Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Democracy! who's gonna define
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 16 of 24 (78339)
01-14-2004 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Abshalom
01-09-2004 10:45 AM


Re: A Genuine Democracy
I think you have made some very important points, Absholom.
I have always felt that the essence of Democracy is respect for the rights of others, minorities in particular. Otherwise Democracy becomes mob rule. If my memory serves me correctly, the German Nazi party was elected democratically!
Churchill once said 'Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others!'.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Abshalom, posted 01-09-2004 10:45 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 10:03 AM Mike Holland has not replied
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 01-14-2004 10:21 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 24 (78390)
01-14-2004 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mike Holland
01-14-2004 4:53 AM


Re: A Genuine Democracy
Mike:
Greetings Down Under!
You have hit the nail right squarely on the head. I know I've been into this "substitute other words" deal lately ... playing that game with other people's posts, but let's do it again with yours:
Mike says, "I have always felt that the essence of Democracy is respect for the rights of others, minorities in particular. Otherwise Democracy becomes mob rule."
Now, let's just start substituting words for "Democracy" in Mike's statement:
Insert "the human experience" for "democracy"
edit: [After rereading, "experience" may not be the exact word I'm reaching for here.]
Anyone else?
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mike Holland, posted 01-14-2004 4:53 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 24 (78394)
01-14-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mike Holland
01-14-2004 4:53 AM


Re: A Genuine Democracy
I think there is another key principle of democracy that may have been overlooked in this thread and that is participation. When very few people actually bother to vote, then you can end up with de facto minority rule. It can so weaken a democracy (like the Weimar republic) that fascism can take over without a violent overthrow of the government.
I am always amazed that in the U.S., there is so much said about the sacrifices made in establishing and protecting the country, yet only about half the people actually use or participate in the process for which the sacrifices were made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mike Holland, posted 01-14-2004 4:53 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 19 of 24 (78443)
01-14-2004 2:47 PM


I think one problem (at least in the U.S.) is that political campaigning is just like advertising of consumer products - A lot of smoke and mirrors, and little clear substance.
Candidates are (rightfully) afraid of making strong statements. Most likely, such statements can only hurt them. Better to be vague, warm, and fuzzy.
We need a presidential debate where questions such as "What's the story of the Donald Rumsfeld/Sadam Hussain photo, back in the early 80's?" are asked, and real answers are required.
We also need an "instant runoff" voting system, where a vote for a third party candidate can be made, without taking the chance that you'll be defacto voting for your least favored candidate. As the system is, I think parties such as the Greens, need to throw their support behind the Democratic candidate. Those of the "progressive" side need to vote for what they view as "the lesser of two evils".
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 3:06 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 24 (78448)
01-14-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Minnemooseus
01-14-2004 2:47 PM


Moose, your perception is correct.
Generally speaking, and these are rough averages that I am familiar with, about 20% of the vote in a general election will be "straight Democrat tickets" and about 20% will be "straight Republican."
In the city I live in, that means that essentially before the polls even open, each of the two major party candidates in any race can count on about 10,000 votes each simply from straight party ticket voting. That's a whopper hurdle for an independent candidate to overcome when drawing each of his votes from the remaining pool of only 60% of the available votes. Remember, the two major party candidates are drawing from the same remaining pool; and they are usually much more well-funded and name-recognizeable.
Peace and Freedom
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2004 2:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mike Holland, posted 01-14-2004 3:24 PM Abshalom has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 21 of 24 (78449)
01-14-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Abshalom
01-14-2004 3:06 PM


Here 'Down Under' we have compulsory Democracy. You are obliged by law to vote.
But to go with that, we have one of the most confusing voting systems in the world. You have a choice of voting all out for one party, or else rating preferences for all of about 30 candidates, which includes all wierd parties like gun lobby groups, Christian pressure groups, etc.
But in running the country, we have democracy gone mad. Every government proposition is opposed, discussed, a commission set up, and eventually when something is done it is ten years too late!
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 3:06 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Abshalom, posted 01-14-2004 3:32 PM Mike Holland has not replied
 Message 23 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2004 3:51 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 24 (78454)
01-14-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mike Holland
01-14-2004 3:24 PM


Dream Time Democracy
Mike:
If I were a citizen of Australia, I think I would convert from Secular Humanism to Aboriginal Australian and vote the straight Dream Time Ticket.
Hookahs and Didgeridoos Forever!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mike Holland, posted 01-14-2004 3:24 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 23 of 24 (78456)
01-14-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mike Holland
01-14-2004 3:24 PM


quote:
...or else rating preferences for all of about 30 candidates...
There is a formal name for this system, which I don't recall. I believe it is the system used for ranking college sport team. You vote for your top 20, from your designated number 1 pick on down. Then a number 1 pick is worth 20 points, a number 2 pick is worth, 19 points, ..., a number 20 pick is worth 1 point. Total up the points, the candidate with the most wins. In concept a good system, in practical reality, a bad system. It requires that the voters be informed, truely consider all the candidates, and, most of all, be honest.
The "honest" consideration is the real kicker. What is going to often really happen, is that the hard core Democrat voter is going to rank the Republican candidate at number 20, and the hard core Republican voter is going to rank the Democratic candidate at number 20.
In the "instant runoff" system, when neither of the top two candidate get greater than 50 percent, then the least vote getter is eliminated, and the 2nd choice of those voters are sent to the appropriate candidate. This continues up the list until a candidate ( and it might not even be one of the original top two) gets greater than 50 percent.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mike Holland, posted 01-14-2004 3:24 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 24 of 24 (78680)
01-15-2004 2:21 PM


Electorial college vs. Popular vote
Also quite a while back, I read a persuasive arguement of why the electorial college is a good system. Unfortuately, I've long forgot the details.
Anyhow, as we all know, the EC is a vote by states. I believe the electoral votes of all states are all or nothing, but I may be wrong. Perhaps some states apportion the electorial vote by popular vote.
The sports analogy to the electorial college, is the baseball world series. The winner of the world series is the team (candidate) which wins the majority of the games (states). Of course, in baseball, all the games have equal weight. Anyhow, it does not matter how many runs a team scores in winning the game - only that the game is won. It is possible the the overall losing team can score many more total runs. If you lose 4 out of 7 games by close scores, and win 3 out of 7 games by wide margins, you still loose the overall series.
Moose

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024