The two party system

Yes, but people can be manipulated by media propaganda to believe just about anything. That is why in a democracy, a 51% majority has the power to literally enslave the 49% minority, because in a democracy anything goes as long as the majority agree to it. That does not mean the majority is always right.

Using the same principle, you could just as well say that 15 white men lynching one black man is democracy, too.

 

.

 

.

 

Ive watched all your posts and you all have the same ideas but you all have different ways of solving the problem (or not if you suggest to accept the system as is).

The idea is about choice. The fewer parties a nation has, the fewer choices you have.

I agree though with an earlier post about the media. The media alone, being an entity that controls much of the power in this country can easily control the people. Without it, elections would be a lot more simple. Ideas and policies would determine the outcome of elections. Instead we have this perversion of the truth and we make our choices from it.

What of a single party that embraces all ideas and deals with each logically in the best interest of the human race? Many say this is impossible. Which may be true due to the fact that we are in a nation that has been completely polarized. To the point that we have lost our senses.

Do you think we will ever wake up, or are our ideals so engrained that we will never be able to take a step back and see the larger picture?

 

Pure or Direct Democracy is not mob rule as officials would lead people to believe. Its how these officials are elected in the beginning, if mob rule has chosen them then they should be satisfied with what "mob rule" has to offer.
A representative democracy rarely reflects the will of the people, and it is easily influenced and corrupted by special interests groups.
A direct democracy on the other hand will reflect the will of the people, and its not so easily if not impossible to be corrupted by special interests groups since you will have corporations for instance instead of aiming their propaganda and lobbying at a group of only 500 elected senators and officials, they'll have to deal with hundreds of millions of people.

But I dont think representatives should be completely abolished in a direct democracy, they are still needed but not in the way they function today.

 

Rat
As far as I can tell (because you refuse to discuss things openly) you are in favour of handing over power to wealth.

Oh you shout very loudly that you’re against the ‘elite’ but as I’ve shown time and again the ideas you seem to support would lead to that elite gaining more power and influence and of course you are always attacking anything that might limit the power and influence of wealth.

Here you attack ‘democracy’ (in exactly the same way as other right wingers like the John Birch Society do) as ‘mob’ rule.

What you seem to be supporting (again I’m unsure, because you don’t like discussing such things openly) is a constitutional republic. Sometimes you seem to hint that you favour the early US constitution (again I’m unsure, because you don’t like discussing such things openly).

*

‘Mob rule’

This has been the main argument of those opposing democracy change throughout history, such as the elite or wealthy, who fear losing their power and influence.

I mean anyone that doesn’t want democracy is going to paint it as giving power to the feral, unintelligent and venal plebs, which would inevitably lead to death, destruction, and the end of all civilised government.

*
Constitutional Republic

A republic is usually defined as system of government without a monarch, (although some places that have called themselves republics have had a single ruler), apart from that it can have a number of political systems including democratic ones.

So calling for a republic isn’t an alternative to democracy, it could be democratic, but could also be an oligarchy or plutocracy.

And a constitution does not necessarily preclude tyranny, oligarchy or the persecution on people on grounds of politics, religion or race.

For example the US was a constitutional republic all the time that slavery was in existence within its borders (even the Confederate States of America was a constitutional republic).

So just because a state is a constitutional republic does not mean it is going to be a paragon of virtue.

*

 

Mad

And who’s asking for a democracy without liberty and justice?

And who’s demanding for a system that doesn’t include any measures to protect minorities?

Are you claiming that anyone that wishes to make the US political system more accountable and democratic is by definition against liberty and justice and actually wishes for the persecution of minorities?

Because that argument doesn’t seem to be rational or reasonable.

*

I think the US system of representative democracy could be made more democratic (and fairer) with the introduction of proportional representation.

Try reading
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/democracy/abcs.html

In what way do you think such a move would bring about the end of justice and liberty?

At the moment in the United States you use a system of “winner-take-all” single seat districts, where votes going to a losing candidate are wasted, even if that candidate garners 49.9% of the vote. This leaves significant blocs of voters unrepresented.”

*

 

The idea being represented has been introduced by most european nations.

PR is an attempt to create the most balanced form of representation. Because representation is asssumed to be the most important issue when politics are discussed. How, why, and what.

But this form of civic organiztion instills the idea of seperation and will with time no doubt create conflict.

Is this arguable?

 

I think we need to look at the U.S. as a whole culture instead of looking at solely the governmental aspect. A highly religious nomadic tribe can have a 2 party system, but it may not be functional within their society.

We cannot seperate the government from the economic / religious aspects of our culture. Having corporations ultimately affects how campaigning can be done, and our religious views ultimately limit the choices within the system also. The methods by which people are informed, and who controls the means of transmitted information are just as important as the system itself.

A Communist nation can allow democracy, but if it completely misinforms the public about it then the people will ultimately vote for Communist politicians. A Muslim parlimentary system may never effectively work if Muslim laws prevent an executive leader from allowing reforms (and risk death in the
process).

It's hard to reform a system when it's already established. It's much better to work from the ground up, when cultural aspects aren't so insanely entangled. That's why most systems are about stability instead of strict evolution (like the U.S.'s fiscal / monetary policy). In such a complex interwoven system following strict truth usually erodes away the foundations of a civilization. The bigger a civilization is the harder it is to efficiently integrate change (Go Anarchists!).

*side note* A Constitutional Republic is much better than a Direct Democracy. In the village of FairyFountain where 20/21 people hate me, they can make it a law that it's legal to kill me.

A Constitution helps to prevent corruption like this by making in stone an absolute set of rights that cannot be broken. It's not perfect, but it's better than the tyranny by the majority.

 

The will of the people is not always best when used on everything, look at 1992 election, more people knew the names of the presidential candidates pets then the fact both Clinton and Bush did in fact support the death penalty. Or California is the perfect example of this, it's great they have a system where it's so easy to have referendum, but at the same time the people of California are retarded. They constantly vote for big spending projects and tax cuts/limits that take a simple majority, but because of another referendum, it takes a 2/3 majority in the state assembly to raise taxes, and now California is in one of the most awesome financial messes in the world, hell the state came a few days away from having to declare bankruptcy before a couple of republicans in the state senate relented and voted for tax increases. Or the gay marriage amendment, the populist vote denied gay people what had been declared a constitutional right to marry in California.

But let me make it clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to do this, I'm just pointing out the problems in direct democracy and the fact California is full of retards.

We have a populist chamber, the house is meant to be the nation's populist chamber hence why all of it's members are elected every 2 years. And about 1/2 the states have methods in place for referendums of some sort, I feel bad for the other 1/2 though.

 

California's problems are due to the current credit crunch, doesn't have much to do with referendums since the current crisis is both the federal government and the banks' fault but that's another issue.
However, I do see the point you are aiming at by having people just voting at what appeals to their interests.
And this is where this quote comes in:

 

You have to take into consideration all the stupid ass things that would've happened, been made into law if straight up populism had it's way.

But the referendums are part of the problem because they make creating a budget that works in California one of the most difficult things known to man to do, most people really don't have a clue of the political situation as a whole.

 

does political education or the lack there of determine who should or should not be in power

 

Well the point of a representative democracy is so you have people who are paid to know about government.

In a direct democracy everyone would have to constantly be informed on global politics/economics to be an effective voter. Obviously people like this are a minority.

Having people who's sole job in life is to learn about society's problems was decided (controversely) as the better method to deal with this problem.

Think of those dumb programs like D.A.R.E. and how they easily brainwash people.

 

but this is assuming that because someone is more educated in political and social issues they are more likely to make decisions in the best interest of the people they are representing. But this isn't true.

Also, in a representative democracy the very people who assumingly lack the necessary education to make the right decisions are the ones who elect those in charge. This leads to people in power who are put there by people who do not fully understand the issues.

So ultimately we have a population of people who do not fully understand politics electing a small group of people who will not use their understanding of politics the right way.

 

You can't apply that to people in a direct democracy, i think people are less informed or choose to be less informed because they know that they have no say on how government works after electing a representative and therefore many even don't bother electing that representative.
Under a direct democracy people will feel that they're important and in control of their future so it will be much different than now.

 

Has anyone read the Federalist No. 10? Madison warns us about political factions in it. Look at the shape our country is in thanks to partisan politics. We have become so polarized that we (the majority of our country) have lost our identity. Too many Americans get their ideologies from terrible places. Look at what the two-party system has given us--RUSH LIMBAUGH, SEAN HANNITY, papa bear, ann coulter, and michael savage. the majority of these names are the sheep herders of the "right". they talk of denouncing big government, but then want government to tell you who to marry, what to ingest into your body, how to raise and educate your children, and so many other things. The "left" side isn't that much better. The love they have for FDR's temporary policies that did help us get out of the depression (along with the
21st amendment). But what was meant just to get us out of a major depression almost 80 years ago will bankrupt this country in 20 years or less. And the "left"s infactuation with universal health care--it would be great, but how do you pay for it? OUR EVER INCREASING TAX DOLLARS. I don't know about most of you, but I can barely afford living week to week right now--and I don't have health insurance. I don't want government health insurance. Sorry for the long post, but BE INDEPENDENT. Do keep up with news coverage however you please, but don't take it verbatim. The majority of these pundits are journalists, remember that. They are one step up from lawyers. Learn the facts before you make your mind up. Sorry for the long post, but partisan politics are disgusting.

 

Dont be hating on California.

 

I don't think if we had a direct democracy people would be any more informed. Some people have a drive to know truth, while others will simply walk like zombies through life.

The whole point of life is to constantly seek truth and to evolve. Too often we get distracted along the way.

It's just like religion. How many people have honestly done tons of research into religions before deciding their "ultimate fate"? Most people don't research stuff about general food/health either.

 

The problem again is the idea of representation. How do you properly represent anything? You only attempt to do so in the best way possible. But the two party system does not do so. And the existance of a strict two party system leads to even more useless representation and more direct conflict.

I feel that most who would read this post would not blindly follow a policy because of which party it boasts. We are a deeper thinkers which is why we come to a community of debate. But the average citizen is not in such a crowd.

How can a society escape this vicious cycle that leads to ignorant representational regurgitation?