Difference between Democracy and a Republic?

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
In nearly every election independants run. The people choose not to vote for them in the majority of races.

I agree. The fault doesn't lie with the 2 major political parties, but in the brainwashed sheep of the people who think that their only choices are the 2 major political parties.
There is no reason why people can't vote for other party candidates, they just don't on the foolish belief that doing so is "wasting" a vote.

I agree with both of these guys. We can choose a third party if we want.

 

[n yusef]

Yes you can choose a third party, and I do (I live in MA, where the Democrats win by default, so I vote for who I want to win), but when the majority of people vote in binary, you have to vote for the lesser of two evils in a close race (if I lived in Ohio, Florida, Pennsivania, or other swing states, I would have voted for one of the candidates who had a chance).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
In nearly every election independants run. The people choose not to vote for them in the majority of races.

I agree. The fault doesn't lie with the 2 major political parties, but in the brainwashed sheep of the people who think that their only choices are the 2 major political parties.
There is no reason why people can't vote for other party candidates, they just don't on the foolish belief that doing so is "wasting" a vote.

I agree with both of these guys. We can choose a third party if we want.

You could, but the majority won't. Money wins elections. Think not? Tell the Parties they can't raise more money than some fix amount, which would be in line with what say, two independent party candidates. They would both be yelling about free speech. While they might have a point, that is a red herring. What they would be in fact screaming about is a threat to their stranglehold on American politics. IMO Vic and Amused are correct in a theoretical sense, but how it really works is that anyone who gets serious support has the approval of the respective party's leadership. That is why Dean was such a suprise, because for one election, someone did an end run around the DNC. Once Dean had run his course, then the Party Approved candidates went for it. Who seriously opposed Bush on the Rep side? No one. He is their boy, and no upstart will be permitted to oppose him. Do you think that no one who is a Republican would want a shot?

In short, money wins. Are people sheep? You bet, and cash guarantees where the sheep will graze.

By the time we here get to select a candidate, we are given not our choices, but a limited selection.

It's known as a Hobson's choice.

That's realpolitik

 

[cubby1223]

In a democracy, any military unit not resting in a city causes two citizens of his home city to become unhappy, whereas with a republic, just one citizen becomes unhappy.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
In a democracy, any military unit not resting in a city causes two citizens of his home city to become unhappy, whereas with a republic, just one citizen becomes unhappy.

Fool, civ2 is yesterdays news.

In civ3, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Let's have a We love the king day!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
In nearly every election independants run. The people choose not to vote for them in the majority of races.

I agree. The fault doesn't lie with the 2 major political parties, but in the brainwashed sheep of the people who think that their only choices are the 2 major political parties.
There is no reason why people can't vote for other party candidates, they just don't on the foolish belief that doing so is "wasting" a vote.

I agree with both of these guys. We can choose a third party if we want.

You could, but the majority won't. Money wins elections. Think not? Tell the Parties they can't raise more money than some fix amount, which would be in line with what say, two independent party candidates. They would both be yelling about free speech. While they might have a point, that is a red herring. What they would be in fact screaming about is a threat to their stranglehold on American politics. IMO Vic and Amused are correct in a theoretical sense, but how it really works is that anyone who gets serious support has the approval of the respective party's leadership. That is why Dean was such a suprise, because for one election, someone did an end run around the DNC. Once Dean had run his course, then the Party Approved candidates went for it. Who seriously opposed Bush on the Rep side? No one. He is their boy, and no upstart will be permitted to oppose him. Do you think that no one who is a Republican would want a shot?

In short, money wins. Are people sheep? You bet, and cash guarantees where the sheep will graze.

By the time we here get to select a candidate, we are given not our choices, but a limited selection.

It's known as a Hobson's choice.

That's realpolitik

That begs the question: Are they more popular because they have more money? Or do they have more money because they are more popular?

And, again, there is nearly always at least one independant or third party candidate in nearly every race.

 

[ruffilb]

P&N

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ruffilb
P&N

There are times when rational thought enters even OT. This remains here because it isn't a flamefest. If it were to become so I have no doubt this thread will be moved right away. In a minute I'll bump a thread more suited to OT as many seem to think it ought to be.

 

[Kadarin]

Do your own homework, you goddamned fscking lazyass!