Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Because the majority is centered in certain regions- and the people in the less populated states would be railroaded.

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Funny how the founders seemed to know what we needed.

Are you still spouting that tired old line? We had this discussion before; America is both a republic and a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to hate Democrats and all things democratic so fervently that you even try to denigrate even the word “democracy”. That kind of hate isn’t healthy, Nephy.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Are you still spouting that tired old line? We had this discussion before; America is both a republic and a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to hate Democrats and all things democratic so fervently that you even try to denigrate even the word “democracy”. That kind of hate isn’t healthy, Nephy.

Uh huh.... didja get that psych degree in a cracker jack box?

I don't spend my time hating anyone- that's something you keep trying to project on me. Kindly desist.

And I think the quotes I provided and links explain why we are a Republic- so argue with the Founding Fathers if you like.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

...
I don't spend my time hating anyone- that's something you keep trying to project on me. Kindly desist.

Really? How about the following comments you have made regarding Democrats and Liberals?

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Now they won- let's see them do something other than be fools and idiots with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Originally Posted by Nephythys

The hate and loathing for Bush is virulent here and other places- I have the same feeling for the dems.

Originally Posted by Nephythys

It's not about silence in general -it's about the fact that the dems are hypocritical idiots who don't even seem to know what the other hand is doing-

Loathesome bunch- gak!

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Imagine- asking a Dem to keep their word.

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I know I would not trust the left with protecting this country.

It's not about wanting a change- it's about trust. It's about a party that shows disdain or open hostility for the military, America, Christians.....

To use your favorite emoticon...

[Nephythys]

republic: "a form of 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."
Websters Unabridged Dictionary
democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

U.S. Army Training Manual

Our Republic was founded upon the principles of Liberty (the right to do whatever one wishes so long as those actions do not infringe upon the equal rights of others) and limited government, not democracy. In fact, seldom if ever will one see reference to democracy in the founding documents of our nation, at least in a positive context. Peculiar, don't you think if we are suppose to live in a democracy as our politicians tell us?

Chapter 3 of The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson:
"It is generally conceded that even a monarchy or a dictatorship is an oligarchy, or a government run by a small, ruling minority."
"Such is also the case with a democracy, for this form of government is traditionally controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. The people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that they are indeed the decision-making power of government, but in truth there is almost always a small circle at the top making the decisions for the entirety."

In the Republican form of government, the power rests in a written Constitution, wherein the powers of our government is limited so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In addition to limiting the power of government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority.

Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing:
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

James Madison who wrote:
"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!"


Another was John Adams who wrote:
"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."

a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Fisher Ames stated: 'Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it
ever ended in anything better than despotism.'

Samuel Adams stated: 'Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not
commit suicide.'

As Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was
asked by an onlooker what form of government he and his countrymen had created
during the first and to date, only constitutional convention. His answer: 'A
Republic, if you can keep it.'


Links-
Link
Link

It seems ironic that those who protest what they preceive as a loss of rights (which has not happened) seem all too happy to strip people of their right to representation because a couple elections don't turn out how they want them to.

[Strangler Lewis]

I basically agree. However, it strikes me that the right is usually first to criticize elected representatives for not following the will of the mob. Didn't Newt Gingrich have some goofy idea about having regular plebiscites giving people buttons to push to vote in on hot topics, on the assumption that the politicians would have to follow or be castigated?

[innerSpaceman]

Chew, then swallow it.

[BarTopDancer]

Huge visible mojo for Alex. I knew I could count on you for a well stated un-biased educational post.

Originally Posted by Alex

But it doesn't work with the presidency. In the end you end up with just one president. So the idea that population trumps all is certainly reasonable. But think about how much complaint there was about Bush's perceived (and quite likely real) slights to the blue states that didn't vote for him. Will this be worse if the president is essentially elected by eight metropolitan areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Bay Area, Baltimore, ...). Such a president most closely beholden to the people who specifically elected him. What incentive is there to even pause for consideration when taking sides in a water rights conflict between Los Angeles and Arizona, or whether to propose energy legislation that is good for New York City but bad for the rural midwest, whether to instituted regulations that will force populous regions to subsidize the extension of telecommunications into all areas of the United States.

So, basically it comes down to the fact that I want our president to be forced to at least pause to think about issues from the national level and large regions that maybe don't support him or his party.

This helped me see the other side. I haven't changed my mind but I can see the other side now and I *get it*.

[innerSpaceman]

Also, it's total bullsh!t that mid-America is red while coastal America is blue. That's the way the map looks after results are in, with our winner-takes-all system of how each state voted.

But if you look at a map of county-by-county results, the entire nation turns purple, with a stunningly perfect mix of dems and 'pubs absolutely everywhere.

[Alex]

The problem with democracy vs. republic is that different spheres use the words in different ways and the meanings have varied over time as well.

And this is part of the reason that over time the United States has tended to more away from republicanism towards democracy (and thus illuminates the some of the philosophical distinctions that lead to our nation's earliest political parties: the pull between democracy and republicanism has been with us for as long as the battle between federalism and centrism). As the words were used by our Founding Fathers republicanism and democracy were essentially mutually exlusive.

You also have to keep in mind that as originally established only 1/5th of the federal government was directly elected and even that 1/5 was republican in nature (though chosen by democratic methods). In our country the people are never given direct voice in the actions of our federal government. We never vote on what the government will do, we only ever vote on who will get to decide what the government will do.

The House of Representives was directly elected. The Senate, originally, was one layer removed from direct election (people directly elected the people whe selected the senators) and the president is the same. The judiciary is removed from direct election by two layers (we vote for people who vote for the people who will select the judges).

To the extent that demoracy means direct rule by citizens we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. However, over the centuries "democracy" has come to be used on almost any system where voting by citizens is involved and this tendency bleeds into the our political discourse.

So far the only major move towards democracy was the senate, getting converted to direct election in 1913. But we seem to hear increasingly of serious proposals to move farther. Elimination of the electoral college, term limitations for judges, national initiative and referenda proposals, restructuring of the senate into a population ratio body.

So you're both right. As we generally use the words today, our form of republicanism is a subset of democracy. As the words were used 250 years ago they were very distinct things.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

In our country the people are never given direct voice in the actions of our federal government. We never vote on what the government will do, we only ever vote on who will get to decide what the government will do.

Though you alluded to it elsewhere in your post, I wanted to point out the distinction with California and other states that have a referendum system. I seem to remember, Alex, you were against such a system ... but I am whole-heartedly in favor of it. I'm perfectly comfortable with constitutionality being the balwark against mob tyranny, and I find direct action by the electorate to pass laws to be the only workable solution to grid-locked government and insufficient progress for civilization.

The California referendum system is far from perfect. I'd like to see proposed laws vetted for constitutionality before they're allowed on the ballot. It seems every law passed directly by the electorate is tied up in court challenges for decades .... leaving us right back with the insufficient progress that the system aims to remedy.