Only in America

[Tero]

All corporations are equal here, they can bribe politicians with as much $ as they can!

[laklak]

An adversarial system where the strongest won.

Exactly as it should be.

[Scot Dutchy]

An adversarial system where the strongest won.

Exactly as it should be.

Thank fuck I dont live in such a system.

[Joe]

American's have no idea what democracy is. Their constitution was not designed for it. It was for a divided community. An adversarial system where the strongest won.

I can understand people getting the terms mixed up, but our system is known as Democrazy. It's very entertaining...from a distance.

[Forty Two]

Okay..... given that the US is a federal system with 50 states, each state with an elected legislature which makes laws, and an elected governor which enforces laws, and a federal government with an elected President which enforces laws, and an elected legislature which makes laws..... how is the US system not a democracy?

[Seabass]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman dies at 96
https://www.apnews.com/9b5d3d178b314031 ... dies-at-96

His Nobel Prize sold for $765,000 in an auction in 2015 to help pay for medical bills and care.

[Hermit]

Okay..... given that the US is a federal system with 50 states, each state with an elected legislature which makes laws, and an elected governor which enforces laws, and a federal government with an elected President which enforces laws, and an elected legislature which makes laws..... how is the US system not a democracy?

Seth was not the only person to argue that the US of A was a republic rather than a democracy. Ignoring gerrymandering and the machinations by which voting is made more difficult for people in social strata that make them more likely to vote for the Dems, the legislative branch - members of the House and the Senate - are indeed elected via recognisably democratic methods. The situation is quite different for the executive. When the winning candidate for the presidency trails the other candidate by 46.1% to 48.2% of the popular vote, yet wins by virtue of winning the Electoral College votes to the tune of 57.3% compared to 42.7%, 'democracy' will need to be significantly redefined to make it fit.

[laklak]

Originally only Representatives were democratically elected. Each state's Senators were appointed by the governor, and the electoral college was appointed by the state governments, though no mechanism for that was described.

[Scot Dutchy]

Originally only Representatives were democratically elected. Each state's Senators were appointed by the governor, and the electoral college was appointed by the state governments, though no mechanism for that was described.

A brilliant system for cronyism.

[Forty Two]

Okay..... given that the US is a federal system with 50 states, each state with an elected legislature which makes laws, and an elected governor which enforces laws, and a federal government with an elected President which enforces laws, and an elected legislature which makes laws..... how is the US system not a democracy?

Seth was not the only person to argue that the US of A was a republic rather than a democracy. Ignoring gerrymandering and the machinations by which voting is made more difficult for people in social strata that make them more likely to vote for the Dems, the legislative branch - members of the House and the Senate - are indeed elected via recognisably democratic methods. The situation is quite different for the executive. When the winning candidate for the presidency trails the other candidate by 46.1% to 48.2% of the popular vote, yet wins by virtue of winning the Electoral College votes to the tune of 57.3% compared to 42.7%, 'democracy' will need to be significantly redefined to make it fit.

By Seth's definition, no country was a democracy. A Republic is a country where the supreme power is held by the people, and the head of state is elected by vote or nomination, rather than there being a monarchy. Yes, the US is a Republic, but it's also a democracy by the common definition which is that elected representatives make the laws.

Gerrymandering doesn't make voting more difficult. Gerrymandering is the term for setting the boundaries of a district, but as a portmanteau between the name "gerry" and salamander, it refers to the practice of making the district oddly shaped, like the body of a salamander. Often, the practice has been used to increase minority representation in a legislature, by shaping the district to be majority of one certain race or point of view. It's sometimes been used as schemes to give more districts to Democrats or Republicans - it's been used by both parties.

Well, the electoral college system only applies to the Presidency. The federal lawmakers are direct popular vote. In other countries, like the UK, the people don't even vote for the head of state - there is a head of state called the Queen, who has power by birth, and then there is head of government, the PM, who gets elected by the members of Parliament. The people don't get to vote at all for the PM - it's a political choice by the members of parliament. So, to suggest that European country like the UK is a democracy, but the US is not, would seem a bit unfair. Although, maybe you don't think the UK is a democracy either, I don't know.

Also, in the US, the President is elected by a set of co-equal states, not the individual citizenry, per se. It's much the same way that the UN gives one vote for each country. If we loved pure, unmodified democracy, meaning all things must be on per-individual basis, then each country in the UN should have voting power commensurate with its share of the world population, right?

In any case - it's an irrelevant argument - the US is a republic, and it's a democracy, but the modern definitions of these words in the English language. It could be more democratic, as could most countries, but it has its system which is a compromise looking to balance a variety of competing interests.

[Forty Two]

Originally only Representatives were democratically elected. Each state's Senators were appointed by the governor, and the electoral college was appointed by the state governments, though no mechanism for that was described.

The Canadian Senate is something like that. The "Governor General" (Queen Elizabeth's representative in her former Dominion) appoints the Senators, on the advice of the Prime Minister, which generally means the PM chooses the Senators. The members of the Senate are appointed, and then serve until age 75. The Senate considers and revises legislation, investigates national issues, and most crucially according to the Constitution — gives the regions of Canada an equal voice in Parliament.

That's o.k., though, because it's Canada. In the US, giving the regions (aka states) an equal voice in Congress is archaic and ridiculous. In Canada, doing so strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of a population and the interests of a region.

To qualify for appointment, a person must be a Canadian citizen (which of course is discriminatory), at least 30 years old (age discrimination); have real property worth $4,000 free of mortgage and a net worth of at least $4,000; and reside in the province or territory for which they are appointed. The net worth and mortgage free real estate requirement clearly excludes the poor. I mean, someone with more debts than assets can't be a Senator? What the hell, folks?

Only in (North) America....

[laklak]

Then there's that bastion of democracy in the UK, the House of Lords.

But yeah, all those are OK because they're not 'Murikan.

[Scot Dutchy]

Then there's that bastion of democracy in the UK, the House of Lords.

But yeah, all those are OK because they're not 'Murikan.

The UK has never known democracy lak. The voting system was developed from the hustings where people sold their vote.



Not much has changed.

The biggest curse is gerrymandering. In the UK it has altered so many elections.

Fifty Years of Bias in the UK’s Electoral System

A great democracy.

[laklak]

I need to buy some of this.

[Hermit]

Okay..... given that the US is a federal system with 50 states, each state with an elected legislature which makes laws, and an elected governor which enforces laws, and a federal government with an elected President which enforces laws, and an elected legislature which makes laws..... how is the US system not a democracy?

Seth was not the only person to argue that the US of A was a republic rather than a democracy. Ignoring gerrymandering and the machinations by which voting is made more difficult for people in social strata that make them more likely to vote for the Dems, the legislative branch - members of the House and the Senate - are indeed elected via recognisably democratic methods. The situation is quite different for the executive. When the winning candidate for the presidency trails the other candidate by 46.1% to 48.2% of the popular vote, yet wins by virtue of winning the Electoral College votes to the tune of 57.3% compared to 42.7%, 'democracy' will need to be significantly redefined to make it fit.

By Seth's definition, no country was a democracy. A Republic is a country where the supreme power is held by the people, and the head of state is elected by vote or nomination, rather than there being a monarchy. Yes, the US is a Republic, but it's also a democracy by the common definition which is that elected representatives make the laws.

Gerrymandering doesn't make voting more difficult. Gerrymandering is the term for setting the boundaries of a district, but as a portmanteau between the name "gerry" and salamander, it refers to the practice of making the district oddly shaped, like the body of a salamander. Often, the practice has been used to increase minority representation in a legislature, by shaping the district to be majority of one certain race or point of view. It's sometimes been used as schemes to give more districts to Democrats or Republicans - it's been used by both parties.

Well, the electoral college system only applies to the Presidency. The federal lawmakers are direct popular vote. In other countries, like the UK, the people don't even vote for the head of state - there is a head of state called the Queen, who has power by birth, and then there is head of government, the PM, who gets elected by the members of Parliament. The people don't get to vote at all for the PM - it's a political choice by the members of parliament. So, to suggest that European country like the UK is a democracy, but the US is not, would seem a bit unfair. Although, maybe you don't think the UK is a democracy either, I don't know.

Also, in the US, the President is elected by a set of co-equal states, not the individual citizenry, per se. It's much the same way that the UN gives one vote for each country. If we loved pure, unmodified democracy, meaning all things must be on per-individual basis, then each country in the UN should have voting power commensurate with its share of the world population, right?

In any case - it's an irrelevant argument - the US is a republic, and it's a democracy, but the modern definitions of these words in the English language. It could be more democratic, as could most countries, but it has its system which is a compromise looking to balance a variety of competing interests.

Stop bullshitting. The traditional meaning of democracy is government by the majority or - or in the case of FPTP voting - at least a plurality of all voters. There is nothing particularly democratic about an election with rampantly gerrymandered districts and where the candidate of the executive branch with almost three million fewer votes wins 57.3% of the Electoral College. I know you'll argue that both candidates competed under the same rules, and yes, they did. Doesn't make the rules particularly democratic, though.

What will you do next? Maybe roll up with a tu quoque? Have a go at redefining 'democracy'?