Why the US is one of the least democratic countries in the world

[Munin]

Today I followed the regional & european elections in Flanders (Belgium, Europe), where about 6 parties participated in the elections. The advantage of this is that the voter gets to pick what he likes and unlike the voter in a country with a 2 party system he will most likely vote on what he likes (and not on what he dislikes): Because this voter has the choice to vote on another ideology (closer to his own views).

Let s take the recent US elections, I bet there were a lot of voters (both republicans and independents) that just didn't want to vote for MCCAIN but because of lack of a better alternative they chose not to vote or to vote for the democrats. One problem in the US is the scale on which elections are held, they require a powerfull (financially and politically) party to get nation-wide attention (media coverage).

This reminds me of an episode of the simpsons where the two presidential candidates (DEM and REP) were 2 aliens who abducted the real candidates, in the end the voter has to pick the lesser of two evils.


Often we hear US presidents talk about how undemocratic other countries are, but they tend to forget that the US elections are not as democratic as they are in for example some European countries. I mean, is a choice between 2 parties really a choice? If You don't like 1 of them you re forced to vote for the other party or you would be throwing away your vote. In short: you will probably be rejected by the views of one of the 2 parties and will be forced to vote for the other party (or just not vote). In this case you don't really vote for that party, you re actually voting against the other parties nomination.

When we look at how things now are, we could almost say that we are evolving to a 1 party system (because the republicans have managed to put themselves in a position where they are rejected by most moderate people).

 

[editec]

Why the US is one of the least democratic countries in the world

Is it?

I didn't know that we were on a par with nations like Myramar.

 

[tigerbob]

Today I followed the regional & european elections in Flanders (Belgium, Europe), where about 6 parties participated in the elections. The advantage of this is that the voter gets to pick what he likes and unlike the voter in a country with a 2 party system he will most likely vote on what he likes (and not on what he dislikes): Because this voter has the choice to vote on another ideology (closer to his own views).

Let s take the recent US elections, I bet there were a lot of voters (both republicans and independents) that just didn't want to vote for MCCAIN but because of lack of a better alternative they chose not to vote or to vote for the democrats. One problem in the US is the scale on which elections are held, they require a powerfull (financially and politically) party to get nation-wide attention (media coverage).

This reminds me of an episode of the simpsons where the two presidential candidates (DEM and REP) were 2 aliens who abducted the real candidates, in the end the voter has to pick the lesser of two evils.


Often we hear US presidents talk about how undemocratic other countries are, but they tend to forget that the US elections are not as democratic as they are in for example some European countries. I mean, is a choice between 2 parties really a choice? If You don't like 1 of them you re forced to vote for the other party or you would be throwing away your vote. In short: you will probably be rejected by the views of one of the 2 parties and will be forced to vote for the other party (or just not vote). In this case you don't really vote for that party, you re actually voting against the other parties nomination.

When we look at how things now are, we could almost say that we are evolving to a 1 party system (because the republicans have managed to put themselves in a position where they are rejected by most moderate people).

Not really. The same could have been said of the British Conservative party in 1997. It's taken a decade, but the British public now appears ready to throw Labour (which was unassailable 10 years ago) under the nearest bus.

It's only a matter of time. 8 years from now at most, the GOP will be back in power (once they have got their shit back together and the Democrats have screwed up enough).

 

[wvulax]

I always thought of democracy as a process. There are no rules in our government that force a two party system. Just because the public is too naive/ignorant/stupid/apathetic doesn't mean we're less democratic.

 

[sealybobo]

Today I followed the regional & european elections in Flanders (Belgium, Europe), where about 6 parties participated in the elections. The advantage of this is that the voter gets to pick what he likes and unlike the voter in a country with a 2 party system he will most likely vote on what he likes (and not on what he dislikes): Because this voter has the choice to vote on another ideology (closer to his own views).

Let s take the recent US elections, I bet there were a lot of voters (both republicans and independents) that just didn't want to vote for MCCAIN but because of lack of a better alternative they chose not to vote or to vote for the democrats. One problem in the US is the scale on which elections are held, they require a powerfull (financially and politically) party to get nation-wide attention (media coverage).

This reminds me of an episode of the simpsons where the two presidential candidates (DEM and REP) were 2 aliens who abducted the real candidates, in the end the voter has to pick the lesser of two evils.


Often we hear US presidents talk about how undemocratic other countries are, but they tend to forget that the US elections are not as democratic as they are in for example some European countries. I mean, is a choice between 2 parties really a choice? If You don't like 1 of them you re forced to vote for the other party or you would be throwing away your vote. In short: you will probably be rejected by the views of one of the 2 parties and will be forced to vote for the other party (or just not vote). In this case you don't really vote for that party, you re actually voting against the other parties nomination.

When we look at how things now are, we could almost say that we are evolving to a 1 party system (because the republicans have managed to put themselves in a position where they are rejected by most moderate people).

Eventually you gotta pick one, right? So when the Democrats were all running against each other, we, or at least I, had a lot of picks to choose from. Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Kucenich, Biden & Richardson.

And I had green and libertarian candidates to pick from. I just didn't like any of them. Where was Jesse the Mind Ventura?

And I had at least 10 assholes to pick from out of the GOP.

Lots of choices. You're just sore cause your guy/gal lost.

 

[sealybobo]

I always thought of democracy as a process. There are no rules in our government that force a two party system. Just because the public is too naive/ignorant/stupid/apathetic doesn't mean we're less democratic.

No matter what we do, in 2012, its gonna be the Dem vs the GOP and if you want a spoiler to come in and swing the election, by all means it is your right.

But who? Nader? Bob Barr? The Green Party?

Perot cost Bush 1 the election and Nader cost Gore/Kerry their elections. Happy?

I bet you are not an Obama supporter? Because he is the Messiah and you aren't happy about the "choices" we get? What a hoot! Its like you are at an Elvis concert and you are saying, "yea, but he's no liberace". Fag.

 

[Dr Grump]

I agree with the basic premise of what you are saying, but would add "western" to world. IOW, in the western world, it's form of democracy (and you, you right-wing moonbats, I know you're a republic - I'm giving democracy the wider meaning here) is one of the weakest. However, it's still better than 150 other countries by a long shot...

 

[editec]

There is no human event more democratic than a lynch mob.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no human event more democratic than a lynch mob.

Can you tell me the last time a conservative group protested something and a bunch of liberal cops sicked their dogs on the crowd?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no human event more democratic than a lynch mob.

Can you tell me the last time a conservative group protested something and a bunch of liberal cops sicked their dogs on the crowd?

Except the SOUTH was run by Democrats when that happened and in 68 the Cops were protecting the Democratic convention. GO figure.

Can you tell us the last time conservatives sicked dogs on ANYONE?

 

[GHook93]

Today I followed the regional & european elections in Flanders (Belgium, Europe), where about 6 parties participated in the elections. The advantage of this is that the voter gets to pick what he likes and unlike the voter in a country with a 2 party system he will most likely vote on what he likes (and not on what he dislikes): Because this voter has the choice to vote on another ideology (closer to his own views).

Let s take the recent US elections, I bet there were a lot of voters (both republicans and independents) that just didn't want to vote for MCCAIN but because of lack of a better alternative they chose not to vote or to vote for the democrats. One problem in the US is the scale on which elections are held, they require a powerfull (financially and politically) party to get nation-wide attention (media coverage).

This reminds me of an episode of the simpsons where the two presidential candidates (DEM and REP) were 2 aliens who abducted the real candidates, in the end the voter has to pick the lesser of two evils.


Often we hear US presidents talk about how undemocratic other countries are, but they tend to forget that the US elections are not as democratic as they are in for example some European countries. I mean, is a choice between 2 parties really a choice? If You don't like 1 of them you re forced to vote for the other party or you would be throwing away your vote. In short: you will probably be rejected by the views of one of the 2 parties and will be forced to vote for the other party (or just not vote). In this case you don't really vote for that party, you re actually voting against the other parties nomination.

When we look at how things now are, we could almost say that we are evolving to a 1 party system (because the republicans have managed to put themselves in a position where they are rejected by most moderate people).

Not really. The same could have been said of the British Conservative party in 1997. It's taken a decade, but the British public now appears ready to throw Labour (which was unassailable 10 years ago) under the nearest bus.

It's only a matter of time. 8 years from now at most, the GOP will be back in power (once they have got their shit back together and the Democrats have screwed up enough).

I agree people said the same about the Democratic party are Carter! Remember the Reagan Landslide Victory! He won every state but MN. You heard D cry about the 1 party system back then!

People cry about the 2 party system and I know I do. I wish there were 4 parties to choose from. But in reality there is not. I mean you can go with a 3rd party but you would be tossing your vote away. Many of the countries that have 6 parties typically end up with 2 parties at the top fighting it out with the other parties grabbing a few seats!

 

[sealybobo]

There is no human event more democratic than a lynch mob.

Can you tell me the last time a conservative group protested something and a bunch of liberal cops sicked their dogs on the crowd?

Except the SOUTH was run by Democrats when that happened and in 68 the Cops were protecting the Democratic convention. GO figure.

Can you tell us the last time conservatives sicked dogs on ANYONE?

Now are you suggesting that the police down in Montgomery Alabama in 1961 were liberal?

1961: Freedom Riders spark Montgomery riots
Martial law has been imposed in the town of Montgomery, Alabama, following more violent clashes between blacks and whites.
The trouble at the Negro First Baptist Church erupted this evening when a crowd of white men, women and children began throwing stones through the windows as black civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King was speaking.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 21 | 1961: Freedom Riders spark Montgomery riots

And if the GOP wasn't the racist party back then, it is now:

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Citizen]

I always thought of democracy as a process. There are no rules in our government that force a two party system. Just because the public is too naive/ignorant/stupid/apathetic doesn't mean we're less democratic.

No matter what we do, in 2012, its gonna be the Dem vs the GOP and if you want a spoiler to come in and swing the election, by all means it is your right.

But who? Nader? Bob Barr? The Green Party?

Perot cost Bush 1 the election and Nader cost Gore/Kerry their elections. Happy?

I bet you are not an Obama supporter? Because he is the Messiah and you aren't happy about the "choices" we get? What a hoot! Its like you are at an Elvis concert and you are saying, "yea, but he's no liberace". Fag.

IMHO, with all the intellegent people we have in this country, it is a shame we had to choose between the two we did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can you tell me the last time a conservative group protested something and a bunch of liberal cops sicked their dogs on the crowd?

Except the SOUTH was run by Democrats when that happened and in 68 the Cops were protecting the Democratic convention. GO figure.

Can you tell us the last time conservatives sicked dogs on ANYONE?

Now are you suggesting that the police down in Montgomery Alabama in 1961 were liberal?

1961: Freedom Riders spark Montgomery riots
Martial law has been imposed in the town of Montgomery, Alabama, following more violent clashes between blacks and whites.
The trouble at the Negro First Baptist Church erupted this evening when a crowd of white men, women and children began throwing stones through the windows as black civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King was speaking.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 21 | 1961: Freedom Riders spark Montgomery riots

And if the GOP wasn't the racist party back then, it is now:

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were and still are DEMOCRATS. Moron check out the vote on the Civil Rights act, and remind us why the vast Majority of Republicans VOTED for it while a damn large percentage of the Democratic party VOTED AGAINST IT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh and DUMBASS Sealyretard? Why is it that Both Bush's appointed more minorities to appointed high office then ANY Democrat EVER has?

 

[sealybobo]

I always thought of democracy as a process. There are no rules in our government that force a two party system. Just because the public is too naive/ignorant/stupid/apathetic doesn't mean we're less democratic.

No matter what we do, in 2012, its gonna be the Dem vs the GOP and if you want a spoiler to come in and swing the election, by all means it is your right.

But who? Nader? Bob Barr? The Green Party?

Perot cost Bush 1 the election and Nader cost Gore/Kerry their elections. Happy?

I bet you are not an Obama supporter? Because he is the Messiah and you aren't happy about the "choices" we get? What a hoot! Its like you are at an Elvis concert and you are saying, "yea, but he's no liberace". Fag.

IMHO, with all the intellegent people we have in this country, it is a shame we had to choose between the two we did.

Without knowing you, I can tell that no matter who the Dems nominated, you would never like that candidate.

And you are right, the GOP had a really shitty line up. Every one of those bastards would have stayed on Bush's course. What is going on right now is the GOP's agenda. Corporations making record profits and wages lowered.

The economy was bad for the middle class all 8 years.

Google Corporate profits 2004-2007 and see it was great for them.

They tanked the economy on purpose, right at the end. Right when Bush was leaving office. Now good luck Obama getting any of your social programs thru. Not a fucking chance.

But they're closer to ending social security now. Now its bankrupt.

And Blackwater/Haloburton and still raping the kitty thru Iraq/Afganistan.

And the bankers have bailed themselves out.

Its called disaster capitalism. Working like a charm.

I'm a conspiracy theorist? Yea, and you're all sheep.

 

[sealybobo]

Except the SOUTH was run by Democrats when that happened and in 68 the Cops were protecting the Democratic convention. GO figure.

Can you tell us the last time conservatives sicked dogs on ANYONE?

Now are you suggesting that the police down in Montgomery Alabama in 1961 were liberal?

1961: Freedom Riders spark Montgomery riots
Martial law has been imposed in the town of Montgomery, Alabama, following more violent clashes between blacks and whites.
The trouble at the Negro First Baptist Church erupted this evening when a crowd of white men, women and children began throwing stones through the windows as black civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King was speaking.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 21 | 1961: Freedom Riders spark Montgomery riots

And if the GOP wasn't the racist party back then, it is now:

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were and still are DEMOCRATS. Moron check out the vote on the Civil Rights act, and remind us why the vast Majority of Republicans VOTED for it while a damn large percentage of the Democratic party VOTED AGAINST IT.

I don't give a fuck! 75% of the Dems voted for the bailout and 25% of the GOP voted for it.

But the GOP caused the need for a bailout.

And all you need to know is that the racist states TODAY are now red states. Any racist dragging a black guy or lynching one is most likely voting for the GOP. Thus the Southern Strategy. Started with Nixon. Lee Atwater mastered it. Rove doing well with it too.

Now you want the black vote back? So you put in that stooge Michael Steele? Uncle Tom. Where's JC Watts been? Sellout!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Ohh and DUMBASS Sealyretard? Why is it that Both Bush's appointed more minorities to appointed high office then ANY Democrat EVER has?

Because it gives the GOP the appearance of being inclusive.

How come none of those blacks can get nominated by Republican voters?

Powell & Rice didn't win any elections yet. Bush lap dogs.

PS. Obama & Clinton appointed just as many minorities.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh and DUMBASS Sealyretard? Why is it that Both Bush's appointed more minorities to appointed high office then ANY Democrat EVER has?

Because it gives the GOP the appearance of being inclusive.

How come none of those blacks can get nominated by Republican voters?

Powell & Rice didn't win any elections yet. Bush lap dogs.

PS. Obama & Clinton appointed just as many minorities.

Prove it.

 

[editec]

Its called disaster capitalism. Working like a charm.

I'm a conspiracy theorist? Yea, and you're all sheep.

The reason the "starve the beast neo-con plan is NOT a conspiracy is because it was done right out in the open for all to see.

They told us their plans, and enough Americans thought it was a grand idea that they gave those guys their votes.

Was this economic meltdown of RE prices unexpected?

Not by me it wasn't.

I'd been bitching that the escalating prices of real estate (in comparison to the feeble increases in average salaries) was bound to blow up sooner or later.

It actually shocked me, however, that the decline in RE would so radically effect the rest of the economy.

I just did not really understand the relationship between Fannie and Freddie and the bond market to foresee that the whole economy was tittering on the brink.

Live and learn.

Had I known what a house of cards it all was, I might have been more willing to sell my house at the top of the market. I figure I've probably lost about $40k in potential profits by not selling two years ago.

OTOH, I'd have then probably lost most of my profits in the market, just like most of America's non-investment class of investors did.