Do Balllots Trample On Democracy?

[goddamnit]

I notice that there are quite a number of people disconcerted by feeling they have to choose from the "lesser of two evils" because only two candidates have a realistic chance. Of course, others (including myself) contest that mindset by voting for one of the main candidates, yet we still acknowledge how unlikely it is for someone other than the two main candidates to be elected.

What if there were no ballots and you had to manually write in the candidate you want? It would give more candidates a higher chance to be elected. If I am supposed to be able to vote for whoever I want, then why should a preselected list of candidates be presented, with a blank spot as one option. In a way, it is kind of insulting.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

'Democracy' is a one word oxymoron.

By that I mean it does not now and has never meant what people seem to think. IE rule by the majority.

Athenian democracy was rule by referendum of about one third of the population.

Neither the parliamentary system nor a republic are democracies. We elect representatives who allegedly act in the best interest of their constituents. They don't. In the US,UK,and Australasia (at least) the political process is controlled by two major parties.. They control exactly who you get to vote for. The dominant agenda of political parties to obtain and hold power.

[Minimalist]

And the only thing they agree on is that there should only be two parties.

[Tiberius]

The "problems" with modern democracy are more to do with the electoral process than anything else. Most "democracies" with only two real main parties in power are based on a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, which naturally tends towards a two party system. Alternatives such as AV (alternative vote) and proportional representation fix this problem, as long as the electoral boundaries are not corrupted (a process known as gerrymandering).

My personal favourite is a system of my own devising, where (thanks to modern technology) the government is in a constant state of election; each voter being able to change their vote at any time, meaning that (finally) governments are held accountable in real-time to the decisions they make. All voting would be done online (at home, or via a permanent public voting booth), with the vote counting system being cryptographically secure and distributed so that the potential for fraud is reduced to near zero.

[goddamnit]

'Democracy' is a one word oxymoron.

By that I mean it does not now and has never meant what people seem to think. IE rule by the majority.

Athenian democracy was rule by referendum of about one third of the population.

Neither the parliamentary system nor a republic are democracies. We elect representatives who allegedly act in the best interest of their constituents. They don't. In the US,UK,and Australasia (at least) the political process is controlled by two major parties.. They control exactly who you get to vote for. The dominant agenda of political parties to obtain and hold power.

Women and slaves did not vote in Athens, no professor or mainstream academic textbook labels the United States a direct democracy, the intention of the US governmental model is that of a written document above rulers and we are therefore supposed to be a republic, etc. I've heard points like these many times. I get it. I was just trying to quickly express a question out without spending lots of time brainstorming how to semantically craft each word: Is a ballot not restrictive?

[Minimalist]

Remember what Ben Franklin said of "democracy."

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Let us not forget that slaves, women, poor whites (in many states) and Indians were excluded under the constitution that the 'founding fathers' came up with.

This was envisioned as a constitution of the propertied classes.... what the republicunts are now trying to restore!

[Annik]

Want a more fair US election? Get rid of the electoral college. We don't need it anymore and it's just screwing us over. A president can win without gaining the majority of votes because the system is so fucking broken.

[Epimethean]

Removing ballots would water down the process and encourage demagoguery. It may be a mess to have ballots, but it would likely be far worse without it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Want a more fair US election? Get rid of the electoral college. We don't need it anymore and it's just screwing us over. A president can win without gaining the majority of votes because the system is so fucking broken.

Under the parliamentary system used by UK,Australia and others, there is no specifically elected national leader.Our Prime Minster is the leader of whichever party has majority needed to form government. He/she is a normal member of the Lower House,and may be removed by the party any time.Our incumbent incompetent, Lady Macbeth (Julia Gillard) came to power by staging a coup against the former PM, Tin Tin (Kevin Rudd)

Under our system,a lame duck leader or government is not possible.If a leader is hopeless,the party simply removes him .Obama would be long gone under our system.Bush would never have been leader of his party,not because he was so stupid, but because Aussies hate nepotism.

If a government is unable to govern, both houses are dissolved and a general election is called. That last happened here in 1975.

[Epimethean]

Not too many Howards on the books, though.