Is The Usa A Democracy?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1223575' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:51 PM']Our founding fathers were very wary of democracy. This is why the House of Representative was elected in their districts and senators were elected by the legistators of their state. The people did not vote for senators.

[b]So are you against electing senators?[/b]

You can read more about their thinking by reading the Federalist Papers.[/quote]

[Mercy me]

I have not really thought about if I am for or against the popular election of senators because it is the way it is. There isn't really anything that I can do about it. I don't have a problem with the way things are. However, I do see the merits of their arguments in having a body that is insulated from the pressure of the general public.

[Mr.Cat]

The United States of America is a Constitutional Mixing Federalist Democratic Republic allocating much authority to the local governments being based on English Common Law with strong influences of Protestant and Masonic ideology.

The “Democratic Party” was originally named the “Democratic Republican Party” but was changed later on. You also have to remember that the Democratic Party in the last thirty years has rapidly and drastically changed.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1223603' date='Mar 31 2007, 02:13 AM']The United States of America is a Constitutional Mixing Federalist Democratic Republic allocating much authority to the local governments being based on English Common Law with strong influences of Protestant and Masonic ideology.

The “Democratic Party” was originally named the “Democratic Republican Party” but was changed later on. You also have to remember that the Democratic Party in the last thirty years has rapidly and drastically changed.[/quote]

That is very true. The average Democrat from the 30s, 40s, 50s and even the early 60s has a much different ethos than the average Democrat today. The same goes for the average Republican, too.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Maggie

[Mr.Cat]

Originally I wanted to go into politics but American politics started to depress me...

Edited March 31, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[son_of_angels]

"demos" is a greek word, which refers to what Classics majors like to call the "demes" of ancient Athenian government. A "demos" was a section of the Athenian people, at first independent of tribes, but later attached to them, in which people voted, etc. Basically, it was what we might think of as a "precinct."

[Guest T-Bone]

...

Edited March 31, 2007 by T-Bone

[son_of_angels]

However, more to the point of the conversation. No, I do not buy that the United States is a democracy, and it is this saving grace that makes the United States a bit more worthwhile. Admittedly, I would rather it be even more republican than it currently is, and more monarchical.

Now, despite claims to the contrary, these two ideas "republic" and "monarchy" are not actually opposed to one another. A republic is not one in which the people elect representatives, neccessarily, but rather that power is viewed as a "res publica," i.e. a "common matter." This means that, in a republic, the monarch, head of state, or whatever does not possess power by virtue of their rights, which they may retain, but by common law. Hence, in our system, we are a republic which emphasizes the contractual nature of the people and the government: those who govern and the governors make a compact which exists for the common good, and violation of that compact may result in adverse circumstances. Plato's Republic, on the other hand, made the search for wisdom and virtue in society the primary motivation for government, so that THIS was the contract which 'stablished the government structure, yet he made provision for a "philosopher-king." In my opinion, his theory is the most correct, though not complete with a proper restraint of ethics, and it shows the wisdom of governments like Bhutan, where, in times past, the king was both head of the local branch of Buddhism AND the secular King, and the Buddhist monks did the majority of the administration, without having actual power over the formation of laws, except as advisors. Now, in the Christian tradition, one must modify this somewhat, but I think a certain "monastic" presence in government is certainly necessary, for monasticism is the true practice of philosophy.

But, if I may be permitted to air out my ego a bit, I wish to offer my ideas for how we ought to revise our government, avoiding the issue of theocracy.

1. The President and Vice President are elected by the governers of each state every six years, immediately after the Senate elections.
This must be done by single transferrable vote, so that the person with the most votes becomes President and the person second becomes Vice President.

2. The Senators are elected by each state legislature so that one Senator represents the largest portion of the votes in each state, and the second receives the second largest portion, but they shall cast only one vote. Here the single transferrable vote system, again, is to be preferred.

3. The Cabinet is to be composed of the respective committee chairpersons, appointed by the Vice President with the consent of the Senate, over which he is chair.

4. There is no Supreme Court, nor federal judicial system, as all causes of law which may be tried in federal courts should be tried in State Courts, but the Supreme Appellate Court of the USA is the Senate itself, who may appoint inferior committees, composed of its members, to try federal-perogative cases (like trial of foreign diplomats). Hence, all Senators must be qualified as judges at law.

5. The prosecution of all laws belongs principally to the President of the USA, and devolves on the People of the several states, represented by the prosecutors, but a federal prosecutor does not have the authority to pursue a law against someone which resides in the legal power of the State.

Edited March 31, 2007 by son_of_angels

[KnightofChrist]

Constitutional Republic

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1223636' date='Mar 31 2007, 07:55 AM']1. The President and Vice President are elected by the governers of each state every six years, immediately after the Senate elections.
This must be done by single transferrable vote, so that the person with the most votes becomes President and the person second becomes Vice President.[/quote]

Would it not just be easier to return to the electors choosing the President? I mean truly choosing the President, and not just following the popular vote for that state. I haven't decided what I think of returning to that, just a question about your opinion on the matter.

[Mr.Cat]

[b]Strongly disagreed[/b]: The Electoral College is a good electoral system for a diverse nation, the Cabinet is the President’s own advisors thus should be appointed by him, and the Federal Government should have an independent branch to hear judicial proceedings otherwise we will be heading back to the Articles of Confederation. Something that utterly failed in the United States... I really wish we could give the Senate back to the States but sadly when this practice was in force it caused corruption since only the wealthy could be elected to it. If you want a good example watch the movie, “[i]Mr. Smith Goes to Washington[/i].”

But theoretically speaking a Republic does not have to govern at the consent of the population but only has to seek the consent of a body that votes in some manner or another. The only example I could think of a Republic would be the Vatican having a Synod (Senate) of Cardinals that have some kind of voting power and are selected to elect the successor to Saint Peter the Apostle. The Cardinals are not elected and do not have to “represent” the people. For this reason we have a Republic because we have legislative bodies but it is a democratic republic because we elect those members of the legislative bodies.

Plato had some interesting ideas but his idea of “classes” that would not function in our modern world. It would require for a cast system that those of the lowest level in society could never progress any further not having that freedom of progress in financial, political, or social matters. Plato would also have a drastically different idea on who can vote and civil liberties.

[Citizen X]

No, the USA is not a democracy. The government is a sellout, a mere tool for the whims of alien peoples who control us by applying political pressure.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking we have any say in the matter.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

No, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

[quote name='Citizen X' post='1223847' date='Mar 31 2007, 09:39 AM']No, the USA is not a democracy. The government is a sellout, a mere tool for the whims of alien peoples who control us by applying political pressure.

Don't fool yourselves into thinking we have any say in the matter.[/quote]

You think illegal aliens are secretly running our government? Mexicans make up less than a quarter of our population.

[Citizen X]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1223869' date='Mar 31 2007, 09:52 AM']No, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.
You think illegal aliens are secretly running our government? Mexicans make up less than a quarter of our population.[/quote]
I'm not talking about Mexicans, I'm talking about aliens. You know, extra-galactic carbon-based life-forms that abduct our good, human men women and children from their beds?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Citizen X' post='1223902' date='Mar 31 2007, 10:09 AM']I'm not talking about Mexicans, I'm talking about aliens. You know, extra-galactic carbon-based life-forms that abduct our good, human men women and children from their beds?[/quote]
Ummm...they don't exist.