actually hold those positions. The USA is a republic, there is not doubt of this fact. A republic requires no democracy, and the USA republic offers very little democracy, especially at the federal level, which is the level at which it becomes the USA.

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.

Fuck you. Stop insulting me. The above paragraph proves exactly what I have been saying. The USA was designed as a republic, and remains a republic. There are bits and pieces of democracy thrown in, but they are mostly illusory, as is shown by our most recent presidential election which defied the democratic will of the people. That's all I have to say, because you can't refrain from insulting me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As others have noted, the USA is not a Democracy, it is a Republic wrapped in a Democratic illusion.

I'm just curious why you think USA being a republic is relevant (it's not). What do you think it means to be a republic?

You're wrong BTW. USA follows all the rules for a full liberal democracy. That is not illusion. And the fact you think that worries me.

There is nothing there about the word "democracy" being vague, what we see in your post is an attempt to redefine "democracy" as "liberal democracy". It didn't work.

Please read the wikipedia articles. You're troublingly ignorant on this topic IMHO

It's simple. Democracy is a system of governance that recognizes the will of the majority as the controlling factor, which is done directly through voting. The USA republic seldom recognizes the will of the majority of it's citizens (the voters), as it seldom allows them a direct vote.

There's nothing in the rules regarding democracy or liberal democracy that demands direct democracy. I'm afraid it's just as simple as you not understanding the terminology.

I also think it is a terrible idea. I'm against direct democracy personally. In all societies it's been tried it's led to extreme conservatism. People are always more afraid to lose what they've got than to change to have more.

But more importantly a direct democracy is not more democratic than a representative democracy. And a representative democracy (which USA is) is not undemocratic. With or without electors.

 

[Smoker]

I think Trump is going to make so many idiotic statements, and piss so many people off, in the next four years. All the other countries will start hating us even more than they already do for electing this racist jackass to lead us. He's already starting problems with China and he doesn't even have any executive power yet.

But he can't be worse than George Bush jr. That guy did a stellar job of being the Bowerick Wowbagger of Earth. The rest of the world is already accustomed to idiot American presidents. If you look at the roster of presidents it's only a tiny minority that had any talent for foreign diplomacy. And Obama has been exceptionally good at it.

Oh yes he can be worse than Bush Jr. He shows all the signs of being a dictator who tries to change the laws in his favor. The moderate Republicans wanted to vote for George's brother Jeb, but is was the the crazy ones and the old racist people that voted in this catastrophe. I don't trust a rich boy who has never really had to work because they inherited at least 10 million dollars.

He's been putting people in his cabinet that don't think global warming is real, and don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. He also gets to appoint the next two highest judges in our government. The New York Times said that Trump said yesterday that, "The U.S. Should expand its Nuclear Capacity." It can get much worse. During all the debates for President, Trump acted like the type of person that will lie as much as they can get away with if it gains them more power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/u...hould-expand-its-nuclear-capability.html?_r=0

 

[lpetrich]

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.

Gerrymandering is an attempt to sabotage democracy by trying to make one's party win even when it loses.

BTW, I think that the US ought to have proportional representation in its legislatures. That can make gerrymandering much more difficult.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner: it's two wolves, a bear, three crocodiles, three dogs, and three sheep deciding how to manage resources.

I'm kidding, but really I'm not. Democracy isn't really the best thing ever. One thing that makes the US good is the Bill of Rights and the immense built-in difficulty in changing it. A simple majority may always want to remove freedoms of others or to enslave them, but the Bill of Rights stops them. A simple majority can't and shouldn't change the rights either.

 

[SimpleDon]

The united States is not and has never been a democracy. That is just a myth your people are fed to keep them from revolution.

But previously the US's tepid representative democracy was moving toward a broader democracy. Witness the enfranchisement of non-property owners, of women, minorities, felons and the direct election of Senators, etc. Since the advent of movement conservatism and neoliberalism the movement has been away from democracy, resulting in the minority party now having control of all three branches of the government in spite of not having won a majority or even a plurality of the popular vote in any of them. And this in spite of their demonstrated incompetence running the government and their voiced bafflement at how it is suppose to work.

And also see the enfranchisement of corporations and foreigners, apparently including Vladimir Putin.

Do conservatives mistrust democracy this much?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The united States is not and has never been a democracy. That is just a myth your people are fed to keep them from revolution.

But previously the US's tepid representative democracy was moving toward a broader democracy. Witness the enfranchisement of non-property owners, of women, minorities, felons and the direct election of Senators, etc. Since the advent of movement conservatism and neoliberalism the movement has been away from democracy, resulting in the minority party now having control of all three branches of the government in spite of not having won a majority or even a plurality of the popular vote in any of them. And this in spite of their demonstrated incompetence running the government and their voiced bafflement at how it is suppose to work.

And also see the enfranchisement of corporations and foreigners, apparently including Vladimir Putin.

Do conservatives mistrust democracy this much?

One thing that worries me regarding American democracy is the number of people in jail. USA takes away the vote from convicted felons and also has more people than any other country in jail. I do suspect there's a connection.

 

[KeepTalking]

But previously the US's tepid representative democracy was moving toward a broader democracy. Witness the enfranchisement of non-property owners, of women, minorities, felons and the direct election of Senators, etc. Since the advent of movement conservatism and neoliberalism the movement has been away from democracy, resulting in the minority party now having control of all three branches of the government in spite of not having won a majority or even a plurality of the popular vote in any of them. And this in spite of their demonstrated incompetence running the government and their voiced bafflement at how it is suppose to work.

And also see the enfranchisement of corporations and foreigners, apparently including Vladimir Putin.

Do conservatives mistrust democracy this much?

One thing that worries me regarding American democracy is the number of people in jail. USA takes away the vote from convicted felons and also has more people than any other country in jail. I do suspect there's a connection.

Whether or not convicted felons can vote is within the prerogative of the states. Two states allow incarcerated felons to vote (Maine, Vermont), 14 states allow felons to vote after release, several more allow felon voting after probation/parole. Of the remaining states, most restrict felon voting based on the crime, or number of convictions, and most of those allow for individual petition for restoration of voting rights.

 

[DrZoidberg]

One thing that worries me regarding American democracy is the number of people in jail. USA takes away the vote from convicted felons and also has more people than any other country in jail. I do suspect there's a connection.

Whether or not convicted felons can vote is within the prerogative of the states. Two states allow incarcerated felons to vote (Maine, Vermont), 14 states allow felons to vote after release, several more allow felon voting after probation/parole. Of the remaining states, most restrict felon voting based on the crime, or number of convictions, and most of those allow for individual petition for restoration of voting rights.

Sure, it's within the prerogative of states. But it is a systematic disenfranchisement of the poor. If we have a tool with which to empower ourselves, we're going to use it. It will lead to terms getting progressively longer. Which is exactly what has happened. And is happening. Do we really want to live in a society like that?

 

[KeepTalking]

Whether or not convicted felons can vote is within the prerogative of the states. Two states allow incarcerated felons to vote (Maine, Vermont), 14 states allow felons to vote after release, several more allow felon voting after probation/parole. Of the remaining states, most restrict felon voting based on the crime, or number of convictions, and most of those allow for individual petition for restoration of voting rights.

Sure, it's within the prerogative of states.

Just trying to correct your misapprehension of the facts. The USA does not take away the vote of convicted felons, they leave that up to the states, and not all of the states disenfranchise felons, even when they are incarcerated. Most states restore voting rights to felons after release, probation, or parole. I know, I am a convicted felon who had his voting rights restored after probation.

But it is a systematic disenfranchisement of the poor.

It can be, especially when coupled with the frequency of re-offense before the term of probation or parole ends. In Maine, Vermont, and the 14 states that allow felons to vote after release, however, this is not an issue.

If we have a tool with which to empower ourselves, we're going to use it. It will lead to terms getting progressively longer. Which is exactly what has happened. And is happening. Do we really want to live in a society like that?

Some people apparently don't have much of a problem with that. Fortunately most of those people live in Florida, and after the sea level rise that AGW will bring us over the next couple of decades, it will only take one good hurricane to correct that issue.