Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[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.

[scaeagles]

Politics is a dirty game. Any dirt the Republicans might think they have on a dem isn't going to come out until that person wins the nomination. Any dirt coming out right now is party on party. I have no doubt that anyone making up Obama stories isn't in the republican camp. If he wins the nomination, sure they'll be digging and even making up dirt. But why do it now? No reason when the dem candidates are going to rip each other apart trying to get it for themselves.

And the same goes with the republicans. No reason for dems to spread dirt at present. They'll start soon enough ripping each other apart.

[€uroMeinke]

Maybe it's time Larry Agran give it another go - he was another big city mayor after all

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Maybe it's time Larry Agran give it another go - he was another big city mayor after all

WHOA! Time warp!

[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.

[Alex]

Yes, I am geneally opposed to initiatives and referenda on principal except on very local levels (like socialism, direct democracy is a form of government I think only works well in very small units).

I would support prescreening of propositions and referenda for basic constitutionality but many of the problems they cause is that they are generally poorly thought out in their implications, inappropriately handcuff the proper working of our representative government, and conflict with existing law.

[BarTopDancer]

I would just like to point out that of right this moment Alex and iSm have a mere 100 posts difference in their post count.

Carry on.

[Alex]

Fine, I'll shut up.

[Strangler Lewis]

The initiative process contributes to the gridlock. I believe California's initiative system was supposed to be the populist exception to alleviate ills caused by a government that was too responsible to moneyed interests. Now, powerful interests on both sides of any issue dominate the initiative process, which lessens the "burden" on our elected officials.

[BarTopDancer]

Shall we add you to the no sense of humor list?

I need you around. I have another logic class coming my way.






removed smilies to not offend Alex any more.