Is It Possible To Be a Dictator in a Democratic Government?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Whitecloak

Diamond Member
May 4, 2001
6,074
2
0
so? post your opinion on the matter at hand. insulting him will not achieve anything.
 

jiggajay

Junior Member
May 10, 2003
8
0
0
i'm not your personal google. look it up yourself. you obviously have a computer with an internet connection. i'm sure you've heard of google. or maybe i presume too much. go to www.google.com and type in what you're looking for, and click at anything you think seems relevant.
 

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
LoL wow I thought all the "intelligent" debate about the election was over. I think we have a winner!
 

Walleye

Banned
Dec 1, 2002
7,939
0
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: jiggajay
The jist of my essay was this...

"George Bush Wasn't Even
Elected By The Democratic
Process, Neither Will Iraq's Future Leader Be"

If he wasn't elected by the democratic process, then that's basically allowing for the option that a dictator could be put in place...

something like that

WTF are you talking about you liberal bastard? How as he not ELECTED by the democratic process?



HOLY FVCKING SH!T!!! I Aggree with millennium! how in god's name did that happen!?!?!?!
 

Walleye

Banned
Dec 1, 2002
7,939
0
0
Originally posted by: StormRider
Originally posted by: jiggajay
and Dudd, I'm quite clear on the process of our electoral college. democracy is where people have the choice is it not?
then how is it that bush assumed office despite having lost the election by more than a half a million votes. by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. tell me how that's my choice being portrayed and carried out? and even more, tell me how the hell its your choice being voiced?

I'm a registered Democrat and I voted for Gore. I consider George Bush to be my legitimate president. I wish people would just move on -- Gore did and he did it with class.

well, i think class is too strong a word. no, the whole contesting wasnt classy.. lol. both sides made so many politics concessions it was pathetic.
 

Walleye

Banned
Dec 1, 2002
7,939
0
0
Originally posted by: jiggajay
i hardly feel as though bush was elected through an electoral process, seeing as how he was appointed by the supreme court. At least four of the US Supreme Court justices who gave Bush the presidency were either appointed by his father, had sons working for law firms representing GW in the contested election lawsuits or had publicly stated that they had a strong personal commitment to making sure Gore never became President. Justice Scalia said he'd resign if Gore became President. Justice O'Conner said she could not retire if Gore became President because a liberal Justice would replace her. Both Justices Rhenquist and Scalia have sons working for Bush lawfirms involved in the election. Justice Thomas' wife works for both the far right Heritage Foundation and the Bush transition team. These Justice's flawed and highly partisan ruling trashed the entire idea of States rights-the very same conservative ideology they have so vigorously defended-not to mention the rule of law, equal protection and the idea of judicial impartiality and restraint.

How is that, when the Court itself is so biased, you can rule out the possibility that a dictator can not be put in place. I'm not saying Bush is a dictator. I'm saying it was possible he could have been and my whole point is if we don't go through the people then a dictator cannot be so easily ruled out.

hey, the justices voted the way they did to advance the conservative cause, the conservative court. both sides used arguments that typically werent even their typical arguments (gore was arguing states rights, OMG!) (Bush was arguing National Supremacy, OMG) the court is tilted towards the conservative end of the spectrum. make no mistake, the Supreme Court is very political. dont ever beleive they are above politics.

they did what they did to get a conservative in power. understand that.


now, if you want to join this vast right wing conspiracy, see sig. :D
 

WarCon

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2001
3,920
0
0
jiggajay - I just wondered if you was suggesting that the popular vote is what we decide our leaders with. I assume you believe individual states (or groups of them) should be able to decide for the other states of this Republic, simply because they have the numbers. Because that is exactly what a popular vote would do. Leaving corrupt politicians only having to sway the masses of a few states, making it easier for those few states to decide what is best for all the others. If anything that would allow those that are easily swayed by emotion to easily defeat correct thinking individuals. Take the situation where a charismatic leader like Hitler were to rise in our political arena saying the right things and tickling the ears of masses (especially if the division of wealth becomes more severe than it already is). The electoral college is the last check upon the very scenario you have posed about a dictator rising. Our founding fathers thought this through before jotting down a few documents.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Separate your thought processes for a moment from the US method for doing things. Hypothetically speaking, a dictator COULD get elected in a democracy, because democracy is the process by which people choose their leadership. It has nothing to do with the separation of the branches of government, and nothing to do with checks and balances.
 

Cyberian

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2000
9,999
1
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Separate your thought processes for a moment from the US method for doing things. Hypothetically speaking, a dictator COULD get elected in a democracy, because democracy is the process by which people choose their leadership. It has nothing to do with the separation of the branches of government, and nothing to do with checks and balances.
Run that by me again?

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Originally posted by: Cyberian
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Separate your thought processes for a moment from the US method for doing things. Hypothetically speaking, a dictator COULD get elected in a democracy, because democracy is the process by which people choose their leadership. It has nothing to do with the separation of the branches of government, and nothing to do with checks and balances.
Run that by me again?

Democracy is the concept wherein the citizenry of a state elect their leadership. It doesn't have anything to do with exactly what powers that particular leadership happens to possess.

Separation of powers is the concept whereby the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government are separate, that no one person can be members of more than one branch. This is to prevent concentration of too much power in a single individual.

Checks and balances is the concept whereby each branch of government has a certain amount of authority in certain areas over the other branches. For example, in the US, the Judicial branch has the ability to declare laws unconstitutional and have them forcibly stricken from the books. The Exectutive branch (in the person of the President) appoints Supreme Court justices as neccessary, but the Legislative branch must approve the appointment. The Legislative branch passes laws, but it's up to the Executive branch (again, the President) to either sign or veto the proposed law. And so on, you get the idea.

These concepts are all independent of each other. Now, a Democracy without checks and balances isn't likely to be all that stable, but we're talking hypothetical here.
 

Tal

Golden Member
Jun 29, 2001
1,832
0
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: whitecloak
look at bush jr

What about him? Pissed he didn't promise you a reach around?

ROTFLMAO Milennium you rule!


Lock this piece of crap hippy bull-$hit thread up or move it to Politics/News... please.

PS: jiggajay, why the hell did it seem like a good idea to join simply to post this worthless crap?
 

Alphazero

Golden Member
May 9, 2002
1,057
0
0
Adolf Hitler used democracy to become a dictator. He was elected and appointed in compliance with the very liberal constitution of the Weimar Republic.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Originally posted by: Alphazero
Adolf Hitler used democracy to become a dictator. He was elected and appointed in compliance with the very liberal constitution of the Weimar Republic.

Perfect example of a lack of checks and balances...
 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
The "American process" isn't supposed to be "democratic." We're a republic. If we were a true democracy (*shudders*), then the state I live in would cease to have any meaning, as CA and NY would rule the whole US.

edited: typo

I don't know who you're talking but thats nice. I never once said the American process is supposed to be pure democratic, or that we werent a republic. So I don't really know why you decided to make this comment.

jiggajay, now what you and Moonbeam fail to understand is that the Supreme Court has ALWAYS been influenced by politics since its existence, and will ALWAYS be biased. It is in fact, the LEAST democratic branch oddly enough, but essentially all final decisions come to them. This IS the American process. This is how it always has been. Now you can make the case that this is not how it should be, but thats a whole different argument.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
"George Bush Wasn't Even
Elected By The Democratic
Process"

You my friend have a problem with the truth......
HERE is the actual truth of the 2000 Presidential election.
here is the documented truth...sorry if you don't like it..
if you don't have the attention span to read the post and the referenced sites..just go
HERE
and watch the video.

The legal opinion of the Supreme Court..voted for by 7 of 9 Justices (?jerri ryan reference.ha ha)
"The Florida court's decision Friday, which said votes in some counties must be examined to glean "voter intent," is wrong, the justices wrote, noting that some paper ballots have indentations and some others have chads -- protruding pieces of paper from an incomplete punch.
The variations in the ballots and the lack of a uniform, statewide standard spelling out how the ballots should be counted, and by whom, means recounts are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee, the ruling said. "

you gotta remember that the democrats were tring to FABRICATE the truth, not determine it. they did not ask for a state wide recount (only in districts they were heavily favored in), they did not propose standard methods for carrying out the recount. the individual counties had manual recount techniques (hanging chads, dimpled chads, undercounts, overcounts..) that not only varied from county to county, but EVEN VARIED AT A SINGLE BALLOT COUNTING LOCATION over time!

read the Supreme Court decision for yourself


what was counted? who won those counts?

On Nov 8, 2000 the florida division of elections reported GWB recieved
2,909,135 votes, while Algore received 2,907,351 votes.

An automatic machine recount was performed as mandated by the election code, Bush leads by less votes, but still remains the winner of the Florida election.

After absentee ballots counted on Nov 18 - Bush lead increases again.

Algore then requested recounts of Volusa, Palm Beach , Broward and Miami-Dade counties ONLY. (NOT THE ENTIRE STATE).

Democrats try to get 25,000 votes thrown out from two heavily Republican distrcts in Florida (Dec 6, Seminole and Martin counties)

Both efforts ultimately rejected by the courts.

Final elections results certified..GW Bush wins again.

News organizations set up a ballot recounting effort here, findings show that George Bush would probably still have won the disputed presidential election vote in Florida if the US supreme court had allowed a recount.
The study, commissioned by eight news organisations, showed that under the existing electoral laws in Florida, Mr Bush would have won by several hundred votes.

To wit newspapers ran articles such as the following:

Miami-Herald
"In fact, a comprehensive review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties by The Herald and its parent company, Knight Ridder, in partnership with USA Today, found that Bush's slender margin of 537 votes would have tripled to 1,665 votes under the generous counting standards advocated by Democrat Al Gore... Contrary to popular belief, mismarks for Gore were less likely than mismarks for Bush in punch-card counties. Marks of some type were found in the Bush position on one ballot for every 172 valid Bush punch-card votes; marks in the Gore position were found on one ballot for every 181 valid Gore punch-card votes."

for those to lazy to read the article..watch the MSNBC video/audio
HERE


The Democrats did not try to "learn the truth" or determine "the will of the people" in their attempts to change the results of the florida election outcomes, rather,
they approached the election in a manner best described in a classic film:

"Let me tell you about Florida politicians. I make them out of whole cloth, just like a tailor makes a suit. I get their name in the newspaper. I get them some publicity and get them on the ballot. Then after the election, we count the votes. And if they don't turn out right, we recount them. and recount them again. Until they do."

Edward G. Robinson's Johnny Rocco
to Humphrey Bogart's character in
the 1948 classic thriller "Key Largo".

lets get over this fiction that Bush "stole" the election, or was "appointed" by his daddies' Supreme Court...
the reason Bush won in Florida is because more people voted for Bush than Gore. End of story.

I believe you should get a F on your paper for having your facts wrong....
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Hitler was elected and had the unanimous almost rabid support of his people.