Originally posted by twhiteheadI totally agree with this. Usually, I don't respond to posts I agree with, but
It should be more like 'elect someone into office then tell him what to do every step of the way.'
I had to say I agree with this. The government should be servicing the
people and not the other way around.
With todays technology it should be possible to give the people a chance
to follow the political events both locally, nationally and on an
international level, and to have their say in everything they take interest
in. And what they say, rather than what the "leaders" wants, should be the
basic guideline for decisions.
To help people decide on issues which requires specilised knowledge of
some kind, there should always be expert opinions broadcast to the
public, so that those who are interested can make informed decisions.
I think. 😕
Originally posted by twhiteheadI could not agree MORE !!! We have the technology. Every elected official should have an electronic "box" that registers the outcome of his/her election. At any time, the voters have the right to "recall" their vote, if the official stops representing him in the way the voter wants. When the numbers fall to a point where the official would have lost his election, out he goes. Kinda like Grey Davis's recall, only in bulk. A republic will never be as good as a democracy, but this would be a big step in the right direction.
It should be more like 'elect someone into office then tell him what to do every step of the way.'
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou people need to go back to high school civics, the whole point of the system is to prevent the tyranny that majority rule can result in. Just because more than 50% of the people want something does not make it right. .....or does it?
I could not agree MORE !!! We have the technology. Every elected official should have an electronic "box" that registers the outcome of his/her election. At any time, the voters have the right to "recall" their vote, if the official stops representing him in the way the voter wants. When the numbers fall to a point where the official would have lost hi ...[text shortened]... will never be as good as a democracy, but this would be a big step in the right direction.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThere should always be certain ground laws upheld by a law inforcement
You people need to go back to high school civics, the whole point of the system is to prevent the tyranny that majority rule can result in. Just because more than 50% of the people want something does not make it right. .....or does it?
serving the people that will protect the basic rights of any minority, such as
the right to lead your life according to your own culture and religious belief,
as long as that in turn don't infringe on other people's rights to the same.
But, yes, majority rule is the way to go, as long as such a system is in place.
I think. 😕
Originally posted by Sam The ShamOpen your ears WIDE for this one, folks: AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! Do you believe me? Did your head just spin? It's the truth! AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! And it was never meant to be! I don't care how often George Bush talks about exporting democracy, or how the news media and public education has conditioned your skulls full of mush, AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! In fact, America's founders were VERY wise men and DESPISED democracy, likening it to mob rule. Our form of government is called a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC! So, the next time someone talks about America being a democracy, please, please, tell them they're wrong and that they don't know what they're talking about! We were purposefully designed to be a government of LAWS and not MEN.
You people need to go back to high school civics, the whole point of the system is to prevent the tyranny that majority rule can result in. Just because more than 50% of the people want something does not make it right. .....or does it?
Here's some worthwhile reading for you who are interested http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/05/americas-form-of-government.html
Originally posted by dizzyfingersWe have a limited form of Democracy.....a Representative Democracy.
Open your ears WIDE for this one, folks: AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! Do you believe me? Did your head just spin? It's the truth! AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! And it was never meant to be! I don't care how often George Bush talks about exporting democracy, or how the news media and public education has conditioned your skulls full of mush, AMERICA IS NOT ...[text shortened]... nterested http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/05/americas-form-of-government.html
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869Quoted from Wikipedia under 'Constitutional Republic' (not my favorite resource, but it will suffice for this):
We have a limited form of Democracy.....a Representative Democracy.
GRANNY.
"A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but not all democracies are constitutional republics. For example, though the head of state is not elected in a monarchy, it may still be a liberal democracy if there is a parliament with elected representatives that govern according to constitutional law protecting individual rights (called a constitutional democratic monarchy). Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Granny, you are right, but, .... I'm more right 😀 Just because I'm full of one-liners 🙂 don't go thinking all I can do is tell dumb jokes. I've got a brilliant wife and 4 brainy kids who keep me on my toes with all they're learning.
Americans have such a poor understanding of their own government, especially it's formation and history. Something exceptional happened at our founding. Something exceptional and under-appreciated, too.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersThanks for the info.
Quoted from Wikipedia under 'Constitutional Republic' (not my favorite resource, but it will suffice for this):
"A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but not all democracies are constitutional republics. For example, though the head of state is not elected in a monarchy, it may still be a liberal democracy if there is a parliament with e ...[text shortened]... ceptional happened at our founding. Something exceptional and under-appreciated, too.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869It would be about time something good happened there -- place has been depressed since I don't know when.
I'm going to give you some straight skivvy on an investment in the US. Buy land in the Soutrhern Tier of NY State. Research "Marcellus Shale". It's the largest formation of Natural Gas ever discovered in the US including that discovered in Texas. It's been inaccessible until recently. They have just perfected horizontal drilling in order to get at it. I just ...[text shortened]... investment 25 yrs ago has made me good money. Let's keep this on the down low.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think it is too much to expect that a democracy will "get it right" every time. What you have to look at is a long term average, not any particular administration or any particular time period or single event.
Has anyone considered that the US should change the way they run things? This stuff about "I vote for a person that will vote for a person to be the president"
Or the fact that states have the right to have their own laws which often are stupid and often violate the interests of the country as a whole? (See the Oklahoma bill thread)
Or the fact that i ...[text shortened]... opose things to be changed and propose how, or offer arguments why amerika shouldn't change.
The principle advantage of democracy is de-centralized power. That means that mistakes are correctable in real time, and "individual" excesses are avoided. It is also very important not to change the rules too much (i.e. have a written Constitution). When the rules/laws change all the time, people get confused and can't plan ahead.
I think Plato pointed out the advantages of an enlightened despot as a leader -- and it's true -- while the leader lives. The problem is that democratic institutions atrophy and people get out of the habit of ruling themselves. Democracy takes practice. Then when the despot dies, by default a new despot has to take over who is almost never as good -- and things eventually go to hell in a handbasket.
On average right now, the US is fine. For indicators of prosperity, I look for 2 things: Are people traveling? And is there a war being fought on your territory? For the US, the answers are still: yes and no (yes, a little blip downwards due to the price of gas -- but overall still healthy).
People throughout the world people have enormous freedom these days (which many don't appreciate because they have never been without it). They go where they want, say what they want, buy what they want. It's paradise on Earth, except for a few pockets under the control of the last few dictators (Zim, N. Korea, Myanmar, etc.)
Say what you like, but the US form of democracy has produced a great standard of living for its people WITHOUT resorting to a colonial system that exploits people in the Third World in the way that previous trading empires have. As a former colony ourselves, we shook off that mantle and built ourselves up on the principles of free trade. We still do, to a large degree, despite internal complaints about NAFTA and so on.
Now, a country can say, "Oh yes, but we can do even BETTER than the US. We can have all that AND Universal Health Care." Well, careful. When you provide a free service to all that the government has to pay for your costs will likely go through the roof. I know it seems like a good idea on paper. But it's a lot like communism -- seems like a great idea, but doesn't work in practice.
Socialism is just nowhere near as efficient as a free market in which everybody controls his own money and makes his own choices. That simple mechanism is enough to guarantee prosperity and keep costs down.
And it is only "unfair" if you convince people that the have a "right" to "health". Why would you have a right to health? Health is not like voting or free speech -- it is not a right you can bestow on anybody. Trying to do so is folly -- and trying to twist a system so that it will do "something close" will be wildly expensive -- and create huge amounts of waste and bureaucracy -- it has to. There is no other choice.
There are always things to tinker with in a government -- always things to change. But we have to face up to the fact that sometimes the changes will make things worse due to unforseen consequences. And that's where a system that can rapidly figure out the error and reverse course has an advantage.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot sure what this post is, but it appears to be some form of 'baiting'
Has anyone considered that the US should change the way they run things? This stuff about "I vote for a person that will vote for a person to be the president"
Or the fact that states have the right to have their own laws which often are stupid and often violate the interests of the country as a whole? (See the Oklahoma bill thread)
Or the fact that i opose things to be changed and propose how, or offer arguments why amerika shouldn't change.
I think you in your infinite wisdom need to go do some research on history of the United States. States rights are (at least to my way of thinking) one of the most important principles of American history. After all, we Americans fought a Civil war over it (no it was about freeing the slaves).
There was an early American patriot (whose name evades me at this point, getting older is Hell on the memory)at the time of American struggle to free itself from British rule who asked a simple question about a federal government with too much power.
He asked, whats the difference between 1 tyrant (referring to King George) 3000 miles away, and 100 tyrants (referring to an unchecked federal government) 10 miles away?
The question is still valid today, except we have 535 petty tyrants in Washington, DC now Actually, thats a bit unfair, there are a handful of Congressmen and senators who are trying to do whats best for the country, rather than whats best for their district or state.
By the way, using amerika shows your political bias, try the United Staes of America or just America in the future
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIsn't the opposite of majority rule, minority rule?
You people need to go back to high school civics, the whole point of the system is to prevent the tyranny that majority rule can result in. Just because more than 50% of the people want something does not make it right. .....or does it?
Is that better or worse?
Originally posted by SMSBear716read norman spinrad and you will see why i spell amerika for now at least.
Not sure what this post is, but it appears to be some form of 'baiting'
I think you in your infinite wisdom need to go do some research on history of the United States. States rights are (at least to my way of thinking) one of the most important principles of American history. After all, we Americans fought a Civil war over it (no it was about freeing ...[text shortened]... erika shows your political bias, try the United Staes of America or just America in the future
and i really really wasn't trying to bait anyone, just provoke a civilized debate where everyone is right.
i believe that that patriot was right. they were trying to get rid of one tyrant and didn't need to trade tyrants. not to mention the americans were in fact english, french, spanish, dutch, germans, italians etc. hard to have a central government when you didn't have a nation. However now we can speak of the american people, maybe a federal government to better enforce the will of the nation is better.
Then you had people who didn't know how to read, who couldn't possibly be expected to elect the right man because the candidates were hundred of miles away. so delegates were necessary. Candidates didn't have to travel the country to express their platform and their policy, they only had to convince the delegates. Now in the age of TV how useful is it to elect a person to elect the president? What happens if two states have an equal amount of delegates and in one state a candidate wins 99% to 1% and in the other state the other candidate wins 51% to 49%? they both get the same amount of delegates, right?
what happens when a state passes a law like the Oklahoma bill where students were allowed to give the wrong answer if their religion thought it was right? shouldn't the federal government be allowed to intervene to stop oklahoma kids to come out stupid from their state's schools?