It is a strange and scary thing that more adult Americans visit a Wall Mart store in a week than voted for George Bush, and John Carey together! What does this say for modern democracy, discuss.

America=hill-billies, cali-girls, tech junkies, druggies, pyschopaths, perverts, and role-players...that's why i <3 Canada

Somehow I didn't expect this to turn into character assassination of a whole nation. Perhaps I should have lead it with the figures who voted in the last British general election where the current government was elected by something in the region of twenty to thirty percent of the electors. I had meant to point out the terrible fatuousness of the idea of democracy. Democracy, meaning government by the people really does not equate with the system of government that we are used to.

Grim

Erm.... *sighs for the failings of the country*

Lets face it. People like to talk and not walk. Idealistically democracy is a good system. Government of the people, etc. So in essence the people that vote run the government. The people that choose not to vote, do not run the government. I do dislike it very much when people complain about our government. It's very much their fault as it is the politicians themselves when things get crazy because they elected those bastards or failed to go to the polls and elect someone better. So yea, idealistically democracy = good. Realistically democracy = not so good.

That also goes for the other different systems of government. For instance the ideals of communism are very good. A single class, complete equality. But realistically there will always be a thirst for power and true communism could never be achieved.

I say we all convert to Rastafarianism >.>

I think we're looking at this from the wrong angle.
For anyone that followed the elections when it started with the debates and whatnot, you realized, from the get-go, that you were going to be deciding between the lesser of two evils. But they were both evils none the less. And when you know you're choosing between a set of idiots, who really cares who you vote for?!

Honestly, I did vote. I've voted since I was old enough (which isn't saying much >_>). And I believe that if you did not vote, that you have no right to bitch about the outcome. But seriously, when you're sitting with a ballot with Bush and Carey's names, you kinda want to run and throw up before finishing.

This election was a losing battle. Whoever took office was going to dig our country further into the hole it is already sinking into, and at this point, without a lot of help, and a leader that realizes bombing the hell out of third world countries is not the way to handle people, we're done for.

What is the common characteristic between every empire that has every held power in the world?
They've fallen.

What goes up, must come down.
And we shall.

The only question is when.

Let me expand on that.

In reference to the Bush v. Kerry elections, people had to vote for Kerry to become a presidential candidate. Bush was running for re-election, but there were other parties that had presidential candidates as well, like the Green Party's Ralph Nader. So in order to become a presidential candidate, people had to vote for them to represent their political parties in the first place.

In other words, the people elected "an evil" to run against "another evil." So I wouldn't exactly say they were "forced" to vote for the lesser of two evils. And if they were, they set themselves up for it to be that way. And the election was not just between Bush and Kerry. Had I been old enough to vote, I would've supported the Green Party.

If we look back, specifically within the history of America, we've had plenty of bad presidents. It's not like Bush came along and then everything went to hell. Truman burned masses of American veterans that were striking outside of the white house! Wilson went against everything that the people told him and pretty much ran the US as a dictator. Nixon -- oh man don't even get me started on him >.< We learn from the mistakes of past presidents though (or do we..? That's another topic on its own!) so with every bad president, we know what not to do.

Back on topic, what does this say about modern democracy?

Democracy is there, we don't exercise it as much as we should. The result? Obscure leaders, and a not so awesome government.

Mmkay, while I agree with some of this, I disagree with quite a bit of it as well.

Okay. Yes. Bush and Kerry got voted onto the ballot. BUT, they got voted in by their parties, not by the country. Once they got voted into the running by their parties, they started addressing the nation. But seriously now, politicians are politicians, and none of them are real upstanding members of society. I'm sorry for the stereotype, but that's just the way it is.

So, keeping in mind that we are classified as a two-party government, while it is nice to think that another party could take over, and take office- I don't see it happening, realistically. It would take a lot more than a few people rallying in the streets to uproot the entire foundation of government's history. We are a two-party system, and whether people like to admit it or not, your vote is wasted if you vote for another party.

This is just the way we function.

And yes, we have had plenty of horrid presidents. But we have also had our share of great ones. For all his bedroom transgressions Clinton did a great job for this country, and though I call myself a Republican, I don't deny is good run in office. But we cannot judge any presidential term by comparing them to their predecessors.

Democracy is not perfect and flawless because people are not perfect and flawless.

Anyway, that's just my views. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and some day, in the future I may be proven wrong. We can all just hope for that day.

Now that we have got to the core of the subject and that is democracy as we know it is not what can really be called democracy. Skuld touched on this briefly when she stated that the person who is going to get elected to as president or indeed any elected government post is a politician. They are by definition not one of the people they have all chosen at some time to give up real life and stand for election. To do that most places and for most seats that means joining a party and towing the party line being selected to stand for the election, and who does the selection? In most cases it is the selection committee that chooses so the candidates for a particular election are chosen by a small group of partisans who want the ideas of the party best expressed. The candidates are placed before the electorate, who mostly choose to go to Wall-Mart.

So we have election of the least worst option by the people who have no other real choice because even though an outsider or one of the fringe parties may be better from the point of view of a limited number even fewer of that number will vote for the fringe because the others know that their vote is wasted and the majority, if they are not out voting Wall-Mart for president, go with the candidate who is least objectionable to them or the party they dislike the least.

Democracy, government of the people, by the people Pah not in this world.

Grim

Really scary thought(s)
If anyone hasn't noticed, the world is and always be a terrible place. The people with power will always be corrupt, and those who aren't on board are killed. A lot of people look for excuses why, by always pass up the most convincing one.......GREED. NO instead of blaming greed, they blame what they don't like, such as religion, government, people in general, groups, machinery, you name it, it's been blamed by some crazy.
EXAMPLES OF MONEY AND POWER CONTROLING PEOPLE:
Catholic Chruch during middle ages
The Crucades
Iraq/ War on Terror
Darfur (Hope I spelled that right)
Revolutions
Civil War
The Holocaust
WWII
every war or persucution ever pretty much.

Now moving on after explaining one thought of how greed is, look how it effects our government.
Facts:
Bush was the only president to be protested during his anaugeration.
The voting machines used during Bush election and on have been attacked for their easy hacking.
Every channel but Fox News(what a surprise) said Gore won.
We still haven't found a guy who is in the desert and needs dialysis, but the companies run by government officals are making money off the War on Terror.
Gas has never been higher.
We are trillions in debt.
Middle class is almost to the point of lower class, and Upper Class is getting tax breaks.

HMM....

No vote is wasted. Even if it was toward a third party. Third parties, in comparison to the two other parties no doubt have somewhat of an influence. They pull votes from both parties. And if indeed it is pointless to vote for anything other than those two parties, why would those other "third" parties try at all?

Because they address the issues that the two political parties fail to address. Several political policies have stemmed from these third parties, and people vote for these special interest parties to show how significant their issues may be. Sure, realistically their chances of winning the presidential race are very slim, but enough people vote and care enough to where the issues that the third party address can no longer be overlooked by the two main political parties.

I also don't believe that any president cannot be charged for the wrongdoings of the presidents before them. BUT--the current presidents should learn from the mistakes of the past presidents. It would just save time, and a ton of money. A huge example -- Woodrow Wilson and the ideals named after him: Wilsonian Internationalism. What is it? You may be asking, what does this have to do with anything?

Wilson was very set in his ways, a very ambitious and almost arrogant man. He wouldn't let others change his mind, and seldom listened to his own people. America at the time was experiencing an economic crisis. What was Wilson's main concern? He basically wanted the world to look like the US. Under his orders, the US invaded Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. And -check this- the Teller Amendment was issued out which stated that the US has no intentions of invading Cuba and turning it into one of its colonies. Shortly after, the Platt Amendment followed which stated that the US would not leave Cuba until the Cubans write up a Constitution that the US agrees with, and elect a leader that the US likes. Any of this sound familiar to you?

The people did not agree with any of this. In fact, America was infuriated. Why jump into foreign affairs when you're domestically severely unstable?

Not only do the presidents need to learn from the mistakes of past presidents, but the people should learn from the past as well. That's what history classes are for. Why do we have to take history classes? So we could prevent history from repeating itself.

I'd like to state that while Kerry v. Bush was largely a battle between 'evils' we stupid... STUPID Americans managed to vote for the greater of the two evils.

Oh my, I have a lot to address here. Please be patient and I will be as organized as I am able.

Grimbold: You see exactly what I'm saying. The party elects the politician, and honestly, you must realize that not only must a party elect based on their views on certain issues, but also for their charisma. We are a nation that is swayed and deeply affected by the looks and sound of a person. I would love to deny this, and say we are not so superficial, but it is in he power and certainty of voice that we find our presidents. People will disagree with me, and say that Bush sounds like a retard on crack when he addresses the public, and while that may be true to a point, but he also has an air about him that gives off an aura that is strength-filled enough to have had him relected.

Which brings me directly into Walter Barrecks's points. If Bush had really not been voted into office, if his election was false the first time around, and had Al Gore won, would Bush really have been elected? Or is it that, even though he was rightfully voted in, the public realized they'd made a first and second mistake, and blamed it on the only thing that would not put them at fault?

Bush is an idiot, Kerry is an indecisive idiot. And our country is not ready for a third party to take office. That left us with the choice of the democratic party (i.e. Kerry) and the Republican party (i.e. Bush). It came down do a lesser of the two evils not because the nation is stupid, Azmodai2, but because that is the way of politics. It really is the nature of the beast. We must make do with what we are given, and the parties gave us what they had to offer. Possibly not the best candidates, but the two most qualified, and most likely to win them the election. That's what these things come down to.

"Who will win us the election?"

And Mia Siserae, while I see your point, again, our country is not ready for a third party leader. People don't seem to understand that. While the third party do raise alternative ways to approach issues, and might be able to push the greater parties into gear, they do not impact the elections to such an extent that some people seem to believe they do. It may be just me, but it seems to be naive to believe that it would.

I have spent time in countries where everything, like democracy, that we are bashing right now, is non existent. The high standard of living, even for the middle and "low" classes are miles beyond what others ever get to experience. Where our "horrid, barbaric, idiotic" leaders are gods compared to the others that are leading their governments. We are years ahead of most peoples, we are miles beyond their scope of vision. We have our leaders to thank us for that. For leading us into the new years still prospering.

Yes, gas is expensive.
Yes, it seems that we have no learned from our mistakes.
Yes, Bush is kind of an idiot
Yes, we think that our country is in a downward spiral.

But we are not. Not so much as we seem to be thinking. Democracy is impossible for the human race to follow one hundred percent. But when it comes down do it, I don't think we are doing such a horrible job.

Definition of republic a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Definition of democracy a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Most people are confused, the United States is not a democracy it is a republic read the pledge of allegance.

I am an american living in South Africa. If you think the way things are done in the states u should see how it is done here. Imagine going to polls and voting either republican or democratic and then being told the republicans won and this person will be the president. Here you don't vote for people you vote for parties. And the ANC dominates it like 80% because the other 15+ parties are too stupid to unite and take a bit out of the ANC's stranglehold.

anyway this was my 2 cents.

I respect your views Skuld, but I must comment on some of them.

-Great leaders make us, but our original leader, George Washington, was against parties fighting to rule over Amercia.
-True, we do have it better than most countries, but we are not more advanced in intellegence or morals than any other country in the world, no matter what we have over the others. If we were truly as good off as we are, what is the harm in going to help situations that people have it worse. Most would say we do that, and in some cases we do, but only when beneficial. We wouldn't have "helped" Iraq unless that was oil to obtain.
-Speaking of the Middle East, no matter what America does, other than passing out money and medical supplies, we will always make them worse. Thus meaning the excuse of going over there to "stop Saddam" was a futile effort, leaving people who hate us with ruined homes and lifes.
-Moving from that....True, we can't follow Democracy 100%, but hell, the way things are going, we're having about 50%.

AM I JUST CRAZY?

Skuld, I have to disagree with you there. I strongly believe that Third Parties play a significant role in the elections. My reasons that were stated previously are verified here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States) and to Quote the second paragraph:

Although third parties rarely win elections, they play an important role in democratic government. Third parties draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties. If the issue finds resonance with the voters, one or more of the major parties may adopt the issue into its own party platform. Also a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote as if in a referendum on an important issue. Third parties do help voter turnout bringing more people to the polls.

And the statistic, "Currently 75% of the U.S. electorate consists of registered Democrats (42.5%) and registered Republicans (32.5%), with "independents" and those belonging to other parties constituting 24.9% of the electorate."

I don't think 24.9% is an insignificant number. So again, although they may never win the presidential race, Third parties still play a significant role in the US government.

I have spent a good part of my life overseas as well. Western Europe specifically, where their form of government is more socialistic and is run by parliament and a prime minister. They provide free health care and a free college education. The setback with that, though, is that in a socialistic government, it is hard for the lower class or even middle class to move up in the economic ladder -- whereas in the US people could go from the lower class to the higher class, much much easier than they could if they were in Western Europe.

So our governmental system isn't all that bad. It's not perfect. I'm not going to say it's better than any other system of government out there, but they do give us freedoms that others from other parts of the world do not have.