US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy? - Page 4

Saifoda · 2012-06-25, 01:10 PM

Vote with your feet, and vote with your lifestyle.

If you can afford to move, live in an area that resonates most with you. I currently live in Boston and I HATE it here; looking very much forward to moving to a more conservative county in Oregon (my home state).

Don't use TV -- you don't need it, there's netflix, youtube, etc... for any news/videos/etc. you want. The major network's ratings and viewership are already at a decade+ low, a little over 2.1 million daily viewers between the top three "mainstream" media (CBS, NBC, CNN, I believe) down from, if I recall correctly, over 5 million.

Kill your lawn; plant a garden. How does this duocracy have us by the balls? Through our basic necessities; our food, our energy, and very soon (and already mostly there) our water. Water is still mostly under public domain (bad enough, some might say) but private companies are looking to buy water distribution and rights, with only the government there to regulate it; this has happened (usually in reverse, actually) across many industries, and most informed individuals like to call this "fascism" because, well, it is.

Get involved politically, locally. What Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court do is largely out of our control, but their power is derived through the cooperation of counties, cities, and states. It is much easier to change local politics than to "tag another one up" for the D's or R's you see on C-Span.

Saifoda · 2012-06-25, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

If the U.S. isn't a democracy, then what's all the voting about?

To keep you distracted, while the real method...:

Originally Posted by Kriegson

I say we have things decided by gladiatorial death match in an angry badger pit.

is used behind closed doors.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Yeah, it is. It's a representative democracy. Its government functions as a constitutional republic, but as a whole it is of course a form of democracy.

And uh...No, it's not. It is a Republic. Democracy is a government by the people, by rule of the majority. Even if we removed the electoral college, and other such nonsense used by the pro-centralized power lovers and pundits, we would still have a nation whose laws are made primarily by (yes, elected) legislatures. This means rule of law, by individuals who are elected to represent the people -- literally the definition of Republic (res publica) -- NOT that the people themselves make the laws. Unless you've written up any of the 200,000+ pages of US Code, or the over 3.4 million words of the US Tax Code, I'm pretty sure what we have is called a Republic.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot to merge the posts.

Neurotoxin · 2012-06-25, 01:34 PM

We only have 1 party in America: Capitalism. Call them democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians... they all represent the right, they all represent capitalism.

We have no leftist politics in America anymore. After The New Deal, they scared the left out of us, making Socialism and Communism illegal (Anti-Sedition Act, Smith Act, McCarthy Trials) for long enough that it would be demonized and assaulted forever.

America's political focus for the past hundred years has been anti-Communism, anti-Socialism. To prove how adamant they are about it, they had the Cold War, invaded Vietnam, maintain an embargo on Cuba, applied sanction on Iran, are STILL at war with North Korea (even if it is cold right now) etc. America stomps on the rights of countries whose people seek the right to self-determination under any system that is not profitable for American Capitalism.

Every year we vote to maintain a system that is fundamentally flawed and corrupt. Just as a reminder, this is what America looks like under Capitalism:

Vecha · 2012-06-25, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

We only have 1 party in America: Capitalism. Call them democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians... they all represent the right, they all represent capitalism.

We have no leftist politics in America anymore. After The New Deal, they scared the left out of us, making Socialism and Communism illegal (Anti-Sedition Act, Smith Act, McCarthy Trials) for long enough that it would be demonized and assaulted forever.

America's political focus for the past hundred years has been anti-Communism, anti-Socialism. To prove how adamant they are about it, they had the Cold War, invaded Vietnam, maintain an embargo on Cuba, applied sanction on Iran, are STILL at war with North Korea (even if it is cold right now) etc. America stomps on the rights of countries whose people seek the right to self-determination under any system that is not profitable for American Capitalism.

Every year we vote to maintain a system that is fundamentally flawed and corrupt. Just as a reminder, this is what America looks like under Capitalism:

Hopefully one day it'll change.

I think there should be a middle ground between Socialism/Capitalism.

Going too far in either direction causes major issues...which can be seen in the last few years.

Neurotoxin · 2012-06-25, 09:14 PM

What is wrong with Socialism, again? Putting the needs of people first, democratically-elected leaders who facilitate democratic discussions instead of being deciders, and not using profit as the ultimate means and goal for maintaining the economy and life itself.

While it isn't perfect, Cuba is doing great, and they'd be doing better than any similar-sized nation if we removed the embargo. Their education, medical training, and organic farming techniques, are among the best in the world. Hell their film schools are pretty good (just saw Juan of the Dead - freaking awesome zombie film from Cuba) and are also free. Nobody goes hungry, nobody is homeless, education is free, health care is free, leaders are elected democratically, and laws are passed through long democratic discussions that include a majority of their population (over 75% participate in many cases). All that sounds good to me, but don't tell me to move to Cuba, because I want that for everyone here in America.

Vecha · 2012-06-25, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

What is wrong with Socialism, again?

I'm not saying it is "wrong."

I merely said too much of either can be damaging.

Go too far to the Capitalism side and you have what we have now, a small elite with the majority of the wealth, go too far to Socialist side and you can have too much power centralized in a governing elite.

I think both have great points.

The human factor fucks up both.

Neurotoxin · 2012-06-25, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Vecha

go too far to Socialist side and you can have too much power centralized in a governing elite.

Nah, that's what happens when a socialist system is tainted and infected by bourgeois liberalism. All Socialist / Communist experiments that have existed before happened in places that weren't fully industrialized, with low literacy and often shortages of basic necessities. The "ruling elite" really depends on the revolution itself, whether we get an international socialist party (Bolshevik) or a fascist nationalist socialist party (Nazi). When I talk about establishing Socialism, I mean from the international perspective, not to be fascist nationalists trying to run the world.

20th Century Com/Soc revolutions aren't going to look the same as the ones in the 21st Century. We have the ability to instantly communicate, instantly share problems and injustices and start discussing something to do about them. Under Capitalism, the final answer to those discussions is usually "Vote for X and hope they stick to their word" or sometimes (rarely) getting out in the streets to get petitions for a new law to rectify that injustice, never for that discussion to lead to greater discussion until it is an issue that is being voted on nationally in many phases (not just one yes/no vote, but starting by voting for amicable solutions to sort them from undesired solutions) so that everyone can have a meaningful voice in the realm of politics.

And aside from that, we have the means and infrastructure to support and sustain everyone under a system of Socialism. We don't have to start by building homes, farms, industrial capacity, hospitals, and schools - we already have these, so giving everyone housing, food, jobs, and education, medical care, and access to goods, is not a problem. We also (hopefully) wouldn't have to fight off a counter-revolutionary force, as America is usually the sponsor for an anti-Socialist or anti-Communist counter-revolutionary force.

Between ease of mass communication, access to all the necessities that some revolutions had to build up from scratch, and the fact that America won't try to stop America, we could transition to Socialism or Communism quite effectively, and have it be the system we want it to be rather than how history often portrays it to be.

Sucks that we can't vote "Socialist" though it would probably be more like Social Democracy rather than Democratic Socialism. We'd need a true Anti-Capitalist party in order to get the kinda socialism we need. Well we do actually, Peta Lindsay from PSL will be on the ballots this year.

p0intman · 2012-06-25, 09:50 PM

media conglomerates make it hard to really organize any real opposition. i imagine there are a ton of people that would happily vote for someone legitimate other than the two currently established parties if there was a legit candidate to back that wasn't a joke.

I would.

Baneblade · 2012-06-25, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Vecha

you have what we have now, a small elite with the majority of the wealth, go too far to Socialist side and you can have too much power centralized in a governing elite.

I could argue that we are suffering both now.

Vecha · 2012-06-25, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I could argue that we are suffering both now.

I'd agree with you.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-26, 04:10 AM

The United States of America is not a Democracy; it is a Republic.

Figment · 2012-06-26, 05:53 AM

Not a very logical republic though.

France is a republic, but it has a better representation of its populace within the parliament. Even if it isn't quite as representative as in some other countries.

Best examples of democratic systems are in northern European countries that are not British (the British use district voting after all which isn't democratic, but a compilation of little majority dictatorships).

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-06-26, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

We only have 1 party in America: Capitalism. Call them democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians... they all represent the right, they all represent capitalism.

We have no leftist politics in America anymore. After The New Deal, they scared the left out of us, making Socialism and Communism illegal (Anti-Sedition Act, Smith Act, McCarthy Trials) for long enough that it would be demonized and assaulted forever.

America's political focus for the past hundred years has been anti-Communism, anti-Socialism. To prove how adamant they are about it, they had the Cold War, invaded Vietnam, maintain an embargo on Cuba, applied sanction on Iran, are STILL at war with North Korea (even if it is cold right now) etc. America stomps on the rights of countries whose people seek the right to self-determination under any system that is not profitable for American Capitalism.

Every year we vote to maintain a system that is fundamentally flawed and corrupt. Just as a reminder, this is what America looks like under Capitalism:

Well said. I agree with this sentiment. The parties are just two flavors of a broken system.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-26, 11:55 AM

Meh.

Neurotoxin · 2012-06-26, 02:22 PM

Tyranny of the majority sounds like mob rule, unfocused anarchy.... Fortunately a properly democratic system exists and has been proven effective. They said they feared it because the constitution was a terrible document to begin with, and they had to do everything they could to defend and back it up. It was serviceable as a way of establishing America's sovereignty from Europe, but beyond that it is short-sighted and narrow in focus and capability.

When the leaders are no longer deciders, but instead the facilitators of mass widespread political discussion, we can have a democracy that is focused and effective. Though some amount of education is needed between now and then - raising literacy, and introducing everyone to true leftist politics (not capitalism's democrats and greens) - so that everyone understands the terms and conditions of how a democratic discussion-oriented system should work.

What the hell is the point of a government but to take care of it's citizens and maintain sovereignty?

Right now America clearly doesn't take care of it's citizens, it sets them to compete with each other so their labor can be bought for as cheap as possible. If it isn't profitable to hire someone, they don't get a job. And because everything in America is a for-profit industry, one cannot exist without money, without a job. Since nobody has the right to a job, and the social safety net to compensate for unemployment has been getting slashed and cut since it's formation, people are broke AND have nowhere to turn for help.

As for maintaining US sovereignty, we could pull our entire military back to America, no more bases in Africa and Asia and the Mideast and South America and Cuba, cut the defense budget by 90%, and we'd still be the most heavily armed and defended nation on the planet.

So our current government doesn't want to take care of it's citizens, but will willingly overspend on imperialist military occupations. And there is no way to fix it by voting. Voting for a capitalist president to do anything other than maintaining capitalism in it's current state is silly. Don't shout "Ron Paul" or "Rocky Anderson" at me, they are both tools, Ron Paul support's the right of a company to deny someone service based on race, and Rocky Anderson thinks $10/hr minimum wage will help with the poverty and unemployment situation. Peta Lindsay is the ONLY candidate that would actually be able to do anything to change America's current track, and that's because she is the only candidate who comes from true leftist politics.