Democracy! who's gonna define

While voting may rank with many as the "most democratic act," we must consider a few realities.Are all the people affected by government policies eligible to vote? Does a democracy exist when certain segments within the society are not eligible to vote?Are all the people eligible to vote registered to vote? Does a democracy exist when certain political elements are able to prevent or dissuade certain segments within a society from registering to vote?Do all the people registered to vote actually go and cast a ballot? Does a democracy exist when certain political elements are able to discourage, dissuade, or prevent certain segments within a society from casting a ballot either by force or by propaganda?Are all the ballots cast by voters counted correctly and the results of all elections certified to reflect the exact count of votes as cast by the voters. Do I need to go into this aspect of "democracy?"Is the winner of an election determined by the popular vote or by some other archaic method such as an electoral college? Does a democracy exist when one candidate can amass the greater number of popular votes while another candidate is declared the winner by an electoral college, chamber of legislature, or supreme court?Does a democracy exist where an elected official cannot be recalled mid-term for a violation of a sworn duty? How about a violation of a campaign promise? (Just some off-the-wall thoughts here folks.)I agree that voting is a premier component of a democracy; however, some would have you consider other essential components, including but not necessarily limited to:1) Uncensored Speech, or speech reasonably limited only to protect others against a threat of immediate loss of life, limb, or property.2) Unbridled Practice of Personal Belief, or practice of belief reasonably limited only to protect others from immediate loss of life, limb, or property. This includes nonviolent civil disobedience.3) Vociferous Cynicism, Iconoclasm, and Heretical Outbursts of Challenge. Do I need to go into this category in detail? I think not.Peace, y'all; and may we meet one day in democracy.

The repeated comment has been made: "No genuine democracy exists on Earth today." True. Why?Because people cannot seem to operate within the Primary Law: "Do not do to your neighbor, your neigbor's property, or to nature that which is harmful to you, your property, and nature."Of course, this cardinal law has a flip side: "Extend to your neighbor, your neighbor's property, and to nature, that which assists or benefits you, your property, your neighbor, your neighbor's property, and nature."In a true democracy there should be no need for autocrats, only teachers, agriculturalists, aquaculturists, foresters, scientists, engineers, instructors, technicians, craftspersons, service personnel, artists, caretakers, caregivers, tax collectors, morticians, facilitators, administrators, record managers, etc.Politicians as policy makers would be replaced by persons selected on a rotating basis to participate in debates that would be structured to remind the social structure that there is only one Primary Law and that enforcement of that law would be by exile or banishment of severe or repeat violators.Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-09-2004]

Dear Peter:Some of your suppositions are correct some of the time. Others are blanket generalizations that do not always apply.You ask, "What would motivate someone to want to be the supreme power on the planet in charge of armies and technology sufficient to
subjugate the planet?"Answer: Some psychotic disorder I presume; however, I am not qualified to diagnose, and a doctor would give you the more accurate medical or scientific answer.I would offer the idea that not every candidate that stands for election is a person who simply wants power over others or wants to rule the world. For instance, that generalization most likely would not apply to a county recorder, county coroner, township trustee, etc. These folks usually remain in office for years or seek another similar office with very little inherent power and a whole lot of thankless public service.Therefore, I take issue politely with your assertion that "anyone who stands for election by definition is the last person to whom you should give power." While your feelings are well founded with regard to many greedy and power-hungry cretins, it is not always the case.Peace.

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]

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]

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!