American Democracy?

There’s a American Democracy? What about all those monopolies of super delegates who’s vote counts more than the common citizen?

It’s actually a democratic republic I think.

Sure. I’m just trying to show how democracy doesn’t exist beyond paper.

Do you agree?

hanging chads are nothing but paper…


I feel odd in that I don’t know what a hanging chad is. :-k


Now I got it. :slight_smile:

Superdelegates vote to see who wins the primaries. We vote in the superdelegates in the 1st place. Then we vote to see which states electoral votes go to which candidate. I don’t see why for something to be a democracy everything must be a matter of popular vote. That would be really inefficient. I’m pretty sure America is still a democratic republic though. Even if my vote doesn’t matter.

Under democracy you get to pick between different presidential candidates. There’s no assurance that the individual political parties’ means of picking their candidate to nominate is done democratically.

Democracy is to democratic what athelete is to athletic. It is like a democracy. It has democratic aspects. It is not self government. If we cannot recall officials like Supreme court justices, and presidents, then we have no control. In addition, a majority has the right to control with their vote, even if they have absolutly no interest in the situation they are voting on. And then there are parties, which add inertia to a process already burdened with inertia, like two houses of congress, and as far as I have seen, they are extra governmental, with no support in the constitution and for that matter, an import from Britain of a perenial British problem. We should not have to go through parties, which make all issues national when they may not be naturally national, which empowers many outside of government at the expense of the people, who should be the government. So; it is not just one thing, but many that are making the goverment unable to address our needs.

well america is not a true democracy in the first place because it is not a socialist republic.
when exploitation of the majority by a minority is legal and is the basis of the mode of production, it’s kinda logical that there won’t be real equality, and in fact highly likely that this equality will be superficial(e.g. be on paper, but not in practice).

Good point; and why successful democracies had methods of maintianing equality. But then, they gave other outlets to individuality and the need for distinction. Rather than a money economy which facilitates the removal of wealth from one portion of the population to another, they had honor societies. The two are totally different forms of relationship, and different forms of economy, so that where money is common, honor is rare.

and what is democracy and liberty in the first place? is it the lockian view that liberty is the guarantee of an individual’s property and financial freedom(eg have an equal chance of accumulating capital). because that is what law in western democracies is mostly about…

American democracy is simply a democracy of the aristocracy.

it makes sense doesn;t it? capital=power?

i fail to see how America failed to achieve anything ti set out to (besides the old chicken/pot thing)

No; social organization only has one purpose, and though defensive it is to protect all the people, and the rights of all the people. I think Rouseau, at least would agree that a right is a property, and it is like life itself, which is also a property. If you look at the nature of any community you can see that their primary purpose is to defend the rights of their members, and the true answer to the question: what group is your community; it is not those who look like you, or who come fromthe same place, but who will defend your right. When rights are found necessary, people organize to defend them. The only problem in our society is that many privilages which are considered to be rights have the defense of the whole people, but they benfit only a few. Historically, property relationships have changed, and when the commons were privatized by the wealthy, they showed how easily it can be done, and that even the most ancient agreements between man and man of mutual respect and support can be abrogated for an easy buck. We are not stuck with our property relationships. If they do not serve the population they have no purpose.

i don’t disagree with what you just said, but you understand the essense of what i was saying. I was pointing out that the basis of the legal system is the protection of “liberties” which are mainly economic freedoms- thus saying that “democracy” in the west is the right for property and to accumulate capital

I would say, Not entirely. Tribal law predates private property, but wealth makes societies scizophrenic, and I don’t think I am spelling that correctly, so that people are divided by their success, and prey upon others. For a society to become a civiliztion blood feuding must end, and people must consent to law as impartial. It never is fully impartial and some times it is downright partial so that individual conflicts are carried out in the public court and society without an eye to justice. If you look at the history of war and revolution in western society, law has proved a miserable failure, and the big reason for this is that privilages like property are treated as rights and they are not. They should always show a public as well as a private benefit since they are clearly destructive of the peace of the people. In this country, the U.S., wealth has come to run the government, and from that position have exempted themselves from many laws and taxes, but the country still needs defending, and the trade that is the source of much of our wealth abroad still needs defending, and the people still need defending; but if those who have cornered all of the wealth of the nation will not pay for its defense, nor fight for it directly; why should we? Law protects all people solong as all people respect it. What the wealthy are teaching all others is the disrespect of law since it results in extremes of injustice of which law takes no notice.