Author
|
Topic: virus: Democracy in America (was re:Nader) (Read 535 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
virus: Democracy in America (was re:Nader)
« on: 2004-02-28 02:01:53 » |
 |
It makes for an interesting argument. After thumbing through a few
dictionaries it seems that "republic" and "democracy" have a lot of
overlapping usage. I would still say we are a democracy in the sense that
we choose our political leaders on the basis of elections. However our
last presidential election has clearly shown us how some very undemocratic
rules such as the electoral college, and winner take all state electoral
votes, operate to effectively nullify the choice of the majority which
democracy is supposed to be all about. Removing either anti-democratic
rule would have made Al Gore the undisputed victor by significant margins.
In addition to robbing the majority of their choice, these rules also act
to diminish dialogue in presidential elections. If we actually had a
majority rule (with runoffs when necessary), third party and independent
candidates would not serve primarily as spoilers. Hence it puts people who
ordinarily should be welcoming Ralph Nader's point of view (liberal
democrats) in the position of spurning and criticizing him for spoiling the
balance. In a normal majority rule democracy he and other third party and
independent candidates would serve to bring more new voters into the system
without risking the perverse anti-democratic results of handing the
election to the least liked of the two major candidates, as it did in the
last election. We would have simply had a runoff like normal democracies
do.
The current presidential election system, generally acts to discourage any
voices other than the two major parties, as well as discouraging people to
vote. If you are a Democrat in Texas, or a Republican in California
(Arnold changes nothing yet), or a Green anywhere, your vote for president
effectively counts for nothing in the current system. In this respect the
presidential election system of the US serves to actively discourage people
from voting. This being the biggest media event of US politics, it has a
significant tendency to discourage people from voting in other smaller
elections as well. Though I have my doubts about requiring people to vote
as they do in Australia, I certainly find it hypocritical that a nation of
people who like to call themselves a "democracy" maintain an arcane system
that actually serves to discourage people from voting.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 02/24/2004 6:00:49 AM
> Subject: Re: virus: Re:Nader.
>
> NOTE: the U.S. is not a Democracy. It's a Republic.
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
|
|
Re: virus: Democracy in America (was re:Nader)
« Reply #1 on: 2004-02-28 21:12:42 » |
|
We are a republic, in that we don't directly vote for our president. We vote for representatives, which are accumulated by states.
Essentially, the “states” vote for president. We do not.
This is part of the reason a president can win an election with as little as 27 percent of the vote.
Each state has its own voting laws, and there is no Federal mandate or set of rules which require states to conduct elections in any particular way. The only federal laws pertain to discrimination based on race, religion, sex and age. Other forms aof discrimination are OK (education, criminal record, income, etc.).
In fact, a state could even enact a rule which bars voting for president at all. And it would be perfectly legal.
We're a quasi-democracy. Technically one of the worst so-called democracies in the world on freedoms of press, voting rights and other basic civil liberties.
I always find that fact rather embarassing.
- Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jake Sapiens" <every1hz@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:1:53
To:"virus" <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: virus: Democracy in America (was re:Nader)
It makes for an interesting argument. After thumbing through a few
dictionaries it seems that "republic" and "democracy" have a lot of
overlapping usage. I would still say we are a democracy in the sense that
we choose our political leaders on the basis of elections. However our
last presidential election has clearly shown us how some very undemocratic
rules such as the electoral college, and winner take all state electoral
votes, operate to effectively nullify the choice of the majority which
democracy is supposed to be all about. Removing either anti-democratic
rule would have made Al Gore the undisputed victor by significant margins.
In addition to robbing the majority of their choice, these rules also act
to diminish dialogue in presidential elections. If we actually had a
majority rule (with runoffs when necessary), third party and independent
candidates would not serve primarily as spoilers. Hence it puts people who
ordinarily should be welcoming Ralph Nader's point of view (liberal
democrats) in the position of spurning and criticizing him for spoiling the
balance. In a normal majority rule democracy he and other third party and
independent candidates would serve to bring more new voters into the system
without risking the perverse anti-democratic results of handing the
election to the least liked of the two major candidates, as it did in the
last election. We would have simply had a runoff like normal democracies
do.
The current presidential election system, generally acts to discourage any
voices other than the two major parties, as well as discouraging people to
vote. If you are a Democrat in Texas, or a Republican in California
(Arnold changes nothing yet), or a Green anywhere, your vote for president
effectively counts for nothing in the current system. In this respect the
presidential election system of the US serves to actively discourage people
from voting. This being the biggest media event of US politics, it has a
significant tendency to discourage people from voting in other smaller
elections as well. Though I have my doubts about requiring people to vote
as they do in Australia, I certainly find it hypocritical that a nation of
people who like to call themselves a "democracy" maintain an arcane system
that actually serves to discourage people from voting.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 02/24/2004 6:00:49 AM
> Subject: Re: virus: Re:Nader.
>
> NOTE: the U.S. is not a Democracy. It's a Republic.
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
