- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 13,534
- Reaction score
- 1,000
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Kelzie said:First, a couple things I'm assuming about a democracy, although you are free to argue the definition. One is free, fair, open, and competitive elections in which people participate. Two is political equality. Three is political liberty. Without those, a democracy doesn't exist.
So what do you think? Kinda seems to me like we weren't a democracy till 1964 or possible 1920.
Kandahar said:The definition of democracy, as you noted, is very ambiguous. So the answer to that question depends on what you consider a democracy.
I'd say that 1920 was when we became a modern democracy, but America was a democracy to some degree even before 1776.
star2589 said:an unfortunate fact about a pure democracy, is that the majority always rules, even if they are wrong. if the majority believes that blacks shouldnt be able to vote, then blacks wont be able to vote, but the place can still be considered a democracy.
a republic is better, because minorities are given better representation, but it too is far from perfect as has been demonstrated in our own country.
though, i cant say that I have a better idea.
Kelzie said:Hmm. So as an example, South Carolina's population was 3/4 slaves (according to my prof.). Of the 1/4 left, 1/2 were women. Of that 1/8...maybe half again were land owners. So we had 1/16 of the population actually participating. Would you call any country that had the same today democratic?
Kelzie said:The definitions I've seen for democracy require things to work together. For example, the majority rules, but there must be political equality. If there's not, whether because the majority takes it away or for some other reason, than it is not a democracy.
Democracy... is a system where the population of a society controls the government. It may be narrowly defined as that of nation-state government specifically, or more broadly to describe a society as a whole, which can also exert political power and social power.
Democratic government aspires to serve under "the people" rather than ruling over them. This ideal is pursued by implementing some form of a voting system, usually involving indirect representation (see also republic).
Liberal democracy is defined as democracy over an entire society, and implies individual liberty and individual responsibility as a citizen of that society. It extends the concept of distributed power all of the way to individual citizens in their personal domains - personal sovereignty and private property tempered by civic duty. In such a society, sovereignty originates in the people and is delegated to government rather than vice versa.
Because democratic government and democratic society are inter-related and used interchangeably, they are often confused, usually when one expects all of the benefits of democratic society to follow from the mechanisms of democratic government. While a democratic society has a democratic government, the reverse is not always true. A democratic government, while preventing despotism of abuse of power by a governing minority, does not protect other minorities from social forces from other members of society with other forms of power that may be played out through plutocracy within an existing democratic government, or majoritarianism. Democratic governments may be "liberal", where fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they may be "illiberal" where they are not.
Kelzie said:Hmm. So as an example, South Carolina's population was 3/4 slaves (according to my prof.). Of the 1/4 left, 1/2 were women. Of that 1/8...maybe half again were land owners. So we had 1/16 of the population actually participating. Would you call any country that had the same today democratic?
Gardener said:Until we rectify the fact that a person living in Wyoming has 4 times the voting clout of somebody living in California, I can't imagine we are living in a democracy.
Deegan said:Don't even get me started on the that issue, any higher, and Cali makes all our decisions for us, that is hardly a democracy either.
That said, I thought we had a Republic?:doh
Gardener said:But you ARE started, Deegan, you are!
and of course, you are right about the republic.
Were it up to me, though, I would abolish the electoral college. It may have served a purpose back in the days when presidential candidates made whistle-stop tours in order to expose themselves to the public, but it is an anachronism in this age of communication in which we now live.
Deegan said:Don't even get me started on the that issue, any higher, and Cali makes all our decisions for us, that is hardly a democracy either.
That said, I thought we had a Republic?:doh
Synch said:First, we're a democratic republic..
2nd, I say 1789 when people started to vote, you can argue that since people below 18 can't vote, we're not a democracy....:lol:
star2589 said:here's what wikipedia has to say about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
if we're talking about a democratic government, then I suppose in the strictest sense, a government can considered democratic if all of its citizens are allowed to vote, regardless of what they choose to vote.
that would definatly not be democratic, sinse only a 16th of the population could vote.
but, supposing that there was a nationwide election to decide whether slavory was abolished, so as everyone including the slaves themselves were allowed to vote, the country could still be considered a democracy even if the outcome of the election was to keep slavory legal.
I think the framers were reacting so strongly to a society where the power was very concentrated in a small number of people, that they under estimated how much the majority could be oppressive to the minority.
To help further clarify the definition of democracy, we add three additional benchmarks drawn from both the scholarly literature and popular understanding about democracy. These benchmarks are popular sovereignty, political equality and political liberty. A society in which all three flourish, we argue, is a healthy representative democracy.
Voters should naturally be qualified; children are not qualified - is this not common sense , I speak of ??Synch said:First, we're a democratic republic..
2nd, I say 1789 when people started to vote, you can argue that since people below 18 can't vote, we're not a democracy....:lol:
earthworm said:Voters should naturally be qualified; children are not qualified - is this not common sense , I speak of ??
IMO, we are a socialistic/democratic republic.
For instance, the city and township has water issue has reared its ugly head in York haven , PA.
I am told that the people cannot vote on this, that the borough council has already decided to install city water, even though a rough majority of the people do not want it..
Yes, we do have, to an extent, a representative government(more or less), but not a democracy.
This we are not ready for, we cannot even get people to vote, much less make intelligent decisions...
I'd vote for the year 2106 !:rofl
Kelzie said:First, a couple things I'm assuming about a democracy, although you are free to argue the definition. One is free, fair, open, and competitive elections in which people participate. Two is political equality. Three is political liberty. Without those, a democracy doesn't exist.
For those of you who aren't up to date on American dates, here's the run down:
1776: Declaration of Independence
1789: US Constitution ratified
1865/66: Slavery abolished and blacks in theory given the right to vote
1920: Women given the right to vote
1964: 24th amendment ends segregation/aka equal rights.
So what do you think? Kinda seems to me like we weren't a democracy till 1964 or possible 1920.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:1789, we're a Democratic-Republic not an absolute-Demcoracy.
iron butterfly said:One vote every 4 years is a pretty wimpy role in our government I say .
The electoral coledge got bush elected ,what worst could be said about it ?
:roll:
Deegan said:I would be more then open to your alternatives, as of yet, I have not heard one worthy of changing the system in place today. I am very aware that ten points more in California has their pony winning every election in the future, and I don't buy the "bigger is better" argument, but please, feel free to share.
Kelzie said:Interesting. So you'd call a country today where only a fraction of the population controls the direction of the government democratic?
Kelzie said:Here's what my American Political System has to say about it:
To help further clarify the definition of democracy, we add three additional benchmarks drawn from both the scholarly literature and popular understanding about democracy. These benchmarks are popular sovereignty, political equality and political liberty. A society in which all three flourish, we argue, is a healthy representative democracy.
Kelzie said:I really don't think you can deny most the people in your state the vote and still be considered a democracy. It is no longer "rule by the people"...more of a rule by the privileged.
Kelzie said:Hi by the way. :2wave: I haven't welcomed you to the forum. I usually don't, but I like your posts. Very intelligent.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:No we're a Representative Democratic Republic, the F.F.'s knew full well that the unwashed masses were to damn stupid to know what is in their own best interests.
Allthough I will concede that the whole land owner sceeloe was a bit much. Gotta do a search now to find out when that ended because that's a better date than 1789.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?