American democracy...is there such a thing...

[Procrustes Stretched]

American democracy...is there such a thing, and if there is, what is it? I see people here speaking about the US not being a democracy, yet arguing for democratic rule.

What does it mean to be a republic and how does being a republic play into the populism of people's views? I'm thinking about people using terms likethe majority or the people , whenever they rant against what congress or the executive or the SCOTUS has done.

Myself, I have never been in favor of a pure, populist democracy. I am content the system we have---flaws and a I have very few arguments with how things work out.

I have misjudged KevinK. and a few others by not listening to what they are saying...or have I?

 

[JBeukema]

Direct Democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. That is why the FF rejected it. Unfortunately, we see the rise of a different breed of tyranny- that of the de facto oligarchy what buys political power without the slightest hint of real concern for either nation or its people. Most Americans, however, don't challenge it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Direct Democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. That is why the FF rejected it. Unfortunately, we see the rise of a different breed of tyranny- that of the de facto oligarchy what buys political power without the slightest hint of real concern for either nation or its people. Most Americans, however, don't challenge it.

Were you before arguing about things and using a phrase like 'the people' to validate a point?

 

[KittenKoder]

American democracy...is there such a thing, and if there is, what is it? I see people here speaking about the US not being a democracy, yet arguing for democratic rule.

What does it mean to be a republic and how does being a republic play into the populism of people's views? I'm thinking about people using terms likethe majority or the people , whenever they rant against what congress or the executive or the SCOTUS has done.

Myself, I have never been in favor of a pure, populist democracy. I am content the system we have---flaws and a I have very few arguments with how things work out.

I have misjudged KevinK. and a few others by not listening to what they are saying...or have I?

Oddly .. it died. The original system was designed with checks and balances, but those are being ignored by politicians of all walks now, they simply don't care. The SCOTUS was suppose to ensure that no laws were made that would discriminate against minorities, now they are instead making and pushing laws which discriminate against the majority. The sad reality is that the US Democracy has not been followed for a couple decades (probably longer). Politicians are ignoring everyone but the lobbyists and the SCOTUS is ignoring everyone but the minorities.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I'm glad to hear that you may have misjudged me, though I'm not sure on what.

At any rate, we have a Republic which may be described as a representative democracy but I think that is a bit disingenuous considering that our founders specifically stated that they feared democracy as much as monarchy. I have before made the case about what the people want, though that was in regards to how they told their representatives how to vote on the bailouts and how their representatives failed them completely in that regard.

 

[JBeukema]

There are times when speaking of 'the people' is valid and times when it is not. For instance, when speaking of the rights or responsibilities of 'the people', or of the actions of the vast majority thereof, if can be valid, To speak as though all of 'the people' think a certain thing would generally be fallacious. Context is key, here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It should also be pointed out that we've taken steps closer to a more direct democracy by essentially abolishing federalism and with the 17th Amendment.

 

[JBeukema]

The confusion oft arises from the use of 'democracy' to refer to both a type of government under which many forms (including our own) fall and a specific form, such as a direct democracy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well I'm glad to hear that you may have misjudged me, though I'm not sure on what.

At any rate, we have a Republic which may be described as a representative democracy but I think that is a bit disingenuous considering that our founders specifically stated that they feared democracy as much as monarchy. I have before made the case about what the people want, though that was in regards to how they told their representatives how to vote on the bailouts and how their representatives failed them completely in that regard.

I misjudged you and I apologize, I thought you were an average blowhard. I was wrong.

I thought you were espousing certain ideas and wasn't paying enough attention to what you were saying. It hit me last night.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are times when speaking of 'the people' is valid and times when it is not. For instance, when speaking of the rights or responsibilities of 'the people', or of the actions of the vast majority thereof, if can be valid, To speak as though all of 'the people' think a certain thing would generally be fallacious. Context is key, here.

context is always key.

I was thinking along the lines of people arguing about say---the Federal Reserve Bank and complaining that the people somehow didn't vote for it's existence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

American democracy...is there such a thing, and if there is, what is it? I see people here speaking about the US not being a democracy, yet arguing for democratic rule.

What does it mean to be a republic and how does being a republic play into the populism of people's views? I'm thinking about people using terms likethe majority or the people , whenever they rant against what congress or the executive or the SCOTUS has done.

Myself, I have never been in favor of a pure, populist democracy. I am content the system we have---flaws and a I have very few arguments with how things work out.

I have misjudged KevinK. and a few others by not listening to what they are saying...or have I?

Oddly .. it died. The original system was designed with checks and balances, but those are being ignored by politicians of all walks now, they simply don't care. The SCOTUS was suppose to ensure that no laws were made that would discriminate against minorities, now they are instead making and pushing laws which discriminate against the majority. The sad reality is that the US Democracy has not been followed for a couple decades (probably longer). Politicians are ignoring everyone but the lobbyists and the SCOTUS is ignoring everyone but the minorities.

What checks and balances have died? I see them as shifting and morpohing more than dying. There is nothing set in stone about the balances of power as that is an abstract idea.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It should also be pointed out that we've taken steps closer to a more direct democracy by essentially abolishing federalism and with the 17th Amendment.

How do you think we abolished Federalism with the 17th? and was it the 17th alone that leads you to believe this??

 

[KittenKoder]

American democracy...is there such a thing, and if there is, what is it? I see people here speaking about the US not being a democracy, yet arguing for democratic rule.

What does it mean to be a republic and how does being a republic play into the populism of people's views? I'm thinking about people using terms likethe majority or the people , whenever they rant against what congress or the executive or the SCOTUS has done.

Myself, I have never been in favor of a pure, populist democracy. I am content the system we have---flaws and a I have very few arguments with how things work out.

I have misjudged KevinK. and a few others by not listening to what they are saying...or have I?

Oddly .. it died. The original system was designed with checks and balances, but those are being ignored by politicians of all walks now, they simply don't care. The SCOTUS was suppose to ensure that no laws were made that would discriminate against minorities, now they are instead making and pushing laws which discriminate against the majority. The sad reality is that the US Democracy has not been followed for a couple decades (probably longer). Politicians are ignoring everyone but the lobbyists and the SCOTUS is ignoring everyone but the minorities.

What checks and balances have died? I see them as shifting and morpohing more than dying. There is nothing set in stone about the balances of power as that is an abstract idea.

There's the problem, the idea of checks and balances is to keep it ... well .. balanced. You can't shift or "morph" them because then you lose the balance. That's why I say they died.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The confusion oft arises from the use of 'democracy' to refer to both a type of government under which many forms (including our own) fall and a specific form, such as a direct democracy.

thank you, and this iswhy I take very few people seriously. It is in my opinion impossible to have an intelligent and informed discussion about Merica or it's form of government without a primer on what exactly people mean when using terms.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It should also be pointed out that we've taken steps closer to a more direct democracy by essentially abolishing federalism and with the 17th Amendment.

How do you think we abolished Federalism with the 17th? and was it the 17th alone that leads you to believe this??

Certainly not. We essentially abolished federalism with the Civil War. That's the time where you can see the states taking a backseat to the centralization of power by the federal government. The 17th Amendment is simply an example of abolishing federalism. The Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the individual state governments not the people directly. By taking that power away from the states you move closer to democracy and further away from federalism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oddly .. it died. The original system was designed with checks and balances, but those are being ignored by politicians of all walks now, they simply don't care. The SCOTUS was suppose to ensure that no laws were made that would discriminate against minorities, now they are instead making and pushing laws which discriminate against the majority. The sad reality is that the US Democracy has not been followed for a couple decades (probably longer). Politicians are ignoring everyone but the lobbyists and the SCOTUS is ignoring everyone but the minorities.

What checks and balances have died? I see them as shifting and morpohing more than dying. There is nothing set in stone about the balances of power as that is an abstract idea.

There's the problem, the idea of checks and balances is to keep it ... well .. balanced. You can't shift or "morph" them because then you lose the balance. That's why I say they died.

hmmm, methinks you misundetrstand the meanings of checks and balances. I think you are speaking of equality---equal power for each branch. If that is what was intended the framers would most likely have said so.

 

[KittenKoder]

What checks and balances have died? I see them as shifting and morpohing more than dying. There is nothing set in stone about the balances of power as that is an abstract idea.

There's the problem, the idea of checks and balances is to keep it ... well .. balanced. You can't shift or "morph" them because then you lose the balance. That's why I say they died.

hmmm, methinks you misundetrstand the meanings of checks and balances. I think you are speaking of equality---equal power for each branch. If that is what was intended the framers would most likely have said so.

No, checks and balances are for fairness, not equality and not what you seem to think they are. Is it fair to side with a small group just because they are a small group?

 

[JBeukema]

No, checks and balances are for fairness, not equality

The purpose was to make sure no branch was more powerful than any other, so they could keep eachother in line

 

[The Illusion]

American democracy...is there such a thing, and if there is, what is it? I see people here speaking about the US not being a democracy, yet arguing for democratic rule.

What does it mean to be a republic and how does being a republic play into the populism of people's views? I'm thinking about people using terms likethe majority or the people , whenever they rant against what congress or the executive or the SCOTUS has done.

Myself, I have never been in favor of a pure, populist democracy. I am content the system we have---flaws and a I have very few arguments with how things work out.

I have misjudged KevinK. and a few others by not listening to what they are saying...or have I?

Its like saying America has a culture....when its really just a big melting pot. America, land of the hypocrits and land of the unfree......to date anyway. If America was what its founding fathers wanted it to be today.. we'd be better off in the long run.

Jamie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There's the problem, the idea of checks and balances is to keep it ... well .. balanced. You can't shift or "morph" them because then you lose the balance. That's why I say they died.

hmmm, methinks you misundetrstand the meanings of checks and balances. I think you are speaking of equality---equal power for each branch. If that is what was intended the framers would most likely have said so.

No, checks and balances are for fairness, not equality and not what you seem to think they are. Is it fair to side with a small group just because they are a small group?

Checks and balances of government power have N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with beinf fair to groups. You are now mixing issues.

/You are the one who complained about the powers of the branches of government not being equal, aren't you?