I think the first thing to point out is that ‘democracy’ was originally a term of scorn, was still thought of as such by the American founders, and much the Constitution was about how to prevent the United States from becoming one. This idea that ‘everybody having a say in how everything is done regardless of personal stake or education’ is some grand old idea that we’re slipping away from is false. It basically wasn’t considered desirable until the 20th Century, and America’s problems can be seen as stemming from a move towards democracy, not away from it.
The whole NSA thing? Here’s reality- most people don’t give a shit about it, and would vote for it i you worded the referendum just so. That’s democracy.
The USA has not been a Democracy since senate and congress has been put in power. It is a Republic. Democracy is a word used to pacify.
Democracy died here a very long time ago. Only local governing bodies might be Democratic.
Yes, we’ve debated over these points before. I vehemently disagreed with you, remember? 
But as the tone of this thread is more open to ideas of all kinds, I welcome your suggestion that we raise the voting age.
Also, I’m in full agreement that the problem is that the leaders of America are “unwise,” and I blame this on education (this is something else we disagreed on, remember that?). Education is seriously underfunded in the US. What we’re seeing with the idiocy of American leaders today is a result of this underfunding having caught up with the older generation. What was once a child receiving a poor education back 30, 40 years ago is now the president of the United States (and I mean that as a generalized metaphor, not that Obama himself was literally undereducated).
Why would the people vote for it? Is it based on trust in the people running the show? That the NSA knows what they’re doing and that they have every good intention? Do you think this is actually true?
Why do you think democracy is the problem? What do you imagine as being a better system?
And when was that?
You do realize that a “republic” is a society in which the government is owned by the people and perhaps made up of the people? It is a system in which the people rule over their government. It’s true that this is not necessarily a democracy, but I’m not sure how you could prevent the leaders of a republic, even if they came from the people, from becoming corrupt unless you had a democratic system.
But you still vote for your president, do you not?
In that sentence are two words wrong:
- “American”. America menas two continents, and you mean the United States.
- “Democratic”. The system you mean is not democratic.
The Democracy in the USA died out with JP Morgan Jr and Woodrow Wilson due to financial governing conspiracies, FED. The Republic in the USA died with the Patriot Act, Bush-Obama. The USA is now a police state, neither democratic nor republic.
Government sponsored or authorized conspiracies deny the public of knowledge required in order to make a democracy work. And that is why the Senate was responsible for foreign relations, not the House. The current mindset of the USA socialist state is that the people must be secretly herded because they are not wise. And of course they are not wise, because they are denied information.
The foreboding and crippling connotation that accompanies democracy is that the people are merely decision makers for the entire nation as a whole, as though every law is to be a national law. The greater intent of democracy was that most democratic laws were to be local and only the few relating to inter-state concerns were to be nation wide. States in the USA are being very actively dissolved. Forbidding true democracy by establishing national laws for anything and everything is the primary means.
A true democracy provides for great variation between localities. That was the original intent by the Constitution. But the USA’s current socialist state despises constitutions simply because a constitution inherently limits a government’s power.
I still don’t know where people are getting this “The USA was a democracy, and then it went away” stuff from.
The House was specifically designed to be a democratic order and the Constitution required separation between State and Federal control. Those two together form a democracy. The Senate was formed to be more of a Republic wherein the separate states came together (democratically) to make decisions for the more conservative and wise issues pertaining to the entire nation as a single body. The Senate was the “Seat of Wisdom”. So the Constitution was written to combine democracy and republicanism.
Expressly forbidden economic and media controls were imposed to alter it all into a remote controlled socialism. Lincoln and JFK and other were assassinated expressly because of their moves against the USA being controlled by such means. Ron Paul would definitely been another one.
And yet, only land owners could vote. A bicameral legislature is not a sign of democracy, it’s a republic. The whole point of a republic is that the legislators represent the people (if they didn’t you would just have an unnecessarily complicated monarchy), so pointing out that the House is designed to represent the people (by numbers instead of by State- the Senate represents the people just as well if you think people have common interests because due to their state instead of being collections of individuals) doesn’t mean it’s a democratic thing. The sheer bulk of things that Congress votes on that don’t begin with referendums shows that it’s not a democracy- and there’s nothing new about that.
Aahhh crap, I agree with Ucci.
Gib, I vote independent, that amounts to nothing. I might ask if what you learned is from school or independent study.
Could you give some good examples of some good autocrats.
Further, unless the person finds him or herself, you need at least two wise people. But then you also need this wise person to be considered the rightful leader, certainly to the military. If they don’t Think so and pretty strongly, then they will take away the leaders Power.
But let’s say we just have one person with all that Power. How many have dealt well with that much Power? And if they don’t do well, or at some Point stop doing well, there is no way to stop them.
Last your opinions, including this one presented here, would mean nothing in an autocracy.
It was certainly never a democracy and it is not a republic now, in any case. It’s an oligarchy that is somewhat cautious of the mob, but less so as time goes by.
Taken broadly, every Government is bound to be an oligarchy no matter what.
Everyone,
If you’re voting for presidents, you’re a democracy. From what I can tell, you’ve been voting since Washington.
Them’s the breaks in a democracy. You vote among a minority, you’re not going to win. Unless you’re talking about two big dog parties stomping out any new party that aspires to compete. Is it really a fair democracy when the parties that the people really want to vote for don’t get a fair hearing? But then again, I don’t know why that isn’t simply up to the people. You do your research, figure out which alternative parties are actually out there, what their selling, and you vote for which ever one you like.
Hell, I don’t remember. That’s like asking me where I learned about evolution theory. I don’t remember. It’s sort of become common knowledge in my mind.
I suppose I should ask what specifically you’re asking about.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if it was generally seen as the case. It is not generally seen this way, at least in the US - where most people would say it is a democracy and they you have to correct them about that.
You have the following categories (often by varied names);
1) Total dictatorship - dictator makes all laws.
2) Dictatorial Republic - dictator appoints representatives for regions who then vote on all laws.
3) Democratic Republic - the populous votes on local laws and elects representatives who then vote for national laws.
4) Total Democracy - the populous votes on all local and national laws.
The US Constitutional was originally designed as a mix category (3) and (4) as Governors, Congress, and the Executive were (3) but the Supreme Court was (4). As time went on, the executive branch got subverted into an electoral college situation which took the populous almost entirely out of the picture and finally the nation became run strictly through controlling Money, Media, and Medicine, at which time it became an absolute oligarchy (2010 - Obamacare, “PPACA”, completed the god status). At that point voting became merely a measure used to decide how to adjust the controls, not a means to directly make any decisions. And that is why people began hearing the phrase, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” so much just prior.
The fact that exactly all people weren’t allowed to vote merely meant that it wasn’t a perfect example. Children still can’t vote.
Hi, Gib, et alle,
The United States was never intended as a ‘pure’ democracy–government ruled by the majority. Read the Constitution to decide whether or not I’m correct. The Electoral College is meant to equalize the power of large states with small states. A republic takes power from the people rather than from a monarch or ruling family. So the US Constitution was/is meant to be the document that defines, and establishes the structure of, a democratic republic–i.e., a country ruled by people. To get the individual states to agree to the Constitution and ratify it was a struggle. Read the Federalist Papers. Not all states would ratify it as it stood, although it had already been signed by the Founding Fathers, who represented each state of the time. The signed Constitution was sent to the Governors of each of the 13 states for their ratification in the name of their state–after discussion with their own Congresses. There were ten objections to ratification. Those ten ‘objections’ were re-written as amendments incorporated into the Constitution. They’re called the Bill of Rights.
The two houses of Congress are separate. Originally, the Senate was meant to be the ‘elder statesmen’ of the individual states. At the time, they were men able to ‘see’ more than what benefited just their state. They were supposed to be able to see the whole republic of states and introduce legislation that, if approved, would benefit all states. The House of Representatives were meant to balance the power of the Senate by speaking for the individual states. The SCOTUS was meant to decide whether or not the Legislation introduced by the Senate was constitutional. This was meant, I believe, to be done before the fact, rather than after.
Can the people of the US go back to the “original” Constitution, as Libertarians want? I really don’t understand how that could be possible, since, through the SCOTUS, laws have changed; states can and do change their laws (which is fine as long as they follow the US Constitution;) and since so many people think the Bill of Rights is the entire Constitution.
In the meantime, in order to ‘preserve the rights of the people,’ moneyed people and power groups have taken over Congress. Remember what the structure of Congress is supposed to be–the Senate proposes law, the House approves or disapproves that law, and the Executive signs the law to make it the ‘law of the land.’
That’s where the moneyed individuals or groups have been wreaking havoc and are changing the US from a democratic Republic into an oligarchy. At least, that’s my view of the situation.
To further fill this essay with more cliches, the US is caught on the horns of a Dilemma (a big bull not unlike Babe, Paul Bunyan’s big blue ox in looks) in that it can’t restrict the freedom of speech without going against the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS and exemplified in its Citizens United decision. As far as I know, a sitting SCOTUS, has only reversed it’s decision once.
Now, please, ‘reform’ the United States. 
In ancient times it was called (especially by Aristoteles):
1) “Monarchy” and its variation “tyrannise” (= “abnormal monarchy”).
2) “Aristocracy” and its variation “oligarchy” (= “abnormal aristocracy”).
3) “Democracy” and its variation “ochlocracy” (= “abnormal democracy”).
The “abnormal democracy” is approximately that what James mentioned under point 4):
This is approximately that what Aristoteles called the “ochlocracy” as the “abnormal democracy”.
“Social eqaulity”, “respect”, “individual”, “community” are merely rhetoric words, if they are used in a political text and context. They only have to do with forms of government, if it comes to enforce ideologies, and ideologies are used in order to control the people.
So the words “social eqaulity”, “respect”, “individual”, “community” can indirectly, but not directly be used for the describing of any form of government, but they can directly be used for the describimg of the totaltarian rhetoric.
The “principles of social equality” and the “respect for the individual within a community” mean a contradiction!
“The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” are also a contrast to the other points James mentioned:
Especially the majority rule (=> 4.) excludes the “principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” because a “majority” can merely really be a mojority, if there is also a minority, and a “minority” is no longer a minority, if there is “social equality”, and the “individual within a community” can not exist, if there is “social equality” (cp. above: The “principles of social equality” and the “respect for the individual within a community” mean a contradiction!).
So “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community” contradict democracy and any of the other forms of government, but especially democracy and its variation named “ochlocracy” (= abnormal democracy).
In this context, “social equality” merely means that everyone gets one vote on all relevant issues.
That’s right, but nevertheless: it does not change anything of that what I said. The “social equality” can not really be reached, it’s an ideal, and ideologists are always the first ones who misuse this ideal as well as other ideals in order to control people.
So there is no “social equality”.
Many people who are very much ill, or other people who are caused by other circumstances that they are not able to vote - all those people indicate that there is even then no “social equality”, if it comes to vote.
None of those were considered perfect. They just chose the one that seemed the best that they could arrange. Knowing no more than they did at the time, I think they did a surprisingly good job. What people are trying to do today is far worse.
There is only one right way and it is “None of the above”.
If presuming to reform Democracy (or actually reestablish it), the only thing that the US Constitution was missing was for all laws to be obligated to their openly documented reasoning. If they had that one added stipulation, the entire world would be different today and be much more democratic and far more advanced. The world wars would never have occurred yet Israel would still have obtained land and without having to sacrifice millions of people to get it.
By requiring such open documented reasoning and binding laws to it (meaning to remove the law that isn’t doing what it was reasoned to do in favor of any law that does bring what it is reasoned to bring), other governing structures would begin to change. In the long run, far more decisions would be made locally with a far greater diversity from location to location. Reasoning would take the upper hand and gradually discover the most ideal arrangement available.