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

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Technically its a constitutional republic, and the founding fathers generally hated democracy because it led to the tyranny of the majority. They designed the federal government to avoid a majority repressing a minority. That is why there are three branches, elected in different ways, each accountable to the others, with one (judicial) not elected directly by the people. And on top of that constitutionally guaranteed rights to prevent the government from repressing the people or a minority.

Its a very logical system. Everything has a purpose, and preventing a majority rule is a the heart of it. Majority rule is the very thing you are complaining about in your op figment.

Uhm. The founding fathers were wise enough to split up the powers and form a constitution yes. Like pretty much every other government that has democratic principles, whether republic or democracy. Beyond that, the founding fathers aren't that special.

They clearly didn't hate tyranny by the majority, because that's the system they created on both state and national level by doing the "all votes go the slight majority in a state". Either that, or they had the idea that different states would bring different parties to power and didn't think of the scenario where only two organized parties came into existence and get the majority.

Basically, they didn't think hard enough about actual practicality of the system.

Either way, I don't really get how you can pretend the majority tyranny is not in this system, but in a democracy. This system ensures dictatorship on a state and national level, while a democracy first has to form a majority out of factions without giving any more power to miniscule majority to form an absolute majority and thus a position of dictatorial power.

In the US, all power is handed to one faction who don't even need to account to anyone else. The argument behind that is that you don't need to compromise. Meaning you can do radical reforms in favour of the party in command without having to compromise on anything, not having to tone down on anything.


I'm not sure if you understand what a majority tyranny is. In a democracy, the majority is not tyrannical, because it has to account for other people than themselves. I think you're blinded by patriotism here, but your republican system sucks in comparison to democracy.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You really should learn American History before commenting on it.
...
And I know exactly what tyranny of the majority is. A USA Founding Father coined the phrase. Educate yourself.

^ That.


Also, America being founded as a Constitutional Republic had little directly to do with our sovereignty from the monarchy of Britain. The Revolutionary War was fought over 8 years from 1775-1783; the Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787, after the dust had settled. The construction of the Constitution itself was hotly debated for months, many things were not agreed upon by the founding fathers as far as governance, state sovereignty, etc... but Article V really sums up the general opinion, in my opinion. That is, the Constitution is a living document. It is the supreme law of the land (NOT federal law, no matter what your college professors tell you; in fact state law is supposed to supersede federal law unless directly in opposition to a law that is within the scope of the Constitution) and it is a living document. Article V stipulates, more or less, that any part of the Constitution can be changed through an amendment process. That's how we got the bill of rights, the abolition of slavery (except under the 4th amendment), the right to keep and bear arms, free speech/press/religion/assembly, and on and on.


But wait! What about the NDAA, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.. etc...

The Constitution has been "under attack," so to speak, from it's birth. The first most famous is Adams' (2nd President) Alien and Sedition Act, later removed when Jefferson found it to be unbecoming (and, quite frankly, completely unconstitutional).

Unfortunately today, the American system is so far removed from the Constitution it is difficult to judge it objectively; people just don't want to follow the rules, EVEN WHEN THE RULE BOOK GIVES YOU A WAY TO CHANGE THEM!

To sum it up, check out the image (NOTE: Don't get all up on me over it being Obama -- my original google search was "Presidents laughing" as I was looking for a different image [which actually featured Reagan, not Obama] but that one came up and it fit the idea pretty well so I went with it.)








Also to the poster with the nifty little graphic of the disparity of wealth in the nation; that is NOT capitalism -- that is corporatism, bordering on fascism.




EDIT: More on the tyranny of majority: Check out ethnic cleansing, like in Burma, nations in Africa (such as Nigeria, Congo, etc...), Europe in WWII (Nazi Germany had a population of almost 70 million -- does that make it right for them to gas and burn ****, ******* and Poles? I'll let you guys figure that one out).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You really should learn American History before commenting on it. I trust the judgment of the brilliant men of founded this country over random internet Dutchman on a gaming fan site. The system they established still going strong and is the greatest nation in the world.

And I know exactly what tyranny of the majority is. A USA Founding Father coined the phrase. Educate yourself.

"Because the founding father's can't be wrong."

Blinded by patriotism, indeed.

Stop with what the founding father's did, step back and judge it for yourself for once?

It's not the greatest in the world, only two types of people can get into power, meaning it's tyrannical: it's predetermined who can get into power and it's not people with a different opinion.

Meaning if the ones in charge are a bunch of people who ruin everything and have a vested interested in staying in power, they will tell you it's the greatest thing ever.

And you swallow it because you've been taught you've got the bestest thing ever.


"The founding fathers" have been taught to you almost as a religious entity.

They are still all fallible men. Some smart ones among them, great. There's been more in the world.

And you can't speak of them as one entity even, because they all had different ideas on what should happen. So if you got the best ideas out of that group, that's more luck because its MAJORITY was convinced those particular things were best.

Yet that doesn't mean they actually ARE the best thing ever, since they wern't all agreed upon by everyone. The sheer reason that they left room for amendments was that they wern't convinced it was the best one and certainly not the best one for eternity. Which btw also means amendments are fallible, potentially temporary and replaceable.




So yes, blinded by patriotism and conservatism (fear of change). I'm pretty sure a lot of Romans thought their Republic was the best system in the world too.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Neurotoxin]

No branch represents the people. The executive branch is decided by politicians, regardless of popular voting. The judicial branch is appointed by the president and senate, rather than popular voting. When it comes to electing members to congress, we only have the option to vote on the ones with the most funding and representation, rather than allowing everyone in the political realm to have equal time and coverage when campaigning.

We don't choose our president, or the supreme court justices. We choose the people who choose the president, and that list is usually short and quite exclusive, so folks who don't have the money or corporate backing can't really get elected for positions in congress without an insurmountable wave of public outreach and support (and it has to last through the smear campaign ads against them too).

We don't have a choice, we don't have a voice. This is a republic, but it needs to be a democracy before anything can get better. One president, a small judiciary branch, and a few hundred people in congress, can't be trusted to make decisions that affect us all. For example, when talking about CISPA, the terrible cyber-security bill, republicans referred to internet specialists and professionals as "nerds" and nothing else. Lets ask the nerds, we'll have nerds figure that out, etc, they know NOTHING about the internet and cyber secuirity and yet we are supposed to trust them to rule on it? That is fucking moronic. Please, I beg of you to find some way to justify this, something that makes it right for ignorant techless old farts to be allowed to make this decision, and not the millions of internet users in America.


And corporatism IS capitalism. Any system by which the allocation of profits is the driving force of the economy is capitalism. Any system which would prevent people from accessing basic good and needs despite their availability, because of the demand for profit, is capitalism. Any system where a government will willingly attack, sanction, or destabilize another country for economic gains, and disguise it as a humanitarian operation, is capitalism. Capitalism is organized crime, and "corporatism" is only one part of how it functions today.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Sirisian]

I'm not sure why you're debating this. TheSHiFT already explained the generally fair way to handle things. The concept of representation is fine for a large country. It just needs to be handled so that everyone has a fair chance at representation.

Originally Posted by TheSHiFT

1. Double the amount of members for both the House and Senate.
2. All new seats will be filled using the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Method

We really need a proportional representation method for the US. The current system has created a two party monster that has shown itself to be extremely stubborn to work.

The only change I'd make, coming from a software background, is the last point:

Originally Posted by TheSHiFT

3. District elections will use a Plurality with Elimination Method

I'd use the Schulze method. It can be taught with a pamphlet.

Originally Posted by Figment

Eventually, you'd get something like this:

I know the image is an illustration to show proportions. I'd randomize the seating everyday. Shake things up so they shake hands and talk to their neighbors. Works well for team building.

[Neurotoxin]

We would need to change to a new system such as Socialism in order to get the kind of democracy we need. Not the kind Glenn Beck talks about, not the kind Obama supposedly is, not the kind that Hollande in France represents. Socialism based on international working-class solidarity, focused on putting the needs of all citizens above the profits of a small few, focused on resolving contradictions that exist rather than trying to work within or around them.

This means that leaders would have to be changed from a role of decision-making to a role of facilitating democratic discussion. Decisions wouldn't be made instantly, but would instead take weeks, months, sometimes even longer than a year, so that everyone in the nation has an opportunity to join in the discussion on the subject. It doesn't end in a single yes/no vote, but there are multiple levels of voting in order to allow the best ideas or solutions among a group of many to be the ones that are voted on. Also, under this system, the ability to recall and replace politicians will be extremely rapid, rather than generally being stuck with them for a couple years or more like we are here.

That system doesn't work with Capitalism. Democracy is suppressed under capitalism. When workers come to protest the conditions they work under, their boss calls the police to bash their heads in and let the scabs do the work. When a group raises up with a powerful message, they are suppressed, even if they represent the popular opinion. Capitalism is about control, about maintaining the illusion of freedom, anesthetizing the public into believing that pulling a lever every two years for politicians represented by corporate funding is somehow freedom. I'm done with that shit, I'll vote for Peta Lindsay, but the masses only get justice through massive amounts of petitions and demonstrations when existing under the system of Capitalism.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Neurotoxin]

It would have been better if America and other Western nations weren't aggressing them from the start. Despite that, they went from being poor illiterate dirt farmers to having literacy and the industrial capacity to defeat the Nazi war machine, AND beat the US to space, in a span of 50 years. Things were good under Lenin, though he was a leader in charge of a party in charge of a nation, which still isn't what I'm looking for as the final arrangement of government by any means.

Look at Cuba as a better example. Despite a crippling embargo, they've managed to take care off all the major problems that we still see on a daily basis in America. Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the US, less deaths per thousand live births than the US, free education through your Ph.D, free medical care, NO homeless, a leader in sustainable organic agriculture, and I could go on. Their prisons are even reformatory institutions, rather than labor camps or British-style dungeons. Most of all, they have democracy. Seeing how many revolutions go astray after the original leader is deposed or has died, if I were Cuban I'd probably keep voting Castro too (even if it is Raul Castro now, and not Fidel).

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

Look at Cuba as a better example. Despite a crippling embargo, they've managed to take care off all the major problems that we still see on a daily basis in America. Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the US, less deaths per thousand live births than the US, free education through your Ph.D, free medical care, NO homeless, a leader in sustainable organic agriculture, and I could go on. Their prisons are even reformatory institutions, rather than labor camps or British-style dungeons. Most of all, they have democracy. Seeing how many revolutions go astray after the original leader is deposed or has died, if I were Cuban I'd probably keep voting Castro too (even if it is Raul Castro now, and not Fidel).

I will admit, they are doing many things I wish we in the US would try to do...such as health care for all, increasing literacy rate/education, etc etc.

Maybe the embargo is the reason Cuba is doing so poorly. I don't see why it shouldn't be lifted in order to see how they do.

However, I don't think Capitalism is inherently bad, just as I don't think Socialism/Communism is inherently bad.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Vecha

However, I don't think Capitalism is inherently bad, just as I don't think Socialism/Communism is inherently bad.

You don't have to reiterate yourself. You put it rather nicely the first time.

Originally Posted by Vecha

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.

Also I agree with your comment. Cuba has some amazing policies that would be wonderful to have in the US.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You don't have to reiterate yourself. You put it rather nicely the first time.

Yeah...bad memory and I tend to repeat myself.

Being an English teacher/tutor created that habbit....