Did any of your petitions actually get more than five signatures, like, ever, YD?
Hail Dingo!
I doubt getting 1-3 signatures on a government petition influences all that many people, to be honest.
It isn't that you're wrong. This specific petition you are, because direct democracy for every single decision is not likely to end up anywhere near what you want. The problem is that you're using the wrong tools for a good end. The things you want are in principle good, you know? More influence for the people. A solved situation for the economy, or energy, or care for women in bad situations. I want the same things... but I would prefer to stay out of the style of mega-projects you favour. I also think the petitions system is a bad joke. When they get a few, they raise the number of signatures needed. Same s$$% happened in the EU.
So, provisionally, hail Dingo.
I resemble that remark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that "ungovernable" is a word attached to California by someone who is or would like to govern it.
This would only hasten the collapse of democratic governments.
So, realistically, not a worse idea than what's currently in place. Not better either, but there's only so much you can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want the US to change from a Republic to a sort of Democracy?
True democracy tends to result in people making decisions they're unqualified for, and for which they are completely unaware of the future ramifications.
In other words, not too different to what we already have.
|
So you want the US to change from a Republic to a sort of Democracy?To be more accurate it would be a change from a Democratic Republic to a rule by Mob. We DO have a a Democracy... by the definition of how we elect the people who govern us.
Keep in mind that putting things up to a plebiscite costs money for each question in addition to time.
Rule by direct plebiscite is doable for a hamlet of a hundred people. It gets increasingly unwieldy from that point up.
How is it dooable for a single hamlet yet unwieldy for a million hamlets.
Yeah! Cuz then each hamlet could elect a repre...oh, wait...
That is pretty close to what is often described to me as the long version of "Anarchy". I guess it is the most lawful yet non-hierarchical form of governance your going to get.
Myself, being more along the chaotic end of the spectrum, can't sign your petition. But for the love of Chaos, there go I.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah! Cuz then each hamlet could elect a repre...oh, wait...The point is if a hundred people can represent themselves and vote on acts of government, then so can the other hundred million people. The only inconvenience is your contempt for their right to do so.
Twitch Plays U.S. Government!
Twitch Plays U.S. Government!Yeah! Cuz then each hamlet could elect a repre...oh, wait...The point is if a hundred people can represent themselves and vote on acts of government, then so can the other hundred million people. The only inconvenience is your contempt for their right to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand... there is an idea among politicians today that there needs to be a LOT of laws made. Who knows why. Perhaps they need to feel needed. Belgium managed without a government for a year and a half. Truth be told, we have far too many laws made today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah! Cuz then each hamlet could elect a repre...oh, wait...The point is if a hundred people can represent themselves and vote on acts of government, then so can the other hundred million people. The only inconvenience is your contempt for their right to do so.
It's easier to manage a hundred than a hundred million.
So you want the US to change from a Republic to a sort of Democracy?To be more accurate it would be a change from a Democratic Republic to a rule by Mob. We DO have a a Democracy... by the definition of how we elect the people who govern us.
Keep in mind that putting things up to a plebiscite costs money for each question in addition to time.
Rule by direct plebiscite is doable for a hamlet of a hundred people. It gets increasingly unwieldy from that point up.
We do not have a Democracy. We have a Republic.
Article. IV.
Section. 4.The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
As long as we have limits on who can vote, we have a Republic.
Republican means that you have a president, not a monarch. The US is a democracy, because a) anyone can run for office, from the ground up to the president, and b) anyone can vote for who they like.
True, both of these have exceptions. Arnold Schwartzenegger can't run for president because he's not born in the US. Some states do not allow people convicted of felonies to vote. Minors can't vote. That isn't the point, though. Taken practically, these exceptions are minor (though they do weaken the concept of democracy), and by and large, the people do decide who gets to decide. The point is whether the exceptions turn the US into a dictatorship, a monarchy, or some other form of rule. As it stands, it would be difficult to say they do.
You may vote for someone you like for president, but you don't "elect" them to office. The Electoral College does that, and a few times in history, such as 2000, the one with the most votes does not get elected.
And then there are all sorts of other sleazy tricks like kicking people off of voter lists and monkeying with ballots, counting, etc.
We get the democracy we deserve, not the one we want.
Republican means that you have a president, not a monarch. The US is a democracy, because a) anyone can run for office, from the ground up to the president, and b) anyone can vote for who they like.
True, both of these have exceptions. Arnold Schwartzenegger can't run for president because he's not born in the US. Some states do not allow people convicted of felonies to vote. Minors can't vote. That isn't the point, though. Taken practically, these exceptions are minor (though they do weaken the concept of democracy), and by and large, the people do decide who gets to decide. The point is whether the exceptions turn the US into a dictatorship, a monarchy, or some other form of rule. As it stands, it would be difficult to say they do.
Ironically enough, this is actually a failure of the way the system was designed.
Originally, the only voice the people had was the House of Representatives; that portion of Congress would, in turn, elect the Senate while the Electoral College elected the President (note that this title only exists because Washington refused to be a king; the U.S. is only not a monarchy because the guy they wanted to wear the crown wouldn't accept the job). The system itself was designed this way to avoid becoming a democracy (some Founding Fathers were very vehement about this), in no small part because they already knew from history that democracies don't actually work on the national level. So, they took a form of government they knew that worked and tried to fix what they saw as flaws in it (one of those flaws being that the brightest people were not the ones in charge). That's why so much of early U.S. law was just British law with a fresh coat of paint (including significant parts of the Constitution).
To add to that, English wasn't supposed to be the de facto official language. The Founding Fathers felt English too common and wanted to install German as the official language; they just had too many English speakers and not enough German teachers. This is why the U.S. has no legally-recognized official language.
So, basically, they intended the U.S. to be a German-speaking meritocratic monarchy. Needless to say, the current system is almost the exact opposite of what they intended.
Edit: Forgot my offer to sell ocean-front property in Arkansas here. Anyone want some? It's cheap ;)
*Crazy*Mwuhahahahaha. Hoooooo boy.
Hilarious. F-----.
You get a point for the House being directly elected and the electoral college, but everything else is utter bull puckey.
Actually, most of it is true :P
The BS is the language part and the part about the U.S. being intended to be a monarchy. Washington actually did reject being King of the United States. There also was an actual vote related to German and laws, but it was not to establish an official language. The Constitution actually is based in part on British law. I could link to all of the quotes of opposition to democracy, but the essential element all of them share is that the Founding Fathers considered a democracy and a republic to be two entirely different forms of government; so while it is true they opposed democracy, it's because the definition of democracy they used and the definition we use are not the same.
And you really are going to have to prove they didn't want the best and brightest as the people in charge.
The House does not and never has elected the Senate.
Double-checked it. I flubbed on that one. However, I was correct that the Senate was not directly elected; it was elected by state legislatures.
There was one law, never voted out of committee in the 1790s to print laws and records in German as well as English while giving it no recognition.
That was the third link I posted in my prior post.
Some young officers urged Washington to declare himself King. He called them morons and followed the example of Cincinnatus.
First and second links in my prior post.
As for your last, that's easy. Abigail Adams.
That is complicated. Part of the problem relies upon the issue of property ownership, and a lot on racism and sexism running rampant at the time. But that does not speak to intention. Just to ignorance.
Republican means that you have a president, not a monarch. The US is a democracy, because a) anyone can run for office, from the ground up to the president, and b) anyone can vote for who they like.
True, both of these have exceptions. Arnold Schwartzenegger can't run for president because he's not born in the US. Some states do not allow people convicted of felonies to vote. Minors can't vote. That isn't the point, though. Taken practically, these exceptions are minor (though they do weaken the concept of democracy), and by and large, the people do decide who gets to decide. The point is whether the exceptions turn the US into a dictatorship, a monarchy, or some other form of rule. As it stands, it would be difficult to say they do.
The only problems with first paragraph is that none of it is correct.
Not all Republics have Presidents, or even a single person with that role.
Not everyone can run for office, there are limitations on all offices, such as where you live, age, where you were born, how many times you've held office, amongst others.
And you can't always vote for you want to. I for example cannot vote for any person I want. I am limited to registered candidates and registered write-in candidates. Yes where I live if you want to be a write-in candidate you must register that.
Prospective write-in candidates in Illinois must file paperwork with the county clerk, or election authority, in each jurisdiction where their name will appear on the ballot.
That means for a statewide or national election you have to register with each of the 102 counties in the state, possibly more.
While you say these exceptions are minor, they are part of the definition. It's like saying a cat is a dog, they both have fur, tails, claws, and muzzles, and the differences are minor, but a cat isn't a dog.
The only problems with first paragraph is that none of it is correct.
Not all Republics have Presidents, or even a single person with that role.
Not everyone can run for office, there are limitations on all offices, such as where you live, age, where you were born, how many times you've held office, amongst others.
And you can't always vote for you want to. I for example cannot vote for any person I want. I am limited to registered candidates and registered write-in candidates. Yes where I live if you want to be a write-in candidate you must register that.
Prospective write-in candidates in Illinois must file paperwork with the county clerk, or election authority, in each jurisdiction where their name will appear on the ballot.That means for a statewide or national election you have to register with each of the 102 counties in the state, possibly more.
While you say these exceptions are minor, they are part of the definition. It's like saying a cat is a dog, they both have fur, tails, claws, and muzzles, and the differences are minor, but a cat isn't a dog.
Vod: It doesn't really matter if you have a president or a "head of committee". It is the same thing. In Swedish, the general word is "ordförande", generally translated to "chairman", but literally "word-mover", the one shaping the meetings. There are indeed places where you have more than one president, but again, it doesn't matter. What matters is HOW that person/those persons get there. In a republic, they get there by being elected. I.e. through a democratic process.
Nor does it matter that the one winning the election did not in total have the most votes. That is an effect of weighting various votes due to differing sizes of various states involved. It is okay to have rules shaping the election result - so long as these are predictable. You would not have more of a democracy if you put all your votes in a single bag and then put as president the one who got the most. Sweden is usually seen as having a strong democracy, and guess what? We don't get to elect our executive branch, only our parliament, which in turn chooses the government. This is complicated everywhere.
That everyone should be able to run for any office has never been a requirement of democracy. Ever, I might add. There have always been rules, commonly someone needs to be above a certain age, born in the country/have citizenship, and so on. Term restrictions are very common and generally seen as something that STRENGTHENS democracy.
Nor is it a requirement that you get to vote for ANYONE you like. See, for anyone to be able to vote for you, you need to run for office. Only those who do are candidates. This is something that would be intensely stupid to change. Do you really need to have a number of thousand votes (that have no impact) given to assorted people who never wanted to run in the first place? Would that mean you became happier? It certainly wouldn't make your democracy better. Someone aiming to take office should choose to do so, and yes, should manage the paperwork involved. They intend to lead people. If they can't get help to do the paperwork before, that speaks volumes to their leadership qualities.
As to your cats and dogs analogy, I would say they are both mammals, and not lizards or insects, even though one has retractable claws and one doesn't. You are looking for differences that change nothing.
Vod: It doesn't really matter if you have a president or a "head of committee". It is the same thing. In Swedish, the general word is "ordförande", generally translated to "chairman", but literally "word-mover", the one shaping the meetings. There are indeed places where you have more than one president, but again, it doesn't matter. What matters is HOW that person/those persons get there. In a republic, they get there by being elected. I.e. through a democratic process.
Nor does it matter that the one winning the election did not in total have the most votes. That is an effect of weighting various votes due to differing sizes of various states involved. It is okay to have rules shaping the election result - so long as these are predictable. You would not have more of a democracy if you put all your votes in a single bag and then put as president the one who got the most. Sweden is usually seen as having a strong democracy, and guess what? We don't get to elect our executive branch, only our parliament, which in turn chooses the government. This is complicated everywhere.
That everyone should be able to run for any office has never been a requirement of democracy. Ever, I might add. There have always been rules, commonly someone needs to be above a certain age, born in the country/have citizenship, and so on. Term restrictions are very common and generally seen as something that STRENGTHENS democracy.
Nor is it a requirement that you get to vote for ANYONE you like. See, for anyone to be able to vote for you, you need to run for office. Only those who do are candidates. This is something that would be intensely stupid to change. Do you really need to have a number of thousand votes (that have no impact) given to assorted people who never wanted to run in the first place? Would that mean you became happier? It certainly wouldn't make your democracy better. Someone aiming to take office should choose to do so, and yes, should manage the paperwork involved. They intend to lead people. If they can't get help to do the paperwork before, that speaks volumes to their leadership qualities.
As to your cats and dogs analogy, I would say they are both mammals, and not lizards or insects, even though one has retractable claws and one doesn't. You are looking for differences that change nothing.
But the arguments you wrote for the US being a Democracy, are the ones that you now say aren't requirements????
Sweden's form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy, it has a King Carl Gustav and a Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. Germany is a Republic, they have a President, Joachim Gauck and a Prime Minister, Angela Merkel. The US is a Republic with only a President Barack Obama, he fills both roles as Head of State and Head of Government.
There is not one Democracy in existence at this time. Everything is either a Republic (of various levels of fairness) or some sort of Monarchy (Absolute or Constitutional). Some of those 'Republics' are more like Monarchies, Cuba, North Korea, where in theory the leader is elected, but in fact passes through the family. Others are limited such as the two parties (plus a bunch of others that rarely get elected to anything) in the US. To others that have true multi-party systems.
YD, I think your concept would be considering the ideal form of government, much like Communism in it's purest form. Unfortunately, like many of the others have mentioned, when you have this many people from varying locations, ideals, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, etc. the ability to come to a majority opinion becomes nearly impossible. Especially if you allow the People to attempt to draft the proposed Bill(s).
By no means am I saying America's current government system is great. I'll be one of the first to publicly state that our system needs a serious overhaul from the lack of fair representation by our elected officials and an inability to truly punish the representatives for not following the wishes of their constituents to the best of their ability. Don't even get me started on special interest groups... That being said, YD, if you could provide the logistics of how your proposition would be implemented you may actually find people more receptive to your petition.
That being said, YD, if you could provide the logistics of how your proposition would be implemented
And make them reasonable.
Democratic Republic != Democracy.
Also, the U.S. is a Federalist, Democratic Republic (although the Federal government often forgets the "Federalist" part when it suits it.)
Representative Democracy is still a Democracy.
A republic is not the same as a democracy, but there's a lot of overlap.
This runs into an issue... there's multiple definitions in play.
To start with what's causing part of the confusion, there's the issue highlighted by this website page. I do not claim it is accurate; merely that it is one of the definitions I have seen going around.
The other issue is that there are two who hold a republic and a representative democracy as being two different forms of government. Problem: There's multiple definitions of each, and when choosing between the two a lot of people like to note the United States was founded as a republic.
Now, my post about the U.S. intended to be a German-speaking meritocratic monarchy was BS, but it was intended to highlight something I think people have been missing in this conversation: There are a lot of misconceptions in play. One of the biggest ones, which I tried to highlight in what I said, is the issue of terminology.
In the issue of discussing this, we're dealing with terms and items that have a number of different definitions in play. "Republic" and "democracy" as used now are not the same as they were in the 1780s. Back then, it was easier for them to discuss it because they were pretty much writing an entire definition they wanted people to think of and use. Now, we have multiple definitions of the same terms, which are clashing with each other and making conversation on the topic all but impossible outside of a limited group that most people outright ignore.
So, that's the issue at hand. KahnyaGnorc is right; the U.S. is a republic. You are right; the U.S. is a representative democracy. The issue is that you both are approaching this with different understandings of the terms. You're also both approaching it with an entirely different understanding of how the U.S. government works than the framers of the Constitution.
And that's the biggest main issue. The Constitution was designed with an understanding of government styles that existed back in the 1780s. The current terminology in use by both sides is partially irrelevant simply because it was not the terminology that influenced the design of the federal government. It was never intended to be a constitutional republic. It was never intended to be a representative democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy period. It was intended to be a republic as the Founding Fathers understood the term, and for the most part it still is.
We can sit here and discuss terminology and debate various styles of government all we like... but that doesn't change the fact the people who actually categorized and defined the nation did so over two hundred years ago and it was their understanding of government that shaped how they wrote the Constitution and influenced how they ruled the nation, in addition to continuing to influence through the modern era from the traditions they set.
Want to know what the Founding Fathers would say about the U.S. being a representative democracy? Well, let's start with John Adams:
"I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either."
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty."
Alexander Adams:
"Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
Thomas Jefferson:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
James Madison:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."
If you went back in time and told the Founding Fathers they were creating a representative democracy, they would tell you that it is obvious the Constitution is a failure. Because, from their understanding of democracy, that would be the absolute truth.
So, that is part of the problem with this conversation. Half of of it involves men who have been dead for over a century and who would very much tell you that you are wrong or that you are demonstrating they failed.
Or with dead men, who not being forum trolls, would actually try to sort out definitions before telling anyone they were wrong.
Would they have even understood the term "representative democracy"? Since that's what they created, from the very beginning. If that's not what they intended, it's pretty obvious they failed. I wouldn't have to go back and tell them.
Of course it still has constitutional limits, if you think that's the defining difference between Republic and Democracy, as they understood it. It certainly isn't in modern usage. Not is strict majority rules.Of course, many of them would be pretty horribly upset by letting anyone other than white male property-owners vote, anyway, so I'm not sure I care.
I don't believe they would have understood it, and even if they did they would not have accepted it. The bile they had to spew about democracy shows very much that they had some preconceptions in play that affected their ability to see things entirely rationally. They hated a system of government to the point they had to argue that "republic" is an entirely different form of government just to convince themselves it was a good idea.
They were people, through and through, and they suffered many of the same biases and tendencies that exist today. Go have a look at some of the crap Benjamin Franklin did. Some of his famous stances, such as the idea the national bird should be a turkey, were pretty much him trolling the rest of the Constitutional Convention. Better yet, look at the Boston Tea Party... an act of trolling so powerful it finally caused the British Empire to decide they were done talking with the colonists. And if you want to read something that still rankles people, pick up a copy of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Nor did they try to check the definition of republic; they simply sat down and created one. So they would tell you that you are wrong because your words are saying the definition they created is wrong.
When I think of "rabid" abolitionists, I think of dudes like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison. Who was a "rabid" abolitionist among the Founding Fathers? I don't think even poor Tom Paine qualifies as "rabidly" abolitionist.
In the meantime, I'll double down on the Counter Revolutionary 1776
"conspiracy theory" even though I've never read the book and am not even sure I agree with Professor Horne:
White supremacy and slavery: Gerald Horne on the real story of American independence
Huh. John Hancock was a leading slaveowner in Boston? I didn't know that...