The kicker is... The public doesn't elect the president. The public elects a suit of people through state elections and such who make up the electoral college, which then pick the president.
Is America really a "Democracy"?
- Thread starter PizzaTheHutt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The U.S. is a republic, but frankly I think a lot of politicians are not really representing the people anymore. It happened under Bush and is continuing under Obama.
That can be changed, but it seems only a matter of time before the cycle continues again.
That can be changed, but it seems only a matter of time before the cycle continues again.
Well, if they waited for about 300,000,000 people to voice their opinions on a subject, nothing will ever get done.
There are no true democracy's because they would be incrediably hard and tedious in a government with a large population.
Even with a few people its hard, because if its say 5 people, its still a challange to get everyone to support 1 thing.
There are no true democracy's because they would be incrediably hard and tedious in a government with a large population.
Even with a few people its hard, because if its say 5 people, its still a challange to get everyone to support 1 thing.
How about I discuss your incorrect definition of Democracy? The only true recorded democracy was in Athens, Greece just before the collapse of the Greek City-State system. Therein, every man who owned land was allowed one vote on every issue that came to light; this includes taxes, roads, laws, and criminal prosecution.PizzaTheHutt said:
What we live in is a Democratic Republic; We elect people (often without total knowledge of their character and intentions) and let them do the work for us. We can barely learn the names of who we're voting for, there's no way America (or any modernized nation) would survive as a true democracy.
true but that is because 98% of the people back then were no better that superstitious retards, its way better now only maybe 90% of US citizens are retarded plus with out computers and telecommunications it just would have been unfeasible to have a true democracy back then with so much area to coverShaoken said:
I'd argue that many Americans are still superstitious; look at how they'll believe whatever a political figure will say, even if it's a clear and obvious lie. And back then there were a lot less people in the US; you could quite easily have organised a True Democracy. It was only 13 colonies.iblis666 said:
I pledge elegance to the flag, of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC-
Republic, not democracy.
Republic, not democracy.
From my position of idle interest I've come to the conclusion that America lacks a couple things that might make it more democratic. As an example, it doesn't have an independent body that decides the boundaries of seats for the House of Reps. This leads to all kinds of gerrymandering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering], which is detrimental to the moderation of the House. Ever wondered why the House of Reps is so filled with hard-left/hard-right kooks? Gerrymandering.
The consequence of gerrymandering is that both parties vie to create ridiculous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_District_38_2004.png] constituencies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TX22_109_abcdef.gif] - even in the shape of earmuffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illinois_District_4_2004.png] - that are politically solid, thus keeping the incumbent in power without all that difficult work involved in trying to sound reasonable and moderate. In other words, the House of Reps has many, many politicians who aren't really beholden to their voters because their constituencies have been massaged in such a way as to cover hardcore dyed-in-the-wool Dems/Reps. There are other reasons for the incredibly undemocratic rates of incumbency in the House [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States] but gerrymandering is a key one.
Of course you could never fix this because you'd have to pass legislation through the House of Reps. Sorry Americans, you're just screwed.
The consequence of gerrymandering is that both parties vie to create ridiculous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_District_38_2004.png] constituencies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TX22_109_abcdef.gif] - even in the shape of earmuffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illinois_District_4_2004.png] - that are politically solid, thus keeping the incumbent in power without all that difficult work involved in trying to sound reasonable and moderate. In other words, the House of Reps has many, many politicians who aren't really beholden to their voters because their constituencies have been massaged in such a way as to cover hardcore dyed-in-the-wool Dems/Reps. There are other reasons for the incredibly undemocratic rates of incumbency in the House [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States] but gerrymandering is a key one.
Of course you could never fix this because you'd have to pass legislation through the House of Reps. Sorry Americans, you're just screwed.
