SHOULD the U.S. Be a Democracy? (Y/N)

[Zander]

Fuck you and your OP. We have a perfect good Constitutional Republic. No changes needed.

 

[Jackson]

yeah... the Constitution works well....For people with money and power... because they can manipulate it for their gain... when poor, working and Middle Class people try... they get labeled Communists.

They have a one man one vote like everyone else.

Therein lies the rub, doesn't it? That's why Unions give massive amounts of money to the Dems and Corporations give even more to both parties, and the Koch Brothers fund the Tea Party... to brainwash and sway voters to vote in their direction. Why do they do this? To call in those chips and get favorable legislation that make them and their benefactors money once a candidate is elected.

Get the damned money out of politics... let Politicians run on the issues, have independent fact checkers to point out the lies, and have Publicly funded elections with a hard Spending cap. You'll save hundreds of billions of dollars in useless legislation and government handouts.

The Constitution cannot prevent people from being brainwashed or not educated on the issues. We need an informed electorate and spending caps from public funds. But where do the public funds come from? We are tapped.

 

[Katzndogz]

A democracy of cannibals.

Democracy of Cannibals | RSN Pick of the Day Right Side News

The one fundamental virtue of democracy is that it is the widest possible means of distributing power within a system. And that leads to a system that is only as good and bad as the sum of its voters. It is possible to have a democracy of cannibals, so long as the majority agrees that's the way to go. Or a democracy in which a quarter of the population has no legal or civil rights whatsoever. So long as that is the expressed will of the majority.

Democracy is a tool. It is a means, not the end. During the Bush Administration, democracy was treated as an end. The embedded assumption was that the average Arab-Muslim wanted the same things we did. A condensed version of the American Dream with jobs and freedom for everyone. And when given a chance at a voting booth, tyranny and terrorism would blow away like smoke, as a liberated electorate would choose leaders who would give them these things.

Like all tools, democracy is defined by its users. Give a gun to a maniac and he will shoot up a store. Give it to a responsible man, and he will use it guard his home. The difference is not in the gun, but in the values of the wielder.

Democracy of cannibals. Democracy of liberals. Democracy of muslims. No difference.

 

[Dragon]

We have a perfect good Constitutional Republic. No changes needed.

Setting aside the question of whether changes are needed, let's look at the Constitution that defines our republic and see whether it is or is not (at least mostly) democratic -- at least in theory.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Article II, Section 2. That second clause, by the way, simply means that those eligible to vote in House elections in any state are the same ones who can vote for the biggest house of the state legislature. This is highly democratic in visible intent. The people are to vote for their representatives in the House, and the number of such representatives is also proportional to the population. The House is clearly and unambiguously intended to be a democratic body.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

Amendment 17. This is on the surface also democratic, but less clearly so than the House. Originally, it was not democratic at all, since Senators were to be chosen by the state legislatures rather than by the people. Today, while the people do vote for Senator, people living in small states have a more influential vote than people living in big ones, since the Senate is equal by state. Still, the passage of the 17th amendment itself shows the intent towards democracy which has increased since the days of the Founding Fathers.

Another change in practice (although not a constitutional amendment) involves the election of the President. We still do that through the electoral college, but today the electors are supposed to (but are not required to) vote the same way as the people of their state, or, in two states, of their Congressional district. When the EC chooses someone who did not win the popular vote, as in 2000, there's a widespread sense that something has gone wrong.

So we've been moving towards democracy for quite a while, and I think most Americans would say that's the way it should be.

 

[Steelplate]

They have a one man one vote like everyone else.

Therein lies the rub, doesn't it? That's why Unions give massive amounts of money to the Dems and Corporations give even more to both parties, and the Koch Brothers fund the Tea Party... to brainwash and sway voters to vote in their direction. Why do they do this? To call in those chips and get favorable legislation that make them and their benefactors money once a candidate is elected.

Get the damned money out of politics... let Politicians run on the issues, have independent fact checkers to point out the lies, and have Publicly funded elections with a hard Spending cap. You'll save hundreds of billions of dollars in useless legislation and government handouts.

The Constitution cannot prevent people from being brainwashed or not educated on the issues. We need an informed electorate and spending caps from public funds. But where do the public funds come from? We are tapped.

with the money that we'll save from the cronyism and favors granted under the current system. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of legislation... what's a hard cap of say....$300M per candidate at the presidential level...when compared to that?

 

[westwall]

I worded my response exactly as it needed to be as your definitions were too loose and could lead to misinterpretation.

So from this, you reject the idea that a democratic republic is a democracy?

A DEMOCRACY is a governmental system where majority rules. In a group of 100 people whoever get's the 51st voter to agree with them wins. A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC requires much larger majorities to prevail, thus preserving individual rights for a much longer period of time. It is also easier (in general) to address problems when they crop up.

I prefer to use definitions that have withstood the test of time. Not the watered down and arguable ones you choose to use.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are two types of republic, a democratic republic and an aristocratic republic. One can also have a hybrid of the two types, as the U.S. Constitution was designed to be initially (democratic House of Representatives, aristocratic Senate).

That’s not entirely accurate: members of the Senate were indirectly elected, as the people of a given state voted for representatives of that state’s legislature, who then appointed members to the Senate.

We see this also reflected in the Electoral College, where the people for the most part indirectly elect the president:

The United States Constitution and Federal law do not prescribe the method of appointment other than requiring that electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 4, 2008). In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the citizens of each State appoint the electors by popular vote in the state-wide general election. However, State laws on the appointment of electors may vary.

U. S. Electoral College

It was never the intent of the Framers, then, to have ‘direct democracy,’ save the House as the ‘Peoples’ Chamber.’

We must also remember that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of law, not merely a ‘blueprint for government.’ It does serve in that capacity in part, but overall it establishes and codifies the doctrine of the rule of law, to which all three branches of government, all state and local governments, and the people themselves, are subject.

Per the rule of law and in theory, therefore, it should make no difference who or what party controls the Executive or Legislative branches, or who controls state and local governments, as the rights and liberties of the people are safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law from the tyranny of the government – whether that tyranny manifest by elected official or directly by the people alone.

The democratic process, then, is a political mechanism functioning within – and sanctioned by - the context of Constitutional case law and the rule of law; to advocate a ‘more direst’ democratic process is to advocate undermining the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic and the doctrine of the rule of law, placing our individual liberties at risk.

That some are frustrated with ‘special interests,’ ‘corporate aristocrats,’ or ‘lobbyists and influence peddlers’ doesn’t justify an attack on our Constitutional Republic, the problem is neither systemic nor institutional.

The problem lies with each and every American who elects to be ignorant and uninvolved in his local political venue – and special and corporate interests will indeed exploit that ignorance and lack of involvement.

 

[Dragon]

A DEMOCRACY is a governmental system where majority rules. In a group of 100 people whoever get's the 51st voter to agree with them wins. A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC requires much larger majorities to prevail, thus preserving individual rights for a much longer period of time.

The first definition (of "democracy") is correct. The second (of "constitutional republic") is not. A constitutional republic is simply a republic based on a written law governing how it should operate. A constitutional republic MAY require much larger majorities, but it does not HAVE to and in fact, ours does not. A simple majority is necessary to elect any government official (less than that, if more than two candidates run), and a simple majority in both houses of Congress is all that is required under the Constitution to pass legislation other than a Constitutional amendment or conviction on impeachment.

Regarding democracy and individual rights, I suggest you dig a little more into the history of direct democracy in Greece, particularly Athens. Individual rights were no more threatened in that society than under any non-democratic government and much less so than under most. What protects the rights of minorities in the U.S. is not the republican nature of our government but rather restrictions on it such as the Bill of Rights. Those are limitations on what the government can do, and as such don't relate to how democratic or aristocratic the government may be.

 

[Douger]

This is the question that Amelia should have asked in her thread, in my opinion. It gets all confused to ask whether it IS one, because of the observable corruption of democracy by corporate money. Those of us who are part of Occupy or at least agree with the movements aims recognize (and bitch about) that no, the U.S. is not a democracy -- but we think it should be one and is supposed to be one.

So here we go. SHOULD the U.S. be a democracy?

Now, a definition: a government is a DEMOCRACY if its decisions are made with reference to the will of the majority of the people. Democracy takes two forms:

1) Pure or direct democracy, in which the people vote directly on laws or policies.

2) Representative democracy or democratic republic, in which the people elect representatives who then vote on laws or make policies.

No. To have a true democracy requires that you have an informed citizenry to vote. You have brainwashed morons. A dictatorship would be a better choice than the shenanigans of the last 50 years.

 

[Dragon]

The democratic process, then, is a political mechanism functioning within – and sanctioned by - the context of Constitutional case law and the rule of law; to advocate a ‘more direst’ democratic process is to advocate undermining the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic and the doctrine of the rule of law, placing our individual liberties at risk.

I didn't intend this thread to discuss direct democracy, but rather democracy as ANY form of rule by the people, whether direct or representative. However, I do disagree with you here. A direct democracy would be, and historically always has been, governed by the rule of law. Lose the rule of law and what you have is anarchy, not democracy. To change the U.S. from the representative democracy it is supposed to be into a direct democracy, we would need to repeal and replace Article II of the Constitution, to allow the laws to be passed by the people directly rather than by representative bodies. Most of the Constitution as it currently exists, however, is compatible with direct democracy and could be retained. This includes Article III, establishing an independent judiciary, the provisions of Article II Section 9, which place limits on what laws can be passed, and of course the Bill of Rights.

That said, democracy is a broader concept than direct democracy, so if we should be a representative democracy or democratic republic then we should be a democracy -- even if we should not be a direct democracy.

 

[Zander]

 

[westwall]

A DEMOCRACY is a governmental system where majority rules. In a group of 100 people whoever get's the 51st voter to agree with them wins. A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC requires much larger majorities to prevail, thus preserving individual rights for a much longer period of time.

The first definition (of "democracy") is correct. The second (of "constitutional republic") is not. A constitutional republic is simply a republic based on a written law governing how it should operate. A constitutional republic MAY require much larger majorities, but it does not HAVE to and in fact, ours does not. A simple majority is necessary to elect any government official (less than that, if more than two candidates run), and a simple majority in both houses of Congress is all that is required under the Constitution to pass legislation other than a Constitutional amendment or conviction on impeachment.

Regarding democracy and individual rights, I suggest you dig a little more into the history of direct democracy in Greece, particularly Athens. Individual rights were no more threatened in that society than under any non-democratic government and much less so than under most. What protects the rights of minorities in the U.S. is not the republican nature of our government but rather restrictions on it such as the Bill of Rights. Those are limitations on what the government can do, and as such don't relate to how democratic or aristocratic the government may be.

Tell that to Socrates.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No... I like the Representative Republic we have. I just don't care for Special Interests running the show, just because they fund elections.

Did you read my OP? A "representative republic" IS a democracy.

No..A democracy is a democracy and a rep republic is a rep republic.
Two different things.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No... I like the Representative Republic we have. I just don't care for Special Interests running the show, just because they fund elections.

Did you read my OP? A "representative republic" IS a democracy.

The dependency on money in political campaigns must end as well.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is the question that Amelia should have asked in her thread, in my opinion. It gets all confused to ask whether it IS one, because of the observable corruption of democracy by corporate money. Those of us who are part of Occupy or at least agree with the movements aims recognize (and bitch about) that no, the U.S. is not a democracy -- but we think it should be one and is supposed to be one.

So here we go. SHOULD the U.S. be a democracy?

Now, a definition: a government is a DEMOCRACY if its decisions are made with reference to the will of the majority of the people. Democracy takes two forms:

1) Pure or direct democracy, in which the people vote directly on laws or policies.

2) Representative democracy or democratic republic, in which the people elect representatives who then vote on laws or make policies.

I vote no.

We should remain the Constitutional Republic which has made this country the one with the most liberty for its citizens for over 300 years now.

Democracy is like 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner...... In other words the minority gets screwed....think about that for a minute.

 

[dblack]

I suppose I'd prefer the US remain a representative democracy, albeit a functioning one, which may be a dubious claim at present. That said, I'm not nearly as interested in how governmental decisions get made, as I am in maintaining clear, concise limits on what they can do. If constitutional limits are in place, and respected, then there are clear limits on bad decisions - regardless of how they are made.

 

[paulitician]

Our Founding Fathers chose to create a Republic rather than a direct Democracy. There are many reasons for that. Read up on what Benjamin Franklin said about being a Republic rather than a Democracy. It's very interesting.

 

[Photonic]

We have a form of democracy that works well. for us.
We need the Constitutional Republic to provide the checks and balances or constitution uniquely provides.

"The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches."

yeah... the Constitution works well....For people with money and power... because they can manipulate it for their gain... when poor, working and Middle Class people try... they get labeled Communists.

They have a one man one vote like everyone else.

Yet somehow, money ALWAYS gets involved.

Get dunked.

 

[Dragon]

Tell that to Socrates.

He can get together with all the Holocaust victims in the afterlife and discuss whether democracy is better or worse than other government types when it comes to handing out injustice.

 

[Dragon]

Our Founding Fathers chose to create a Republic rather than a direct Democracy. There are many reasons for that.

No, actually there was only one: a direct democracy over the whole United States in 1789 was impossible. It couldn't be done.

The real question is why they some of them didn't want a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, not a direct democracy.