Better that McCain wins?

[IAMX 3,055]

Why do people have to sit there and justify a one-or-the-other strategically?

Just vote for what you deem to be the best person on that huge list of Presidents, assuming you're smart and Decline to State/Independent.

It's rationales like the one in the OP as to why we're stuck with an overwhelming amount of ###### retards in our elected government.

[Peikko 1,575]

A lot of it has to do with the 'us and them' mentality. I presume this is partly down to the 2 party system. By that I mean, that whereas in other democracies, where the political fringe is separate from and not identified with the mainstream parties, in the US the political fringes are members of the main parties and their somewhat extreme views are mixed up with the majority more middle of the road views. I feel this is a major flaw in the system and it might take more than a call for 'hands across the aisles' to really fix this.

[akdiver 3]

By that I mean, that whereas in other democracies, where the political fringe is separate from and not identified with the mainstream parties, in the US the political fringes are members of the main parties and their somewhat extreme views are mixed up with the majority more middle of the road views.

Um......the u.s. is not a democracy, it's a republic. Edited September 6, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

By that I mean, that whereas in other democracies, where the political fringe is separate from and not identified with the mainstream parties, in the US the political fringes are members of the main parties and their somewhat extreme views are mixed up with the majority more middle of the road views.

Um......the u.s. is not a democracy, it's a republic.

Actually, it's both a Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy. Republic is too general a term, and states do not have their own sovereignty over the federal government. Only territories. The Republic part is to protect minority rights with majority rule. Nonetheless, our own government calls us a Democracy, and claims to spread it like an STD, so.. yeah.

[symbiosis 0]

Why do people have to sit there and justify a one-or-the-other strategically?

Just vote for what you deem to be the best person on that huge list of Presidents, assuming you're smart and Decline to State/Independent.

It's rationales like the one in the OP as to why we're stuck with an overwhelming amount of ###### retards in our elected government.

The original post was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Although the thought has occurred to me frequently, of course I will vote and of course it could never be for McCandidate and Carribou Barbie.

[akdiver 3]

Actually, it's both a Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy.

Uh, no. It's not even a representative democracy. The "founders" went out of their way to declare the dangers of democracy, representative or otherwise, and made sure they went out of their way to avoid it. Read the Federalist Papers.

Big difference between a democracy and a republic, and we're definitely a republic - for now. We're working on becoming a totalitarian state.

Nonetheless, our own government calls us a Democracy...

Our own government tells a lot of lies.... Edited September 6, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

Actually, it's both a Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy.

Uh, no. It's not even a representative democracy. Big different between a democracy and a republic, and we're definitely a republic - for now. We're working on becoming a totalitarian state.

Uh, yes, it is both.

Here's a nice map highlighting Representative Democracies:

Nonetheless, our own government calls us a Democracy...

Our own government tells a lot of lies....

You also learned most of what you know about government from them, in all likelihood. It was called school. Where you also learned your government was called both a Republic and Democracy, because one emphasizes constitutionality, the other people's rights.

It isn't simply one of them.

Edited September 6, 2008 by SRVT

[Peikko 1,575]

Democracy simply means government by the people for the people either directly or through elected representatives. I don't care what the official title is, that's what democracy means, and that's what the US is.

[akdiver 3]

Here's a nice map highlighting Representative Democracies...

Wow - a map from wikipedia. Not too surprising that it is incorrect.

You also learned most of what you know about government from them, in all likelihood. It was called school. Where you also learned your government was called both a Republic and Democracy, because one emphasizes constitutionality, the other people's rights.

Are you suggesting the democracy is about people's rights?

Democracy simply means government by the people for the people either directly or through elected representatives. I don't care what the official title is, that's what democracy means, and that's what the US is.

Democracy is majority rule with voting - regardless of who is doing the voting.

Keep repeating the governments lies - people will keep believing in them.

Edited September 6, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

Here's a nice map highlighting Representative Democracies...

Wow - a map from wikipedia. Not too surprising that it is incorrect.

Wow, a sweeping generalization, not surprising that it's incorrect.

You also learned most of what you know about government from them, in all likelihood. It was called school. Where you also learned your government was called both a Republic and Democracy, because one emphasizes constitutionality, the other people's rights.

Are you suggesting the democracy is about people's rights?

Well, since they are elected by the people who they represent, their rights are at the forefront of all things considered. It is also indoctrinated (like many things) into Constitutional Republics as well.

Since you refuse to educate yourself, I'll help you:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

And many others mirror the Constitutional Republic platform as well, not just Representative Democracy. It also contrasts on the difference between Direct Democracy and Representative (which this government is).

So yes, you are wrong, and continue to be wrong.

Edited September 6, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

Well, since they are elected by the people who they represent, their rights are at the forefront of all things considered.

Wow. Do you believe in magic leprechauns too?

Since you refuse to educate yourself, I'll help you:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

Like I said, keep repeating the governments lies and people will keep believing them.

How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

You seem to be trying to convince me that some democracies are indirect, rather than direct - however, I already know this.

[IAMX 3,055]

Like I said, keep repeating the governments lies and people will keep believing them.

Yeah, I'm sure it was all made up by government propaganda, not scholars. You must be a truther calling everything the government says a lie. Much like your bashing of Wikipedia, who must also be run by the government.

You seem to be trying to convince me that some democracies are indirect, rather than direct - however, I already know this.

Evidently not, because you're trying to insist, incorrectly at that, this country is only a Republic.

[akdiver 3]

Evidently not, because you're trying to insist, incorrectly at that, this country is only a Republic.

Ah well. To each his/her/their/its own I guess (:

[Peikko 1,575]

What exactly is the point of this exercise anyway? The original point wasn't about the semantics of what people called the electoral process, but about the framework of the party system and how it produced polarity. I don't quite see how quibbling about the word democracy changes that.

[IAMX 3,055]

What exactly is the point of this exercise anyway? The original point wasn't about the semantics of what people called the electoral process, but about the framework of the party system and how it produced polarity. I don't quite see how quibbling about the word democracy changes that.

I think the word we were quibbling about should have been "pedantic".