The Paradox of Democracy.

[Jurhum]

Rule by the many. What about the few? What is the difference between Democracy and dictatorship? Are the people really electing their president? Electrol College? What is that?

Elitism? Any insight?

 

[Swollen_Member]

I see your point. It's like the people pretty much have 2 parties to vote for every election. And both parties are part of the same government. All democratic systems eventually turn into dictatorships.

 

[Zero Cool]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

 

[Jurhum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

"In most states and in D.C., the plurality winner of the popular vote for President within that state receives all of the state's electors, while all other candidates receive none."

it's not based on district plurality winners.

 

[Jurhum]

I see your point. It's like the people pretty much have 2 parties to vote for every election. And both parties are part of the same government. All democratic systems eventually turn into dictatorships.

Exactly. We are given two options. Those two options have been in power since hundereds of years. Basically, they have dictated everything that runs this government.

 

[Zero Cool]

I see your point. It's like the people pretty much have 2 parties to vote for every election. And both parties are part of the same government. All democratic systems eventually turn into dictatorships.

You're limiting the spectrum to the U.S. and (possibly) Great Britian. In most other democratic countries you have as many as five major parties vying for power at any one time.

 

[Khaled]

it's called "tyranny of the majority"
the concept of democracy clearly states that majority should take the decisions but should also peotect the right of the minority.

anyway, it is a known fact that democracy is as ikely to be corrupted as dictatorship

 

[PuffnScruff]

we really don't have 2 parties. i voted for the green party last year. most people are just ignorant to the fact that there are other parties to vote for other than the two that you see on t.v.

 

[Ghetto_Ghost]

this is how i see it:
democracy: keep their dirt on the low cuz people can do something about it
dictatorship: keep their dirt in the open cuz the people cant do anything about it

 

[MX Red]

Rule by the many. What about the few?

This is an oversimplification of the dynamics in a democracy to safe gaurd the minority. 'The few' you talk of arnt as polorized from the majority as you make out. People choose who to elect based on a wide range of policies and in many cases those who voted differently to each other agree on many issues - for instance, one person may agree with low tax and low public spending while another may believe in high taxation and high public spending (the economic difference between the left/right of politics), but both of these people then share similar views on social issues such as healthcare, education, immigration and so on... Thus people dont fit neatly in categories of majority and minority, political parties have to constantly change and adapt policy depending on the situation in the nation state - democracies are wholly reactionary to the population, not the majority.

Plus the idea behinde a liberal democracy is that people are equal in rights and duties - thus oppression of group or individual would be considered immoral on political grounds, quite apart from the intrinsic wrongs of oppression.

Elitism? Any insight?

Elitism...well of course, you wouldnt vote in a complete twat to office knowingly would you (Well, who knows what America was thinking )... Democracies have to work on a meritocracy basis otherwise people arnt equal in rights and duties and the whole thing wouldnt work (Since then the majority and the minority would be polorized - hence why its theoreticaly hard for such a polorization to occure in a democracy...since if all are equal in rights how can anyone be unequal?), but even in a meritocracy the inevitability of elitist rule is not only inevitable but desirable.

What is the difference between Democracy and dictatorship?

You honestly cant see? Democracy doesnt provide absoulout freedom, but dicatorship provides no freedom at all. Democracy presumes a natural right to choice and liberty, dictatorship doesnt.

This isnt a defence of Western governments, its just that i dont see that democracy as a concept is the problem, but rather capitalism. But still id rather liberal-capitalism to anything the world has offered up untill this point.

-MX

 

[Skillz]

Wsup man

Let's put it this way, there's no winnin when it comes to politics n government.

Peace
Skillz

 

[Baukem]

america is too big to be truly democratic. democracy works in small communities and primitive societies... in the end, the current democratic states are nothing more than weak illusions that instead of representing the people, represent money...

and in my country you have over 30 parties you can choose from... but it doesnt make my country any more democratic than lets say UK or USA... cuz money = power ... politicians dont listen to the ones that need to be listened to.

 

[Morris]

The total lack of understanding regarding the American system in this thread is disturbing, especially since the federal government has a 220 year history of meticulously protecting the rights of the minority through the checks and balances of federalism.

Rule by the many. What about the few?

Perhaps in a true democracy, the majority have absolute power. But no country on the planet practices a true democracy. Europe's biggest nations have parliamentary governments, the United States is a federalist Republic, etc.

It's like the people pretty much have 2 parties to vote for every election. And both parties are part of the same government.

This is an extreme simplification of party politics in the United States. The Republican and Democratic parties branch over so many different policies and aspects, from the environment to budget spending, that there are a number of labels like fiscal conservatives. In fact, labeling people liberals and conservatives is a better description of an individual's political leanings, since the two main parties are so broad.

All democratic systems eventually turn into dictatorships.

This is clearly not true.

We are given two options. Those two options have been in power since hundereds of years.

100 years ago, there was a Populist Party, a Progressive Party and Dixiecrats. 150 years ago, there was a Know-Nothing Party and a Whig Party. 175 years ago there was a Democratic Republican Party. 200 years ago there was a Federalist Party.

anyway, it is a known fact that democracy is as ikely to be corrupted as dictatorship

Democratic principles and its laws safeguard a democratic government from being as corrupted as a dictatorship.

Unlearn what you've unlearned