[wat0n]

Europe: The example of the most perfect democracies in the world

[Potemkin]

Europe: The example of the most perfect democracies in the world

Better than they were in 1789.

[wat0n]

Better than they were in 1789.

Well, the US was far better too

What I am not so sure about is that European democracies are currently so much better than the US one is. It at least seems like a sweeping statement given some European democracies are quite dysfunctional (Italy, Belgium, etc).

[Potemkin]

Well, the US was far better too

What I am not so sure about is that European democracies are currently so much better than the US one is. It at least seems like a sweeping statement given some European democracies are quite dysfunctional (Italy, Belgium, etc).

That was not my assertion. Saying that the Founding Fathers had more impact on European democracy than on American democracy is not logically inconsistent with European democracies being inferior to American democracy. All of which depends, of course, on what one means by the word 'democracy'. People often seem to mean other things when they utter the word "democracy". They often seem to mean liberalism or equality by the word "democracy". America performs poorly in terms of economic equality, but very well in terms of free speech or the right to bear arms, for example. Swings and roundabouts, as we say in Britain.

[Tainari88]

That was not my assertion. Saying that the Founding Fathers had more impact on European democracy than on American democracy is not logically inconsistent with European democracies being inferior to American democracy. All of which depends, of course, on what one means by the word 'democracy'. People often seem to mean other things when they utter the word "democracy". They often seem to mean liberalism or equality by the word "democracy". America performs poorly in terms of economic equality, but very well in terms of free speech or the right to bear arms, for example. Swings and roundabouts, as we say in Britain.

Free speech was fought for hard in the USA. The ones doing the leg work for that free speech stuff was Eugene Debs the socialist American dude. Socialism in the USA history did the free speech evolution. If it is up to the pro capitalist exploitation crowd the free speech for workers and others would never exist. All that has to be fought hard for a very long time. Right to bear arms was different in 1789 than now...now in the USA you got seriously flawed military grade weapons being used by civilians to shoot up malls, schools, and public spaces all because some NRA is flush with cash and the arms industry is very powerful in the USA and some Right wing freaks in government refuse to pass common sense gun control.

And for me European centered world views need to be questioned Potemkin. Even yours!

[wat0n]

That was not my assertion. Saying that the Founding Fathers had more impact on European democracy than on American democracy is not logically inconsistent with European democracies being inferior to American democracy. All of which depends, of course, on what one means by the word 'democracy'. People often seem to mean other things when they utter the word "democracy". They often seem to mean liberalism or equality by the word "democracy". America performs poorly in terms of economic equality, but very well in terms of free speech or the right to bear arms, for example. Swings and roundabouts, as we say in Britain.

Indeed.

But even in Europe, it seems there's quite a bit of variation. Sure, Europeans may be aligned in e.g. social issues for the most part but some countries have stable governments and others... Well, others are chronic basket cases. Very chaotic.

[AFAIK]

Democracy originally referred to a society governed by the demos or the general public at large. Today it refers to a country where the people who feel they are best placed to govern put themselves forward as candidates in an election and the public is invited to vote for the best of the best. A society run by its best members used to be referred to as an aristocracy.

[Potemkin]

Democracy originally referred to a society governed by the demos or the general public at large. Today it refers to a country where the people who feel they are best placed to govern put themselves forward as candidates in an election and the public is invited to vote for the best of the best. A society run by its best members used to be referred to as an aristocracy.

This is the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, of course. And yes, you’re right. Representative democracy, especially without the right of recall, is an oligarchy rather than a democracy in the sense that, say, the Greeks of ancient Athens would have understood it. And, of course, representative democracy without a proletarian revolution is what Lenin called “a democracy for the money-bags, a democracy for the elite”. But it was precisely “a democracy for the elite” which the Founding Fathers wished to set up, and did set up.

[wat0n]

Meh, Soviet "democracy" also became one for its own elite.

Direct democracy seems to be even more dysfunctional once populations get large and geographically spread enough.

[late]

This is the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, of course. And yes, you’re right. Representative democracy, especially without the right of recall, is an oligarchy rather than a democracy in the sense that, say, the Greeks of ancient Athens would have understood it. And, of course, representative democracy without a proletarian revolution is what Lenin called “a democracy for the money-bags, a democracy for the elite”. But it was precisely “a democracy for the elite” which the Founding Fathers wished to set up, and did set up.

The Brits call it The Rebellion. They are right, of course. Thomas Jefferson didn't revolt against the government, he was the government.

If you look at revolutions, they are bloody messes that often wind up with a dictator like Napoleon, after the French Revolution.

Having said all that, our relapse into a crude class based society is telling.

[late]

Meh, Soviet "democracy" also became one for its own elite.

The Soviet system had nothing to do with democracy.

[Potemkin]

Free speech was fought for hard in the USA. The ones doing the leg work for that free speech stuff was Eugene Debs the socialist American dude. Socialism in the USA history did the free speech evolution. If it is up to the pro capitalist exploitation crowd the free speech for workers and others would never exist. All that has to be fought hard for a very long time.

This is certainly true, querida. As I said, the Founding Fathers created a democracy for the ruling elite, not for the common man. And it is very largely still a democracy for the ruling elite. The idea that America is ruled by and for the common man is a myth, a product of Hollywood propaganda during the Cold War. And the very people who wanted democracy for the common man - the socialists and the communists - were being marginalised and silenced.

Right to bear arms was different in 1789 than now...now in the USA you got seriously flawed military grade weapons being used by civilians to shoot up malls, schools, and public spaces all because some NRA is flush with cash and the arms industry is very powerful in the USA and some Right wing freaks in government refuse to pass common sense gun control.

The problem in America is not that there are too many guns. The problem is that there are too many people whom the system has driven crazy. Canada has laxer gun control laws than the US, yet Canada doesn’t have the same problem with mass shootings that the US has. The problem is not a legal one, but a cultural and social one. And it requires cultural and social solutions, not legal ones.

And for me European centered world views need to be questioned Potemkin. Even yours!

Indeed querida.

[Tainari88]

This is certainly true, querida. As I said, the Founding Fathers created a democracy for the ruling elite, not for the common man. And it is very largely still a democracy for the ruling elite. The idea that America is ruled by and for the common man is a myth, a product of Hollywood propaganda during the Cold War. And the very people who wanted democracy for the common man - the socialists and the communists - were being marginalised and silenced.


The problem in America is not that there are too many guns. The problem is that there are too many people whom the system has driven crazy. Canada has laxer gun control laws than the US, yet Canada doesn’t have the same problem with mass shootings that the US has. The problem is not a legal one, but a cultural and social one. And it requires cultural and social solutions, not legal ones.


Indeed querida.

It never was for the common man. It is always for the elitist Eurocentric male person from the beginning. Everyone that did not fit that profile was suspicious and excluded from 'democracy'.

You should do well in the USA as long as you give up your communist politics. Hee hee.

[Potemkin]

It never was for the common man. It is always for the elitist Eurocentric male person from the beginning. Everyone that did not fit that profile was suspicious and excluded from 'democracy'.

You should do well in the USA as long as you give up your communist politics. Hee hee.

Not gonna happen, querida. Guess I’d better give up my dream of emigrating to America and becoming President some day…. Lol!

[Tainari88]

Not gonna happen, querida. Guess I’d better give up my dream of emigrating to America and becoming President some day…. Lol!

It could happen. Lol. You could be prez of the USA. Just be a conman liar or a career politician dude that says racist stuff all day and your dream is not far away.

I miss you a lot Mr. Pote.

[Potemkin]

It could happen. Lol. You could be prez of the USA. Just be a conman liar or a career politician dude that says racist stuff all day and your dream is not far away.

If that’s the price of being Prez, then it’s too damn high. I hate lies, and I hate racism. Guess that disqualifies me then.

I miss you a lot Mr. Pote.

And I miss you a lot Doña @Tainari88. More than I can tell you.

[Puffer Fish]

Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote.

There is something you and many people don't understand.

There is no right to a popular election for president in the U.S. Constitution; individual people do not have the Constitutional right to vote for president.
The state governments cast their votes for president.

It just some happens that all 50 states have passed laws to hold popular elections to decide how the state will vote.
But if an individual state wanted to, that state could change the law and revoke people's ability to vote in the election for U.S. president.

When an election is held for president, that election is actually carried out by the person's individual state government.

There are important reasons for this. It helps prevent there from being contested elections and ultimately helps maintain Constitutional stability for their country. The last thing you would want is for people not to agree who the rightful president is. By letting the states carry out the elections, with a "winner-take-all" system, as unfair as you may think that is, it does help decentralise control over the election, and eliminate possibility of disputes.
If you think there was election fraud, you can go on down and march to your state capitol, because the federal government had nothing to do with that.
Since the Electoral college is a smaller group, about the size of Congress, there is no way for the federal level of government to carry out election fraud at that point. It's much easier to keep track of all the final votes.


In conclusion, the electoral college is not a "farce", but the majority of people seem not to understand how it works. They wrongly think that just because they seem to be able to vote in an election for U.S. president that means they are actually (directly) voting in the election for president. The election you vote in is an election carried out by your state to decide how that state will vote in the federal election.

[AFAIK]

Some states are campaigning to give their electoral votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote and instead of the winner of their state's popular vote.

@Tainari88 @Potemkin
Please keep your off topic flirting in the longest thread. Or better yet in private message.

[Fasces]

In conclusion, the electoral college is not a "farce", but the majority of people seem not to understand how it works. They wrongly think that just because they seem to be able to vote in an election for U.S. president that means they are actually (directly) voting in the election for president. The election you vote in is an election carried out by your state to decide how that state will vote in the federal election.

No one is confused by this. Everyone just thinks its dogshit.

It's no better than a handful of party insiders choosing the next Chinese president.

[Potemkin]

Some states are campaigning to give their electoral votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote and instead of the winner of their state's popular vote.

@Tainari88 @Potemkin
Please keep your off topic flirting in the longest thread. Or better yet in private message.

You’re just jealous.