The Lighthouse of Democracy In the World: Sweden!

[Sand]

Well, the voters turned out here in US for the last election. HAHAHAHA!

 

Take that you Republican Ultra Conservative Pro-Lifing warmongering page sexifying... Um... What was I talking about?

Edited November 23, 2006 by Sand

[kumquatq3]

There are a lot of countries where only less that 50% of the population vote. And at this point, it's fair game to argue that democracy isn't the best way to govern a country. What's the legitimacy of government that was only chosen by, say, 20% of the population? It's practically an invitation for a coup and so, turnout is very important for any democracy. And this, of course makes turnout an essential part of measuring a democracy's success.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree! Extremes in any direction can be bad signs. However, all things being equal, it's better to have higher turnout. I just think it is far from the end all be all. Venezuela, post compulsory, has one of the highest turnouts in the world. Does that make them a beacon of Democracy?

 

BTW, Euro countries with some kind of compulsory voting:

 

Greece

Austria (presidential elections only)

Belgium (see Belgian electoral system)

Luxembourg

Some parts of Switzerland

 

and, not Euro, but Australia

 

Countries that previously had compulsory voting, but have abolished it:

The Netherlands

Edited November 23, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Gorgon]

'Jokenly' is not a word in the English language, 'Jokingly' is an adverb derived from a verb and is common American English.

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jokingly

Edited November 23, 2006 by Gorgon

[Pidesco]

'Jokenly' is not a word in the English language, 'Jokingly' is an adverb derived from a verb and  is common American English.

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jokingly

 

I believe I've pointed that out previously.

[Gorgon]

Ohh..

 

I tend to skip to the last page after reading the first few pages of a thread

[Volourn]

Just read my reply to him. 'Nough said. That is all.

[Dark_Raven]

I thought Kanada was The Lighthouse of Democracy In the World. :'(

[Calax]

America is not a democracy until the popular vote wins the day.

[kumquatq3]

America is not a democracy until the popular vote wins the day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct

 

We are a Representative Democracy

[Purgatorio]

Australia ranked 8th, above New Zealand, and Canadia. I find that hard to believe.

[Pidesco]

America is not a democracy until the popular vote wins the day.

 

Correct

 

We are a Representative Democracy

 

I never understood the point of the Electoral College. It seems kind of pointless. Why not make the decision of who wins directly through the number of votes each candidate gets?

[Calax]

America is not a democracy until the popular vote wins the day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct

 

We are a Representative Democracy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never understood the point of the Electoral College. It seems kind of pointless. Why not make the decision of who wins directly through the number of votes each candidate gets?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

because (at least this is according to my high school gvmnt teacher) electoral college can give the itty bitty states a chance at changing things (ie: an election might actually hinge on rhode island). where as popular vote would have much less power to the itty bitty states.

[Pidesco]

That's stupid. It means that people from smaller states are more powerful in an election than the people from the larger states. How democratic is that?

[kumquatq3]

That's stupid. It means that people from smaller states are more powerful in an election than the people from the larger states. How democratic is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not a pure democracy, nor is it striving to be one. However, the problem is that you view the US as just one big country, which is technically true, but it's not nearly that simple. The situation is that we are dealing with states that are effectively their own little countries in many ways (I do believe California is something like the 7th biggest economy in the world by itself). If you make it decided by popular vote, only 3-5 states would really matter. The rest of those states would be subject to their choices. The electoral college gives a "check" to that power in a very minor way. The number of votes a state gets is still subject to it's population.If not for the electoral college, the US would not exist. It could stand some updating imo tho.

Edited November 24, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Pidesco]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

 

I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

[Sand]

I hate the Electoral College. Its just not needed.

 

With the Electoral College in place a candidate can win the popular vote, win the vote that should matter which the majority of those who are governed made their choice, and still lose the election.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Sand

[kumquatq3]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

 

I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, the majority would gain more power. The minority would lose more power.

[metadigital]

It's mall about arrogant bragging rights  and the ability to say in a bigoted way,"My country is better than youyrs! HAHAHA!:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, all things considered Sweden is a whole lot better place to live than US of A.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, a whole country full of Swedish women! :D

[Calax]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

 

I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, the majority would gain more power. The minority would lose more power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given how much powert the minority has, would this be a bad thing?

[Gorgon]

The US is a federal state which means it has to put up with illogical creations like the electoral college.

 

Maybe it's just too big a country for it to gain a sense of nationhood that trumps state and local interests.

 

On the face of it it's quite undemocratic, the net worth of an individual vote is determined by where he or she lives, where of course it should be equal for everyone. Even worse,' 49,9999 %' of the votes in a swing state are just discarded in a presidential election.

 

On the other hand you could argue that the more state's rights the more democratic the overall result, and that you should measure the states individually.

 

"

Correct

 

We are a Representative Democracy"

 

That is not the disctinction you wanted to make, every democracy is representative. Direct democracy becomes unfeasible as soon as you get more than 30 or so people involved.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Gorgon

[metadigital]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

 

I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the majority would gain more power. The minority would lose more power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given how much powert the minority has, would this be a bad thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, because then you end up with a tyrannical society.

[Gorgon]

If you want to protect the voice of the minority you have to get away from the two party system. There are a lot more than the two choices of political ideology you get to choose from you know.

 

Without the electoral college, independent candidates could be allowed to harness votes nation wide and not have their votes thrown out and their mandates given to the winner. This could facilitate the creation of alternatives to the two party stalemate.

[Calax]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

 

I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the majority would gain more power. The minority would lose more power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given how much powert the minority has, would this be a bad thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, because then you end up with a tyrannical society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is tyrrany of the majority or of the minority worse? Cause it feels like the public is at the mercy of the minority.

[metadigital]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

 

I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the majority would gain more power. The minority would lose more power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given how much powert the minority has, would this be a bad thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, because then you end up with a tyrannical society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is tyrrany of the majority or of the minority worse? Cause it feels like the public is at the mercy of the minority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In what way do you feel oppressed?

[Walsingham]

Speaking as someone who has had dogs set upon him, I think the problem is not the British system but the British people. In fact, it's just as well we have the system.