Forms of government and political systems.

[Duke Nukem]

But what if somebody tries to take away democracy when you're out at Taco Bell or w/e

The US is, at least on paper, a republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately it's more of an oligarchy in practice.

Apart from that, though, the kinds of people who say "don't get a gun, call the cops" are often the kinds of people who also say things like "cops are bad because Ferguson."

Edit-was redirected from gun control thread, for some reason.

 

[AnOminous]

The US is, at least on paper, a republic, not a democracy. Unfortunately it's more of an oligarchy in practice.

That's a fairly common thing to say, but fairly bogus. A republic is, by definition, "[a] state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers." This distinguishes it from empires ruled by an emperor, monarchies, or totalitarian states. The most common form of republic in what is currently considered the civilized world is a representative democracy.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

That's a fairly common thing to say, but fairly bogus. A republic is, by definition, "[a] state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers." This distinguishes it from empires ruled by an emperor, monarchies, or totalitarian states. The most common form of republic in what is currently considered the civilized world is a representative democracy.

I've always taken "republic" to simply mean a country without an elected head of state. The UK meets the definition you've established above, but nobody would call it a republic.

So while being a republic doesn't require being a democracy, or vice versa, they are very very far from exclusive.

I would love to know what it is that Duke thinks precludes America from being a democracy, and whether he could name any contemporary examples of democracies.

 

[DNJACK]

The UK is a monarchy. The head of state is the queen.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

The UK is a monarchy. The head of state is the queen.

Did you seriously think this was news to me?

The definition @AnOminous quoted discusses the "supreme power", not the office of head of state. Nobody with even a passing familiarity with the UK's political institutions would conclude that the Queen holds "supreme power". If we were looking for "supreme power" in the UK it would be located either in the Cabinet or in Parliament - but since Cabinet is ultimately subject to appointment and removal by Parliament, it's hard to make a case that it's anywhere other than Parliament. So we would be forced to conclude based on this definition that the UK is both a monarchy and a republic, which seems odd. That's why I prefer the "non-hereditary head of state" definition.

A discussion of power doesn't need to reference the head of state, because it's very common for the office of head of state, be it monarchical, appointed or elected, to lack any significant power, let alone "supreme power". The idea that the office of head of state is necessarily the most powerful person in a country seems like an artifact of a very Americocentric conception of politics.

 

[AnOminous]

So we would be forced to conclude based on this definition that the UK is both a monarchy and a republic, which seems odd.

So long as the nominal supreme authority lies with a monarch, even if that authority is as thin as the paper it is written on, the UK would remain technically not a monarchyrepublic. Indeed, those who seek to do away with the monarchy refer to their political position as "republicanism" and refer to replacing the monarchy with a republic.

However, the UK is a republic in all but name. The same would apply to other constitutional monarchies, at least those where the nominal power of the purported monarch remains effectively ceremonial.

The United States, commonly regarded as a republic, is also certainly a democracy. In fact, there are more democratically elected offices at the local, state and federal government than, perhaps, in any nation in the world.

The Constitution also contains numerous actually anti-democratic features specifically to guard against the worst problems of a so-called "pure" democracy, which would amount to mob rule, a form of government which has, in fact, never actually existed. If only a "pure" democracy constituted a democratic form of government, there would be no such thing on the planet.

Among those anti-democratic features are the Article V process for amending the Constitution itself, which essentially puts it in a lockbox of sorts beyond meddling by public whim. Only a sustained political will over a lengthy period of time can change the Constitution itself.

Additionally, having unelected, lifetime appointed judges have supreme authority over interpreting that Constitution stops radical changes from overtaking interpretation. Despite this, even the most "activist" decisions of the Court generally follow rather than precede public opinion.

ETA: Correcting mistake.

 

[Duke Nukem]

When I hear the word democracy I think of direct democracy like in ancient Athens. I understand the difference between the two, and I kind of like the Greek model, unfortunately it's not practical in a society of 300 million. It's kind of a cool concept, though, and has been done on a small scale in certain townships.

The idea that the first thousand people who show up get to help make the laws sounds appealing when compared to having career politicians with four decades of not doing anything else.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

When I hear the word democracy I think of direct democracy like in ancient Athens. I understand the difference between the two, and I kind of like the Greek model, unfortunately it's not practical in a society of 300 million. It's kind of a cool concept, though, and has been done on a small scale in certain townships.

There's a reason we call it "direct democracy" as opposed to just "democracy".

So long as the nominal supreme authority lies with a monarch, even if that authority is as thin as the paper it is written on, the UK would remain technically not a monarchy

I assume you mean technically not a republic?

 

[Strelok]

Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California, where constant, contradictory, poorly thought out laws and budgets (especially budgets) became the norm, far, far more than is even normal for the stupidest elected official.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California, where constant, contradictory, poorly thought out laws and budgets (especially budgets) became the norm, far, far more than is even normal for the stupidest elected official.

On a large scale, perhaps not. On the other hand, there's way too much money involved in modern politics for the average Joe to have any real impact, no matter how he votes. And there's so much corruption within the two-party system, that it has hijacked representative democracy and made it practically unworkable in its own right.

People who want real, positive change in anything are sadly locked out by various factors.

 

[Adamska]

On a large scale, perhaps not. On the other hand, there's way too much money involved in modern politics for the average Joe to have any real impact, no matter how he votes. And there's so much corruption within the two-party system, that it has hijacked representative democracy and made it practically unworkable in its own right.

People who want real, positive change in anything are sadly locked out by various factors.

I've noticed that most people who espouse this point of view, that they have no power due to big money and that the peoples' voice doesn't matter, tend to just sit on their ass during the elections, ironically giving away their own voting power in the process and creating a self fulfilling prophecy in the process.

And honestly the two party system works fine considering that they have separate wings and ideas based on local opinion, essentially serving as long standing coalitions.

 

[Duke Nukem]

I've noticed that most people who espouse this point of view, that they have no power due to big money and that the peoples' voice doesn't matter, tend to just sit on their ass during the elections, ironically giving away their own voting power in the process and creating a self fulfilling prophecy in the process.

And honestly the two party system works fine considering that they have separate wings and ideas based on local opinion, essentially serving as long standing coalitions.

Don't get me wrong, I do vote, but I don't expect it to have any real impact on anything. I honestly don't think it's going to matter what I do though, but I will vote just to take that talking point away from anyone who would say otherwise.

No it doesn't, we need a viable third party to break the cycle and bring in some actual competition and new ideas into the mix, as opposed to rehashing the same ones over and over every four years. Sure, one might argue that there's other choices on the ballot, but that's just for show, and people are more afraid of "not being counted" than going for the one they actually want. Also, local opinion doesn't really count much in the long run, except for maybe city/county elections, and those tend to be less corrupted by party politics as a whole.

I'd rather vote for what I want, and NOT get it, than something I don't want, and have a chance of getting it.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California[...]

Switzerland has direct democracy, at least to limited degree. They seem to be doing better than California though. The small land area and population of Switzerland are probably a factor.

 

[BT 075]

 

[Duke Nukem]

This. Fucking this.

That being said, just because you're not a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean you're a terrorist.

Unfortunately, that concept is lost on 99% of people it seems.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

And honestly the two party system works fine considering that they have separate wings and ideas based on local opinion, essentially serving as long standing coalitions.

'Disguised coalitions' are all very well, but actual coalitions are better, not least that voters can very easily choose which party in an actual coalition to support with their vote.

Switzerland has direct democracy, at least to limited degree. They seem to be doing better than California though. The small land area and population of Switzerland are probably a factor.

Land area is irrelevant to 99% of all political decisions.

 

[Adamska]

'Disguised coalitions' are all very well, but actual coalitions are better, not least that voters can very easily choose which party in an actual coalition to support with their vote.

I dunno about that considering that in the UK, minority governments (which is usually the only reason a coalition forms anyway) tend to not last long . There's also the matter that you get the same effect as a two party element anyways, since to get shit done in a coalition, you often have to water down or compromise your platform. And yes, I know that politics there differs from the US in that they can call elections early.

Land area is irrelevant to 99% of all political decisions.

Population on the other hand does when it comes to applying direct democracy, mainly because the bigger the group, the longer it takes for them to decide on a point. Besides, @ToroidalBoat was speaking from an economic point of view I think.

This. Fucking this.

That being said, just because you're not a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean you're a terrorist.

Unfortunately, that concept is lost on 99% of people it seems.

Where the hell do you live where this is the case? Because here third partiers are at worst seen as wasting their vote (when realistically you only waste it by not voting IMO).

As an aside, for those claiming a third party would make things better... nope. This is because of one part precedent (Third parties often get most of their ideas absorbed/coopted or sometimes form the new second party after killing the old one) and mechanically it doesn't work (In big elections, it's all or nothing).

 

[RepQuest]

Direct Democracy results in the sort of complete and utter breakdown that is states like California, where constant, contradictory, poorly thought out laws and budgets (especially budgets) became the norm, far, far more than is even normal for the stupidest elected official.

California's attitude toward democracy really soured my opinion on the system as a whole. The problem with direct democracy is that people will usually vote to limit their own personal freedom, not to increase it. If states have constitutions that can be changed with a simple majority vote on a referendum, such as California, then what is the point of having constitutionally-guaranteed rights? Of course, California's system of propositions (what California calls its referenda and ballot measures) also allows people to vote for bond measures to fund government programs and tax law, the latter of which are usually tax increases. The government programs proposed are usually unsustainable, even with the high tax rates that California already has, which, of course, people will vote for, because they assume that those increases won't affect them. It's shit like this that has convinced me that there needs to be limits on the franchise.

 

[AnOminous]

Switzerland has direct democracy, at least to limited degree. They seem to be doing better than California though. The small land area and population of Switzerland are probably a factor.

If you let an uneducated (or even educated) populace vote to get free shit and then also vote not to pay taxes for it, you get stupid shit.

You also get stupid shit like three strikes laws, also an unfunded mandate (Prop 36) passed by initiative in California.

Then they also had the wisdom to enact "reform" in the form of term limits, which means their legislature now consists of amateur noobs who have no idea what they're doing and get led around by the nose by the unelected lobbyists who basically write California's legislation.

Throw in a near-permanent supermajority of Democrats and you have a recipe for disaster.

That's not a comment on Democrats. One party rule by any party is generally disastrous.

 

[Falcon Lord]

It really annoys me when people say campaign donations mean democracy is a sham and the US is the same as North Korea.