how can the US call itself a democracy?

i'm taking a government class and so far all i see is interest groups and rich people getting what they want and need.

if an interest group wants something changed [and has lots of money], they push it hard. if an interest group doesn't want change they block it. thats not democracy, and hardly representative democracy.

its like, multilayered fascism.

 

Well, it's called voting, go do it. Maybe the US isn't a democracy because minus presidential elections not even 1/4 of the electorate goes out to vote

 

and corruption in all levels of state-federal and local government.

 

voting only goes so far. once the people "pick" their representative that is the only role the people [as a whole] play in government at all. the only thing the politician is interested in is keeping his job.

 

And a politician keeps his job by having people vote for him. Don't blame money or special interest for everyone's laziness to vote.

 

with enough money and the right connections it is possible to deceive the public.

as seen with obama's election
he can't do any better a job then mccain could have.
it was seriously either fad guy or mccain guy

 

if we were intelligent, we would have gone with ron paul...or perhaps dennis kucinich

 

Explain yourself, Obama can't really do shit aside from foreign policy, congress needs to vote on everything else

 

VOTE,be active in goverment,write letters,make phone calls,make your voice heard that is what makes us a democracy.Too many people dont then sit around bitching.

 

obama rose 300 million dollars for his campaign.

it is said you need at least 25 million just to run for president.
unless you're already rich you join a political party to get support, to climb the ranks you need to play the game. the game being working with/for the interest groups to get them money.

once in a good spot you call in favors from those interest groups who have the dough to support you. when in that sweet spot you help the group get even more money which intern can either get you more money, or nice hold on your seat by having wealthy supporters and connects.

 

Obama raised MUCH more then $25 million, but so did McCain, hell I think Ron Paul got beyond $25 million just for the primary. This is an asinine excuse, we vote for people on the primaries. If they can't be bothered to spend 1 hour of their life on the internet looking up the policies of candidates on the internet that's a symptom of a much deeper societal problem

 

but you agree the country is no longer a democracy correct?

because of people's lazyness.

 

To a point, it is a democracy, but the great point about democracy for better or worse is you're not required to be informed or vote

 

What people have forgotten is, there's no such thing as democracy 'for better or for worse.' For a democracy to exist, people need to maintain it in that state by paying attention and, God forbid, giving a shit about what happens in their country. Entire wars have been fought for the right to do this, and when people have it they believe they have it 'for better or for worse' and stop caring about it.

There was a time when people realized that there were a lot of less-than-honest people who would love to lord over them if they had the chance -- this is why the activity of the citizens was stressed so heavily by the founding fathers of the United States. The people must be vigilant and defend their own freedom. Now we have a population who are totally oblivious to any threat to their freedom, assuming that government will always be there to protect them whether they keep tabs on its actions or not.

 

This is the key to unlocking more democratic and participatory government.

We have to ACT. All of us.

We all have to start talking about politics, because it's only way to mobilize action as a collective and change the society we live in. We can't just vote and go back to sitting on the couch.

Actual people can form their own interest groups, and they do everyday. It's happening everywhere that people are forming associations to represent themselves in face of what they hold true and value most.

 

The United States is not actually a democracy it's a Republic. We don't vote an actual issues we vote for people to do it for us. As culture is inherently corrupt in general holding a public office means you can do whatever you want until your ride of corruption ends. Votes may count but this is circumvented by the use of money which the majority don't have enough of. Look at all the groups and categorizations that there is in the world. This is "evidence" of the sheep mentality that the majority cannot overcome as individuals. People have to "join" a group because they can't discern what is right or wrong by themselves. They have to be told. The majority of the U.S population has to bargain from a point of weakness because we have caved in so many times before. "How much less will you take from us ;which is our's ,if we agree not go fight." Democracy is just a slogan to mislead the willing that the person with the "catch phrase" is on the highest moral ground. By using the mantra of "Democracy" in the U.S you are stating to the informed that you are indeed a liar with a purpose or are hopelessly lost in hegemony which is not much different. The solution for this is to protest and demonstrate but seeing as we and our ancestors have allowed the rich to put us on a leash;in more ways than one, this is not possible. It takes time and other resources to oppose a corrupt government and culture. It seems that students are the only ones that can change the statues quo because they are not reliant on the enslavers yet and have time on their hands. We work horrible jobs that we can't take time off from to protest because we can't afford to and can't risk losing it because our masters have shipped our futures overseas. It's like how Lenin caused famine in Russia to serve his purposes. The big physiological trap of "not being a good person" is impossible for Americans to grasp. Wealthy people feel that they deserve whatever they can get however they can get it. It is not based on "skill" what you are worth. It is based on how many people you control. We are suppose to look at the "Economic Gods and Goddesses" and think " if I was a winner I would not be going without." Wealth is not generally created, it is taken or moved. Your form of Government does not dictate the type of economy you have. It is possible to have a free market in a communist country. Free enterprise destroyed the banking system "Capitalism"and the people"Socialism" bought it out. Most teachers are wanna bees anyways. If they had any conviction in their ideals ,they would'nt need the security of people surrounding them that can't challenge them or face a failing grade. Try telling them to get off the public dime.

Government is Socialism. Libertarianism has no merit. Everything can't be privately owed. Take a ride on the privately owned thruway or take a shower with privately owned water sometime. How about privately owned Nukes? They do understand why the health system is corrupt though. Ron Paul is sometimes on "The Robert Scott Bell Show" and " The Thom Hartman Show" which are both worth listening to.

 

If individual votes weren't important so much money wouldn't be spent on advertising to gain them.

 

I think it has it's benefits and drawbacks.

On the one hand if what the lobby group is lobbying something that is generally beneficial to me or the majority of people - suck as certain tax breaks, health care reform or how the country is policed.
Then regardless of how much money they throw at it, it isn't a bad thing.
IMO, some people seem to call the "good" lobbying "Grass roots activism"...it's so quaint isn't it?
It's still lobbying, though.

On the other hand, the drawback might be that the more money you have the more influence you have, because you can employ more people to make noise. etc...but not all rich lobby groups are evil incarnate, IMO.

As long as their are fair rules applied to lobbying...I think it is quite a good thing.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/35726302/Obama-apes-UK-lobby-law

The article discusses the similarity between the U.S. and Great Britain when it comes to regulation of lobbyists, according to the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC). In November 2008, U.S. president-elect Barack Obama pledged to curb the influence of lobbyists with new guidelines. Under new rules, anyone who works on the transition and then becomes a lobbyist will be barred from approaching the administration for one year in the area in which they worked. APPC chair Robbie MacDuff explains this is synonymous with British rules.


United Kingdom
Main article: Lobbying in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom lobbying traditionally referred to the attempt to influence an MP's vote by either their fellow parliamentary colleagues, by one of their constituents or by any outside organisation. Currently the term often refers to the more narrow usage of the operation of "lobbyists" hired to represent the views of an organisation, though "there is no neat way of defining what is generally acknowledged to be a porous concept." The professional lobbying industry has been steadily growing in recent years and was estimated by the Hansard Society in 2007 to be worth £1.9 billion and employ 14,000 people. Their report also suggested that some MPs are approached over 100 times a week by lobbyists.
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee held an investigation into lobbying, and its 2009 report called for "a statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests." It also concluded that the self-regulation of the professional lobbying industry was "fragmented" and appeared to "involve very little regulation of any substance".
There are two self-regulatory bodies which UK public affairs companies can join - the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) - and also the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) which registers individual lobbyists.
In addition to "open" lobbying, the United Kingdom, political parties have been accused of trying to raise campaign funds by offering peerages and other honors. Since peers sit in the House of Lords, part of the UK legislature, they are in a position to initiate or amend Bills on their way to becoming Acts of Parliament - a very influential position. The rules of Parliament do, however, require participants in debates to 'declare their interest'. The 'sale' of peerages is a criminal offence. To circumvent this law, it is alleged that some contributions thus solicited, are given not as outright gifts but as loans. These issues were also the focus of a Public Administration Select Committee investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#United_Kingdom

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/lobbyingdisc.htm



If people don't lobby, we are at the mercy of what "they" want.
Atleast things do change sometimes when people lobby.

 

Kinda sorta. The U.S. federal government was basically constructed to free us from England's control and give the U.S. money interest control. The banking system, federal gvt. size. I don't know if it's quite fascism, but democracy doesn't work for idiots either.

 

LOL @ government is socialism comment. Society is socialism, man. Hell, families are socialism. Too funny.