Is the usa really a democrasy

[pyro_junky]

well i was talking to my step dad and he is pretty smart so i listen to most the points he brings up.

first if this was a true democrasy there would be more then 2 parties. but another party cant come or they will be crushed by the media.

secound: i pledg aligance to the flag of the united stats of america --and to this -->>republic<<-- for witch it stands--

so what does everyone else think about this?

 

[cxoli]

Well democracy is supposed to be government by the people ("a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them"), which I guess is sort of true of the US. We do elect our own citizens to important positions, but often the results of elections don't reflect the opinions of the people (i.e. popular vote versus the votes given in the electoral college). Still, we elect representatives of the "common people" to lead us, so I guess that makes us a democracy....

I'm not sure what the number of parties has to do with the US being a democracy, although I do think power should be split up more evenly between the parties. We need more major parties than just democrats and republicans.

Also, "democracy" and "republic" are synonymous.

 

[Iliaran]

There are no "real" democracies in existence. There can't be.

Before I delve into the topic: pyro_junky, no offense or anything, but it's kind of hard to take you seriously when you can hardly spell.

A democracy is a situation in which the ultimate power lies with the people of the country in question (the US in this sitaution). As in EVERY single person would have a say in EVER single decision made.

Since letting everyone vote on everything is impractical, representatives are elected...mayors...governers...and at the top of the food chain, presidents. The problem is, they're elected based on their CURRENT stance on CURRENT issues. For example, whilst the presidential elections in the US this year sort of revolve around the topics of war, terrorism, economic policy, and the like, neither Bush nor Kerry have said anything about their stance on say...an alien invasion...

now, what happens if aliens DO invade the earth in say...a year from now...will the president's decisions in such a situation coincide with that of the majority of the population?

...and what if the US's president-to-be changes his mind on an issue in say...2 years from now?

and the problem doesn't stop there. Oh no, just think of how long the chain of command is. In the end, its hard to say just how much say any one person has in the decisions the US government makes on a regular basis.

On a different note, a large number of US citizens choose to not take part in elections. Are THEIR opinions reflected by the decisions the US government makes?

The only way the US could ever be a true democracy was if everyone could vote on every single decision made (which is unrealistic of course).

democracy in politics is much like perfect competition in economics. It only exists in theory.

 

[Lights]

Simply put, we are a representative democracy.
Direct democracies are impractical. To have elected officials to speak for those who chose them is a better idea, in my opinion.

 

[N[U]TS]

Simply put, we are a representative democracy.
Direct democracies are impractical. To have elected officials to speak for those who chose them is a better idea, in my opinion.

that pretty much says it right there

Before I delve into the topic: pyro_junky, no offense or anything, but it's kind of hard to take you seriously when you can hardly spell.

you dont really need the word spelled correctly for you to know what it is.... its been proven now stop crying

 

[Undead Cheese]

Is there really a point to this thread? Even the government says it isn't a pure democracy, so case closed. Click here.

Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

 

[DB]

We elect people to elect our leader. Lights pretty much said it all, though.

 

[OMGLOLWTFPWN]

When more than 2 parties come into play minority governments form, it's happened in Canada and usually parliment will dissolve and there has to be a re-election. That can cost a lot. Real democracy is hard to do, so we vote for the people who best represent our ideals and what we want to be done.

 

[betaalpha5]

please if america was a democratic country, we wouldn't be in this war

 

[l33t 0n3]

America was never democratic, and never said they were. This is supidity at one of its high points, created by media. Duh, we're capitalist. Why else would the democrats support the war, and then once the election starts, curse it. Not a democracy.

 

[MacMan]

1337, democracy means that everyone has their voice heard, capitalism means that anyone is free to be as successful as they can be. "Duh," we're capitalistic, and "duh" we're a representative democracy. Capitalism describes our economy, I have no idea how you link that to flip-flopping democrats. "This is stupidity at one of its high points."

 

[Sogeking]

the us founded its ideas off of several philosiphers (locke, roussou and a few others i think, as well as ancient rome) whom all had diffrent views on how democracy is. rosseu(i think this is him) for example(he is french btw) believed woman should be property while another philosipher said that woman should hold more rights...thomas jefferson and other "founding fathers" nit picked and voted on rights taken from rousseu, locke, other philosiphers, as well as ancient rome. So we kind of made democracy the way we wanted it to be.

 

[WilliamDell]

Lights was right in saying the U.S. is a representative democracy. In fact, just today we were talking about the U.S. as a democracy in my politics class. As was said above, it is not practical to have a direct democracy since the U.S. is so big, so we elect officials to represent us in the government and it is that which makes us a republic by definition. The U.S. has a federal government and we elect officials in it by popular elections that are based on the majority rule concept. And there are many other things that make the U.S. a democracy whether it feels like it or not at times. Bush has done things without really having consent of the nation, mainly because we don't get told the truth, and in that respect it is up to citizens of the United States democracy to not vote for him. Then again, if it people don't think he has been that bad, they will unfortunately elect him again, but I just fail to see what anyone sees in the man.

 

[Sogeking]

i actually find bush to be quite honest and pretty straitforward. whereas kerry says he will pull out of iraq...and then later change his mind. i dont want someone that is going to flipflop, thats what i see in bush. either way we are going to be ****ed for awhile....estimated 72 trillion dollars in debt...

 

[Lights]

72 trillion? Erm, where did that figure come from? Did you mean 7.2? Our current federal debt is about 7 trillion. The total debt is *slightly* higher.


But anyway, the two powerhouse political parties are tearing this nation apart. It is getting uglier and uglier every year. It is sad that our nation is evenly divided on all major issues. So much for national cooperation, eh?

 

[Sogeking]

72 trillion? Erm, where did that figure come from? Did you mean 7.2? Our current federal debt is about 7 trillion. The total debt is *slightly* higher.


But anyway, the two powerhouse political parties are tearing this nation apart. It is getting uglier and uglier every year. It is sad that our nation is evenly divided on all major issues. So much for national cooperation, eh?

thats odd, i had to do an article on it...i guess they meant 7.2 and not 72 mis print!!!!

in response to the last part of your post, yes, it seems that way. i am VERY mad with john kerry. he continually changes the statements he makes and continually flames bush, now i have not heard nearly as many flames towards the kerry campain and bush even stopped the swift boat ads. so im mad and sad

 

[MacMan]

If you are upset because you think he flip-flops on issues, then you need to decide whether being able to analyze new information and change your mind based on that is more important than being stubborn and never changing you stance on issues, regardless of new information. If you are upset because you think that he flip-flops with what he says, then that's more understandable.

 

[Sogeking]

good point, but it seems like he flipflops after he commited to what he has said previously...does that make any sense?

 

[WilliamDell]

My whole point about Bush is that he makes rash decisions based on erroneous data or even completely made up data. I mean the whole Iraq situation was based on false imformation, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the weapon inspectors wanted/needed more time to complete their inspections properly, and because of Bush we attacked without U.N. support. And something MacMan said about not being able to flip-flop on something goes along with the fact that Bush was very insentent on invading Iraq no matter what anyone said. The main concern behind his actions were to make money for himself. The oil fields taken over made profit for him and his family basically. He was not really doing what he was elected to do, he had data falsified to get the American people or at least a good number of Americans behind him in his decision by stating data that was not actually true. All these factors are reasons why I don't even consider him a liable choice in the lection.

That stuff does go along with a democracy, in that he has defiled what a true democracy is all about. It's about what the people want, and the governement is supposed to be true to the people that support it because it is them who gives the government the power to rule them. That is why Bush does not deserve a second term, he has not been true to the ideals of democracy.

 

[Undead Cheese]

My whole point about Bush is that he makes rash decisions based on erroneous data or even completely made up data. I mean the whole Iraq situation was based on false imformation, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the weapon inspectors wanted/needed more time to complete their inspections properly, and because of Bush we attacked without U.N. support. And something MacMan said about not being able to flip-flop on something goes along with the fact that Bush was very insentent on invading Iraq no matter what anyone said. The main concern behind his actions were to make money for himself. The oil fields taken over made profit for him and his family basically. He was not really doing what he was elected to do, he had data falsified to get the American people or at least a good number of Americans behind him in his decision by stating data that was not actually true. All these factors are reasons why I don't even consider him a liable choice in the lection.

* Okay, so Bush has the CIA present false information to the public, is that what you're saying? In that case, how did Bush get British and Russian intelligence to go along with his little scheme?

* There is absoultely zero chance that there were any WMDs simply because we haven't found any yet? Sure, we've found old ones which he was supposed to have destroyed (and he hadn't, even though he was given 10 years to do it), and it's been confirmed that Saddam was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa, but that isn't enough, you want the stockpiles. You know, WMDs weren't the only reason we went into Iraq.

* Maybe they could have gotten their job done quicker if Saddam hadn't severely restricted where they could look. Who gives a shit if you have weapons inspectors in Iraq if they can't even look everywhere?

* So be it. Saddam was in violation of 17(?) UN resolutions, and I believe he broke the cease-fire agreement a couple times. If the UN won't enforce it's own resolutions, someone else has to. If no one does, it's just the League of Nations all over again.

* You have proof of this, correct? Please, enlighten me.

* Of course not. He was elected before September 11th, and, when something big like that happens, it requires you to formulate a whole new battle plan.