The end of US democracy?

[Reverend Blair]

Like I said, "...not, at present, an imperialist state outside of their immediate sphere of influence."

That will no doubt change as all those "stan" countries begin flexing their new muscles and India finds itself needing more and more resources to modernise.

All the more reason why the west needs to clean up its own act.

 

[Spock]

There were far more irregularities in Florida than just the recounting of butterfly ballots though. It wasn't a Democrat who had black people purged from the voters lists, it was people working for Jeb Bush.

And that's not even the point. Gore vs. Bush was about voter rolls, it was about recounts. That was the only issue before the SCOTUS.

They didn't work for Jeb Bush. Fact is, there were plenty of 'irregularities' on the part of the Democrats, not just the one-sided recounts.

I will not just "get over" Supreme court justices voting along party lines to determine who will be president either, Spock. That is not a democratic way to do things and it is not the way things should have been handled in 2000.

Then how should they have been handled?

The fact that a country that bills itself as the worlds leading democracy has a president who lost the election is ridiculous.

Do you know how the electoral college system works?

 

[American Voice]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Spock, you are just being argumentative.

 

[crash]

At any rate, Clinton got more votes than his opponents in both elections.

The hiprocracy is yours, Clintion clearly did not get 50% + 1 in the popular vote in any election in the United States. Stephen Harper clearly did in Alberta, by an 11 point margain. Might I add that the voter turnout in the United States is lower than that in Canada.

I claim these people who did not vote in those Clinton elections are all Republican voters! :roll:

 

[crash]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

Spock, you are just being argumentative.

I dont think his last post was. There is good reason for the electoral college. Its not just some dumb system to replace the popular vote and means the same thing. It is different. It is to weigh the votes of the states in a more equal way. With the regional tensions we have here in Canada you would think it would be understood even more. If a presidential election is based solely on popular vote then it clearly favors the more populous states while it makes the smaller states less significant. Regions and states in the US like Canada often have different political cultures. Why should the predominant political culture of the more populous states always reign supreme?

Like I said in a past post though the system has "failed" very rarely in its history, that is the amount of electoral votes has exceeded that of the popular vote difference for the particular candidate.

This is a highly subjective arguement, as any time this happens will always be. If it happened to the Republicans the reverse would be true.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I understand the elcetoral college, the reason why it exists, and the reasons why some would abolish it. I'm not convinced that Spock does.

As for whether or not the US system has failed...there is a president in place who got fewer votes than his opponent, he was put in place by a Supreme Court stacked with people with political ties to his family and his party.

That president, in his first term, has taken a country who had the goodwill of most of the world behind it and made it into the most despised nation on the planet.

He has started an illegal war, undermined the authority of the United Nations, presided over a military that has committed war crimes, broken US military law, presented false information to the world and the American people, backed out of and/or refused to sign treaties governing weapons. His Vice President is in danger of being indicted in the US and in France on corruption charges.

Has the system failed? Big time. It didn't so much fail as get attacked by a few squalid men who have no understanding of democracy and no comprehension of human decency, but failure is failure and the system did allow those men into power.

 

[crash]

...but he did win the election with a system that has existed for a long time to take regional differences into account.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It really is questionable whether he won or not, but a system that allows a leader to take the steps that Bush has taken and do the things that he's done, apparently with impunity, has failed.

It might be a temporary failure, but the reluctance to recognise that failure is leaving the door open to it happening again. Nobody is taking steps to limit the powers of the president though. Nobody with real power is suggesting that the US should not act against international laws. Nobody with real power is suggesting that Bush be brought to account for crimes committed under his watch.

That is a failed system.

In Canada we scream about the system failing when our government blows $100 million on a minor scandal. Look at what's gone on in the US since Bush took power...Enron, 9-11, probable collusion in war crimes in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the torture scandal.

I can list literally hundreds of things from arsenic in the water to creationism being officially spouted at National Parks. That is a system that is failing, yet nobody is trying to fix it.

 

[Luc]

The system and the system-users

Hello

...but a system that ......has failed.
It might be a temporary failure, but the reluctance to recognise that failure is leaving the door open to it happening again. Nobody is taking steps to limit the powers of the president though. Nobody with real power is suggesting that the US should not act against international laws. Nobody with real power is suggesting that Bush be brought to account for crimes committed under his watch.

That is a failed system.

I can list literally hundreds of things from arsenic in the water to creationism being officially spouted at National Parks. That is a system that is failing, yet nobody is trying to fix it.

Well the system has two parts : 1-The system itself, and 2-Those who use it. Any problem 'in the system' will never be fully (or maximally) understood or solved if those two parts are looked at. Basically, I mean, it's not only the system, but the people who run it who also have a hand in the problems we encounter. You may ask then how do these people get this way? Through the system...like education, families..and other insitutional things which have been developed. Anyway you see its a cycle, the system influence the people who use it, and they inturn influence the system...so the people-factor must always be looked at with as much intensity as the system itself with its protocols and rules, etc. To modify a president, "Ask not what the system can do for you, but what you can do for the system." Well, ask both, doing both is good...it might bring a sort of balanced understanding.

I'm not so sure that people aren't trying to fix it. Perhaps you can be more specific, what aspect has been overlooked by the 'system-fixers' of our society? (Are there other aspects, I mean, than the rights and responsibilities of the president, which are being untouched by those who have power to change it?).

-Luc

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US Democracy nearing

The single biggest single problem is corporate influence, Luc. That extends into Congress and the Senate, the courts, and the press, not just the White House.

It has deeply damaged the ability of the checks and balances to work. It has also taken the discussion away from the issues, driving the deep divisions and partisanship we see today and relegating what little discussion does exist into soundbites.

 

[Andem]

Re: US Democracy nearing

The single biggest single problem is corporate influence, Luc. That extends into Congress and the Senate, the courts, and the press, not just the White House.

It has deeply damaged the ability of the checks and balances to work. It has also taken the discussion away from the issues, driving the deep divisions and partisanship we see today and relegating what little discussion does exist into soundbites.

Do you think that's a reason for US constitution to be shelved, though? The people in the states really do believe that their constitution and so-called "freedoms" are the best thing the world has to offer. Taking it away and there would be a huge backlash. If they keep the constitution and continue to manipulate it, I think the people will continue to be drones for the big money makers until something, I don't know what, but people start to realise what's been going on for the past 55 years.

Is it possible the United States will see a revolution in our lifetime?

My post probably makes little sense, oh well.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US Democracy nearing

They never shelve it though, just subvert it. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional by nature. The Republicans have been trying to get a lot of this through for years, in dribs and drabs, and when they got the excuse they rammed it all through in a lump.

Because the mainstream media does not seriously challenge the US government when they do things like this, they get away with it. Too many people really don't understand what's going on or are too afraid to speak out.

Will they ever have a revolution? Likely, but it won't be over rights and freedoms. It will more likely come in the form of food and energy riots.

 

[irisheyesafire]

Re: US Democracy nearing an end?

I think the essential point about democracy is that it is an organic phenomenon. It will occur spontaneously among people of good sense and good will. That may sound naive, but democracy is of the natural order of things, and thrives where not suppressed.

Unfortunately I do feel you are at least somewhat naive in your statement. There is a great deal to learn from looking into history; seeing what forms of government have risen and fallen, and why. Historically speaking, democracy has never lasted for more than approximately 200 - 250 years at best; we in the U.S. are on year 228. No, none of us know whether or not the democracy is at an end. However, looking into the examples of history, many of the signs are certainly there.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

RE: US Democracy nearing an end?

But what you say, isn't that naive either irisheyesafire? You say "Historically speaking, democracy has never lasted for more than approximately 200 - 250 years at best; we in the U.S. are on year 228". So you can extropolate that to the current situation? And which examples do you use when you define most democracies as being on there for some 200 - 250 years? How can you compare modern Western democracies with other historical "democracies"? What you say - or implement - confuses me.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US Democracy nearing

It isn't just the time frame though, Rick. There are a lot of signs that point to the American democracy being less than healthy and the American nation being in trouble.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

RE: US Democracy nearing an end?

I don't deny the US democracy may as well be on its decline But to prove that point, I think irisheyesafire is using an argument which is irrelevant.

 

[irisheyesafire]

...are you stupid? 43% of people who voted in 1992, 49% who voted in 1996, voted for Clinton. What is unclear about that?

And Clinton's appointees, along with a Bush and a Ford appointee, voted against him. They voted down party lines; get over it.

Um, regardless of any of this - as the facts stand: Clinton is VERY popular with the public; more now than ever. Also, it is noteable, especially to us Americans now, that he did SO MUCH for our economy, raising our $$ higher than ever - all of which Bush is steadily tearing down and crashing. Your comments on how Clinton won, why, and whether or not he had more or less popular votes do not matter. Certainly not now.

 

[irisheyesafire]

Re: RE: US Democracy nearing an end?

I don't deny the US democracy may as well be on its decline But to prove that point, I think irisheyesafire is using an argument which is irrelevant.

oh please. All it takes is for anyone with intellect to study history, its continuing affects toward modern time especially, to then be able to assertain how history in turn affects us today. Good grief, it offers us so much to learn from and be forewarned about if nothing else - if one does in fact look at this, there is obviously much insight to be had.
Regarding democracy, "one" example is the Athenian democracy. Though what is "irrellevant" is me going into a history lesson with you.
Others who are learned in the area (understanding that I have no idea how learned you are) most likely better understand my comment, and why it does in fact matter. Otherwise, I care not for arguments. No one, including myself, has said that because of history our fate is sealed... of course not. Yet the idea, the ideal even, of learning from the examples set forth in the past (which HAVE in fact affected what we have become today) is most certainly a point which should be well taken.
[/i]

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: US Democracy nearing

It should be well taken. Ideas on CBC radio last week basically centred on that for four straight shows. It was good enough that I ordered the transcript in book form.

 

[roam]

RE: US Democracy nearing an end?

america rules you stupid bitchs