Politics 101 - Week 1. Republic vs Democracy: The founders vision and today

[xBiffx]

If you read the OP, then you have some serious reading comprehension problems. Though the article describes a democracy, Aristotle's and other's thoughts on why democracies are bad, and some of the things that went wrong with Athens; it doesn't suppose for a moment that the US is anywhere near a democracy. Why don't you re-read the last 3 paragraphs. edit: fixed.

For the seconds time, I did. It's raising a question, or rather questions. Rather stupid ones considering the obviousness of the answers. The last one is the only one that could possibly be argued here.

This part is key:

Republic vs Democracy
What did the founders envision?
Where does the US government currently stand?

 

[Knowing]

Actually they are obligated, just as we are obligated to tell them our thoughts on a particular piece of legislation; else we can vote them out next election. The citizenry has just as much a role in how our government operates as those we elect.

The fact that corporate lobbyists, greed and the desire for power have more influence over our elected representatives shows only how the system has become perverted.

It is incumbent on us all to participate in this representative democracy to the best of our ability.

Obligated by what? No law prevents them from acting against our best interests and wishes. "We can vote them out" we don't, so if this is a democracy it's a dysfunctional one. Our form of government isn't democracy, the word doesn't even appear in the constitution.

Curse wikipedia? LOL. That is the very definition and etymology of the word. It is how it is used also in common parlance. If you are voting for someone you are going through a democratic process.

No, it isn't. Wikipedia uses the same definition you do. If there's a vote its a democracy. Then goes on to characterize the US as a liberal democracy with no evidence. The etymology is demos kratos "rule by the people" and it's exactly that, majority rules. There is no individual sovereignty in a democracy. I keep telling you this and you keep ignoring it. Note that this is exactly the sort of bickering that was predicted in Federalist 9 & 10 where they discuss forms and organizations of government as well as... sovereignty.

A true democracy government would be one where practically everything was put to a vote by all members of the society for any government structure. That is for the most part impractical and always has been. That why any "true" democracy government has only been done on small scale. But a government can still be a democratic based government as long as the democratic process is part of the layering range of the government structure. Don't care if you don't believe that, but it is true.

Democratic doesn't mean democracy, it means democratic. I've been pretty clear since the beginning. Holding a vote doesn't make something a democracy.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/1c.asp

From your link:

"the Founders actually feared democratic rule"

Which is why they used the democratic practice of elections in their republic, and in the case of the presidency separated that popular election from the practical election of the office holder with the electoral college.

Further, I see your council of concerned citizens 501(c)(3) .org and raise you a .gov:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html
and another:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Really you need to go back to class on this.

Until you can reconcile 17th century western political ideas with your theory of any vote makes a democracy nonsense, I think it's probably best that you stop trying to characterize me as the ignorant here.

 

[HumblePie]

Some of the founding fathers feared democratic rule, like some feared monarch rule, some even feared rule by oligarchy, some even feared having a president. Just because there were fears present by some of those that were creating our initial government, doesn't change what they setup in the end. Nice logic fallacy argument though.

Democracy is voting, rule by the people can only be done with voting. How voting occurs doesn't matter. You are being completely asinine and idiotic if you do not understand how rule of the people would work. If you give more than one person equal say in making decisions, the only way to come to a consensus for a decision is through a vote of those people with equal say. There IS NO OTHER WAY. So yes, democracy IS voting. You can't separate the two.

 

[fskimospy]

Obligated by what? No law prevents them from acting against our best interests and wishes. "We can vote them out" we don't, so if this is a democracy it's a dysfunctional one. Our form of government isn't democracy, the word doesn't even appear in the constitution.

What is this nonsense based on? In order to make this statement even remotely correct you would have to:

1. Show we don't vote people out. (this is demonstrably false already)
2. Show that we don't vote people out that their constituents want voted out.

Let me know how you do with that.

 

[OutHouse]

Why don't we just care about our own views and visions? We're the ones that have to live here, after all.

I would like to have a representative democracy, but one that's fairly different than the one the founders put in the Constitution.

First thing I would want to do is throw out their electoral system, as it's shit. I'd like to switch to a unicameral body that's elected proportionally. Even if we kept the House/Senate I would at a minimum want to switch to proportional representation for the House.

do you even know why the electoral system exist?

 

[OutHouse]

Quick question: why do we care what the founders envisioned? They've been dead for several centuries.

because they did it right.

 

[fskimospy]

do you even know why the electoral system exist?

Yes. I'd like to hear why you think it exists though.

 

[Knowing]

Some of the founding fathers feared democratic rule, like some feared monarch rule, some even feared rule by oligarchy, some even feared having a president. Just because there were fears present by some of those that were creating our initial government, doesn't change what they setup in the end. Nice logic fallacy argument though.

They created a federal republic. You've produced no evidence to the contrary and no evidence that I have committed any fallacy.

Democracy is voting, rule by the people can only be done with voting. How voting occurs doesn't matter. You are being completely asinine and idiotic if you do not understand how rule of the people would work. If you give more than one person equal say in making decisions, the only way to come to a consensus for a decision is through a vote of those people with equal say. There IS NO OTHER WAY. So yes, democracy IS voting. You can't separate the two.

You're resorting to namecalling, if you find yourself unable to cease then I'll accept your inability to remain rational as a tacit and unconditional surrender. A vote doesn't make anything democratic, the result of that vote makes something democratic because of sovereignty which you have yet to reconcile with your belief system... mostly, I suspect, because you cannot.

Finally,

Supernice dodge on those .gov links. DPRK must be a democracy, they have a vote and Democratic is literally in the name.

What is this nonsense based on? In order to make this statement even remotely correct you would have to:

1. Show we don't vote people out. (this is demonstrably false already)
2. Show that we don't vote people out that their constituents want voted out.

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

Senate races still overwhelmingly favor the incumbent, but not by as reliable a margin as House races. Big swings in the national mood can sometimes topple long time office-holders, as happened with the Reagan revolution in 1980. Even so, years like that are an exception.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-phillips/congress-election-results_b_2114947.html

Consider the following: According to The New American Democracy, "barely a third of the citizenry can recall the name of their [U.S. House of Representatives] representative, and even fewer can remember anything he or she has done for the district. Only about one in ten people can remember how their representative voted on a particular bill." According to the American Thinker, only 27 percent of citizens can name both of their U.S. senators.
...
Yet, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, only 15.9 percent of all eligible citizens participated in the 2012 statewide primary elections, in which candidates for Congress are nominated.

Let me know how you do with that.

(0.45 seconds)

 

[fskimospy]

It's unclear why you're supplying information that disproves your own position, but whatever works for you!

(maybe next time spending more than 0.45 seconds would help you not defeat your own argument. I am only trying to help)

 

[BoberFett]

This really shouldn't be this hard for you to understand.

Death does not invalidate an idea. Some dead people supported a minimalist federal government, some people alive today agree with them. Some dead people supported social security, some people alive today agree with them.

I understand that you get off on telling people they're wrong and you're right, but stop trying to conceal your bias in pseudo-intellectual arguments.

 

[fskimospy]

This really shouldn't be this hard for you to understand.

Death does not invalidate an idea. Some dead people supported a minimalist federal government, some people alive today agree with them. Some dead people supported social security, some people alive today agree with them.

This is not at all hard for me to understand, but I'm not sure why you keep trying to fight against points that don't even remotely resemble a single thing I've written.

I have never argued that death invalidates an idea, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. I do not believe an idea has merit simply because the founding fathers thought it, therefore I don't really care what their views on our current government would be. I care about what people living today think.

I understand that you get off on telling people they're wrong and you're right, but stop trying to conceal your bias in pseudo-intellectual arguments.

Hey man, all I want you to do is argue against my actual statements. That's not too much to ask.

 

[BoberFett]

This is not at all hard for me to understand, but I'm not sure why you keep trying to fight against points that don't even remotely resemble a single thing I've written.

I have never argued that death invalidates an idea, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. I do not believe an idea has merit simply because the founding fathers thought it, therefore I don't really care what their views on our current government would be. I care about what people living today think.

Hey man, all I want you to do is argue against my actual statements. That's not too much to ask.

Quick question: why do we care what the founders envisioned? They've been dead for several centuries.

You're the one who started this ridiculous train of thought. Is it too much to ask that you put aside the intellectual dishonesty for a moment?

You asked why we should care about what dead people thought. The answer is that they wrote the highest law of the land. You and others certainly seem to hold sacrosanct the founders visions of separation of church and state or right to privacy. Isn't it possible that others agree with some of their other ideas, even if those ideas are contrary to yours? Yet you dismiss them as "the ideas of dead guys." I've got news for you, so are your pet issues.

 

[HumblePie]

They created a federal republic. You've produced no evidence to the contrary and no evidence that I have committed any fallacy.



You're resorting to namecalling, if you find yourself unable to cease then I'll accept your inability to remain rational as a tacit and unconditional surrender. A vote doesn't make anything democratic, the result of that vote makes something democratic because of sovereignty which you have yet to reconcile with your belief system... mostly, I suspect, because you cannot.

Finally,

Supernice dodge on those .gov links. DPRK must be a democracy, they have a vote and Democratic is literally in the name.



https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-phillips/congress-election-results_b_2114947.html



(0.45 seconds)

I am calling your actions asinine and idiotic because you fail to read or understand or comprehend anything put in front of you. You fail to understand the definition of the word democracy or republic as presented by multiple sources. You fail to comprehend the application of those words. You are acting like a child that can't have an adult conversation. So the labels fit towards your attitude and infinitesimal ability to to fathom anything related to this subject matter.

It doesn't get simpler.

Democracy = rule of the people = people have an equal say in a government structure or process = equal say implicitly means voting for an outcome

The founding fathers didn't want a pure democracy, which as been stated is rule and tyranny of the majority. But they didn't want a monarchy, or oligarchy either. So the government was set in layers to be democratic in nature to a point by being a representative democracy. People vote in elected officials that are charged with governance. That there is a voting process by the people proves that part of the government system we have in place is partly democratic.

 

[fskimospy]

You're the one who started this ridiculous train of thought. Is it too much to ask that you put aside the intellectual dishonesty for a moment?

I'm not sure if you know what intellectual dishonesty is. If anyone's been engaging in it here it's you as you've consistently attempted to misrepresent what I wrote. So yes, let's put the dishonesty aside. Please.

You asked why we should care about what dead people thought. The answer is that they wrote the highest law of the land. You and others certainly seem to hold sacrosanct the founders visions of separation of church and state or right to privacy. Isn't it possible that others agree with some of their other ideas, even if those ideas are contrary to yours? Yet you dismiss them as "the ideas of dead guys." I've got news for you, so are your pet issues.

I most certainly don't hold the founders' vision of separation of church and state sacrosanct, and the right to privacy wasn't recognized until the 1970's. I view both of them as valid on their own merits, not based on what someone else thought.

So nope, my "pet issues" have nothing to do with who thought of them. So for about the 10th time, I care about those issues based on what people alive today think. So should you. Attempting to hold a seance to figure out what a bunch of dead people think about what we should do with our society is the height of silliness.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes. I'd like to hear why you think it exists though.

I am with you on this. The electoral college is obsolete, puts Presidents in the White House that didn't even win the popular vote and basically makes every election boil down to a few swing states.

 

[fskimospy]

I am with you on this. The electoral college is obsolete, puts Presidents in the White House that didn't even win the popular vote and basically makes every election boil down to a few swing states.

For once we agree! I've never understood why who leads America should depend so heavily on what people in Ohio, Florida, and a few other states think. The interstate popular vote compact is slowly but steadily gaining ground, I hope someday before too long it passes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I'm not sure if you know what intellectual dishonesty is. If anyone's been engaging in it here it's you as you've consistently attempted to misrepresent what I wrote. So yes, let's put the dishonesty aside. Please.



I most certainly don't hold the founders' vision of separation of church and state sacrosanct, and the right to privacy wasn't recognized until the 1970's. I view both of them as valid on their own merits, not based on what someone else thought.

So nope, my "pet issues" have nothing to do with who thought of them. So for about the 10th time, I care about those issues based on what people alive today think. So should you. Attempting to hold a seance to figure out what a bunch of dead people think about what we should do with our society is the height of silliness.

I couldn't agree more with what you have been saying.

Nothing is more stupid that using a founding fathers literal words as the basis for a modern day political argument. This is not the same as saying they didn't have any interesting ideas, just like Balzac or Victor Hugo had lots of interesting things to say.

Its no different than someone's moral foundation for not killing people being "because the Bible says so".

 

[dphantom]

I couldn't agree more with what you have been saying.

Nothing is more stupid that using a founding fathers literal words as the basis for a modern day political argument. This is not the same as saying they didn't have any interesting ideas, just like Balzac or Victor Hugo had lots of interesting things to say.

Its no different than someone's moral foundation for not killing people being "because the Bible says so".

Nothing is more stupid than ignoring ideas that transcend time and think that the foundation our country was built upon is in any way obsolete today.

 

[soulcougher73]

Nothing is more stupid than ignoring ideas that transcend time and think that the foundation our country was built upon is in any way obsolete today.

The problem with your line of thinking is you are putting yourself in a bubble and admitting defeat. That you cannot somehow fathom improving upon something the founders thought of. We've learned a lot through the years and have improved on them already from what they first put on paper.

Im assuming you are a religous conservative which would fit your line of thinking that the rules are set down by someone else of "supposed higher power" and that is it. Cant question it or every come up with better ideas.

 

[dphantom]

The problem with your line of thinking is you are putting yourself in a bubble and admitting defeat. That you cannot somehow fathom improving upon something the founders thought of. We've learned a lot through the years and have improved on them already from what they first put on paper.

Im assuming you are a religous conservative which would fit your line of thinking that the rules are set down by someone else of "supposed higher power" and that is it. Cant question it or every come up with better ideas.

Where did I ever say we cannot improve? The Constitution has a built in mechanism to be amended because our Founder's recognized they may not have thought of everything.

What you seem to not understand is the concepts behind our founding documents are still today the best basis for our form of government. Concepts, ideas that have stood the test of time and are as pertinent today as they were 2, 3 even 800 years ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What is this nonsense based on? In order to make this statement even remotely correct you would have to:

1. Show we don't vote people out. (this is demonstrably false already)
2. Show that we don't vote people out that their constituents want voted out.

Let me know how you do with that.

I'll restate his point somewhat. There are effectively two choices which have any realistic chance at the national and state level and most often locally, and they are Republican and Democrat. They have an effective lock on office and there is no realistic expectation that this can be changed. Even if one or two were to defeat the system they are irrelevant as they cannot have real influence.

You cannot vote out the powers which control the office. You can pick one side or the other of the coin but the coin itself cannot be changed as things stand. In a marketplace of ideas we have very limited choices.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not sure if you know what intellectual dishonesty is. If anyone's been engaging in it here it's you as you've consistently attempted to misrepresent what I wrote. So yes, let's put the dishonesty aside. Please.

I most certainly don't hold the founders' vision of separation of church and state sacrosanct, and the right to privacy wasn't recognized until the 1970's. I view both of them as valid on their own merits, not based on what someone else thought.

So nope, my "pet issues" have nothing to do with who thought of them. So for about the 10th time, I care about those issues based on what people alive today think. So should you. Attempting to hold a seance to figure out what a bunch of dead people think about what we should do with our society is the height of silliness.

I've got news for you pal, none of your thoughts are original. Very few thoughts are. You may think you're logically evaluating everything based on their individual merits, but you're regurgitating what you've been fed, just as all humans do.

Whether they're the thoughts of dead people or live people makes little difference, you aren't the unique snowflake you believe you are. And you really do seem to think you are special, your smugness is palpable in every post.

 

[werepossum]

Where did I ever say we cannot improve? The Constitution has a built in mechanism to be amended because our Founder's recognized they may not have thought of everything.

What you seem to not understand is the concepts behind our founding documents are still today the best basis for our form of government. Concepts, ideas that have stood the test of time and are as pertinent today as they were 2, 3 even 800 years ago.

Well said, sir. Changing the Constitution should be a weighty process as designed, not merely deciding something is outdated (read: inconvenient at the moment.)

I've got news for you pal, none of your thoughts are original. Very few thoughts are. You may think you're logically evaluating everything based on their individual merits, but you're regurgitating what you've been fed, just as all humans do.

Whether they're the thoughts of dead people or live people makes little difference, you aren't the unique snowflake you believe you are. And you really do seem to think you are special, your smugness is palpable in every post.

Ouch. I'll tip off the burn unit to expect a customer shortly.

 

[fskimospy]

I've got news for you pal, none of your thoughts are original. Very few thoughts are. You may think you're logically evaluating everything based on their individual merits, but you're regurgitating what you've been fed, just as all humans do.



Whether they're the thoughts of dead people or live people makes little difference, you aren't the unique snowflake you believe you are. And you really do seem to think you are special, your smugness is palpable in every post.

Lol. You try to misrepresent my argument repeatedly and then when you can't do that any more you try to insult me.

Boring. Just try to do better next time, ok?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Nothing is more stupid than ignoring ideas that transcend time and think that the foundation our country was built upon is in any way obsolete today.

I don't know if that was your intent, but you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

Modern thinking and (western) society are built upon the back of thousands of years of ideas.

You won't solve a modern political problem by literally interpreting Plato.