Democracy ..... over-rated?

[cratehorus]

Why is America considered a "democracy", if it was founded with the idea that only 35 year old, property owning, white males, should be allowed to vote. Today 48% of eligible Americans choose not too vote, local elections can have voter turnout's lower than 10%. "Eligible" meaning anyone under 18, immigrants, people who have committed certain crimes, do not have the right to vote, voter restriction laws, also block the homeless from voting........

....... people without formal ID, as well, and anyone from a US territory.....

So why is America considered a "democracy" at all??

[Tiberius]

Term limits were created (in the US) because FDR was so popular nobody could run against him, I thought you hated FDR?

A person being so popular that nobody can run against them is a great reason to keep them in power. I don't think I've ever said I hated FDR; I don't really know much about the guy to know if I hate him or not. However, my opinion of him has nothing to do with whether or not the rest of the country believes he is a good enough man for the job.

I've said this time and time again, but fairness in elections matters more than the result of the election itself. That is why I voted for AV in the UK, even though my party voted against it, and stats showed that my party would most likely lose seats if AV was implemented. AV is a fairer voting system than FPTP, so if my party lose seats with it, all it shows is that they should not have had those seats in the first place.

[Ryantology]

A person being so popular that nobody can run against them is a great reason to keep them in power. I don't think I've ever said I hated FDR; I don't really know much about the guy to know if I hate him or not. However, my opinion of him has nothing to do with whether or not the rest of the country believes he is a good enough man for the job.

In America, at least, the reason term limits appeal to people is the idea that politics should be a service, not a career.

As an alternative, how would you feel if the system allowed for a term of unlimited length, but as a check against lifetime ownership of a position, the politician in question has to make sure that his popularity maintains a certain level, in the form of a more standardized system of polling throughout the entire year, with the threat of a recall election if polling numbers remain under a certain threshold for a certain length of time?

I think one advantage to this is that there is not the expense of both time and money involved in running full-fledged campaigns every few years. A politician at any level would be as safe in his seat as his performance (and/or popularity) warranted.

[cratehorus]

make sure that his popularity maintains a certain level, in the form of a more standardized system of polling throughout the entire year,

"polls" should be outlawed

---

A person being so popular that nobody can run against them is a great reason to keep them in power.

Originally (in america atleast) term limits started, because FDR ended the great depression, and strangled hitler with his bare hands, all while secretly being a cripple, with polio. The official argument was "no matter what FDR did, the events that surrounded his presidency made him more popular than he deserved to be" (think george bush jr september 11th 2001)

I don't think I've ever said I hated FDR; I don't really know much about the guy to know if I hate him or not.

you said were libertarian so I just presumed, sorry

However, my opinion of him has nothing to do with whether or not the rest of the country believes he is a good enough man for the job.

I agree, because there is no one man, that can cause enormous amounts of change, all by himself, no matter how charismatic or devious he might be. One myth I've always hated was that if it wasn't for hitler (all by himself) WW2 would have never happened, the german military propped this man up, I doubt, he was even their first pick for "fuhrer"........ same thing with Joseph Stalin, or George Washington, or Sarah Palin, they merely represented a large group of people that existed whether you "like it or not"

I've said this time and time again, but fairness in elections matters more than the result of the election itself.

I agree, again even though it's a little fatalistic, or karma-tastic for an atheist. I do believe no leader, can be a bad leader.

That is why I voted for AV in the UK, even though my party voted against it, and stats showed that my party would most likely lose seats if AV was implemented. AV is a fairer voting system than FPTP, so if my party lose seats with it, all it shows is that they should not have had those seats in the first place.

the bottom line is, things like term limits, jerrymandering, or the electoral college, are distractions. Here in america, congressman have no term limits, yet the office of President does?......... and every country has their own strange, seemingly, nonsensical rules. Right wingers and left wingers can abuse these systems equally (or rather right and left wingers can complain about how the other is using the system against them.) but in reality very, very little change can come from altering, re-writing, or reorganizing these systems

[Tiberius]

Originally (in america atleast) term limits started, because FDR ended the great depression, and strangled hitler with his bare hands, all while secretly being a cripple, with polio. The official argument was "no matter what FDR did, the events that surrounded his presidency made him more popular than he deserved to be" (think george bush jr september 11th 2001)

The argument is a bogus one in that case. If the 2008 election had been George Bush vs Obama, do you think Bush would have won? Whilst Sarah Palin's negative effect on the McCain campaign is clear, one of the other main reasons he lost is because people thought he was too much like Bush. My point being, one can only ride such events for so long.

I agree, because there is no one man, that can cause enormous amounts of change, all by himself, no matter how charismatic or devious he might be. One myth I've always hated was that if it wasn't for hitler (all by himself) WW2 would have never happened, the german military propped this man up, I doubt, he was even their first pick for "fuhrer"........ same thing with Joseph Stalin, or George Washington, or Sarah Palin, they merely represented a large group of people that existed whether you "like it or not"

Certainly, although it must be said that Hitler used very subtle tactics to bend people to his will. The power of the Nazi propaganda machine cannot be denied. A lot of Nazis were good people, and were simply caught up in the feeling of belonging to some group. If you have the time, read up on "The Third Wave" experiment, or watch the short film ("The Wave") about it. It demonstrates that even democratic societies can fall to fascism.

I agree, again even though it's a little fatalistic, or karma-tastic for an atheist. I do believe no leader, can be a bad leader.

Could you expand on this?

the bottom line is, things like term limits, jerrymandering, or the electoral college, are distractions. Here in america, congressman have no term limits, yet the office of President does?......... and every country has their own strange, seemingly, nonsensical rules. Right wingers and left wingers can abuse these systems equally (or rather right and left wingers can complain about how the other is using the system against them.) but in reality very, very little change can come from altering, re-writing, or reorganizing these systems

I disagree completely. Changing voting system affects the vote dramatically, as does drawing the election boundaries using a fair method. Getting rid of the electoral college and using popular vote instead (in some AV format) would certainly change the outcome of elections. In the past, 3 presidential elections have occurred where the loser actually gained the popular vote. For a load of great videos on the subject, I suggest CGP Grey:

http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey

[cratehorus]

The argument is a bogus one in that case. If the 2008 election had been George Bush vs Obama, do you think Bush would have won?

Just because the argument that orginated the law is bogus does not mean changing it, will solve any problem

Whilst Sarah Palin's negative effect on the McCain campaign is clear, one of the other main reasons he lost is because people thought he was too much like Bush.

Yes, I think if the democratic candidiate was a white christian he might have won by 90+% but because he was black we liberals had to suck it up and just simply "settle" for the first african american president in the 300+ year history of the United States of AmeriKKKa............... (sigh)

My point being, one can only ride such events for so long.

No matter how bad FDR could be, he couldn't do any more damage than his opponent, I agree..... even if FDR was bad guy he would be held responsible for the events that occured ....good or bad..... either way FDR died before he finished his fourth term (a US record btw) and these laws were made by the state too make sure such a popular leader could never succeeed in OUR democracy again

Certainly, although it must be said that Hitler used very subtle tactics to bend people to his will. The power of the Nazi propaganda machine cannot be denied. A lot of Nazis were good people, and were simply caught up in the feeling of belonging to some group. If you have the time, read up on "The Third Wave" experiment, or watch the short film ("The Wave") about it. It demonstrates that even democratic societies can fall to fascism.

yes....lol..... we need the state to protect us against fascism

Hitler didn't not use "subtle" tactics, he used open, blatant, brainwashing....much like FOX news

I agree, again even though it's a little fatalistic, or karma-tastic for an atheist. I do believe no leader, can be a bad leader.

Could you expand on this?

No evil leader has existed, without some good leader showing up magically, to kill him, maybe this is the re-writing of history, or the monotheistic and/or eastern religon's sway of resolving political issues


..... but sometimes I think republican's should just win every election, and the 1% should just keep all the money to themselves, and money should be a luxury, that only the best of "us citizens" should be able too use.....

the revolt would be horrifying but it would be the best thing that could happen to the world.....oh yeah and kill the orphans HAAZAAA!!!!

I disagree completely. Changing voting system affects the vote dramatically, as does drawing the election boundaries using a fair method. Getting rid of the electoral college and using popular vote instead (in some AV format) would certainly change the outcome of elections. In the past, 3 presidential elections have occurred where the loser actually gained the popular vote. For a load of great videos on the subject, I suggest CGP Grey:

http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey

It changes............. when the vote is 51% vs 49% it's stupid and it doesn't matter, why not spend time changing the way people vote instead of using tricks to get what your party wants?

Are you smarter than the right wing in your nation?

[Cyberman]

Are you smarter than the right wing in your nation?

Quite a lot of people I know are smarter then the right wing over here. One of them lives in a bin, drinks lighter fluid and smells of cats and fox piss.

(Caution: may contain exaggerations.)

[Ryantology]

Certainly, although it must be said that Hitler used very subtle tactics to bend people to his will.

There was very little about Hitler that could be called 'subtle'. He was never one to hide his hate and bigotry too far behind a euphemism and he didn't even make much attempt to hide his intentions. While chillaxing in Landsberg, he dictated as Mein Kampf to Rudolf Hess precisely what he intended to do if he got the power he wanted, from controlling the populace to elimination of the Jews to a genocidal crusade against Russia and Bolshevism. Anyone who read this thing and took it seriously could not have been even a little surprised by, well, anything which followed, except perhaps for the fact that he managed to pull a lot of it off. Mussolini described the book as full of common cliches.

Based on what research I've done on a topic (merely out of personal interest, mind), the idea that Hitler the Supreme Manipulator is a giant myth. He was more like an angry toddler who had the charisma and force to convince other people to be as angry as he was. It only worked because enough of the German people heard this and thought "okay, that sounds reasonable".

As an analog to modern America, people like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney aren't subtly manipulating people into accepting their nightmare vision of America, they are tapping into, and solidifying, a vision of America large parts of the electorate already desire.