The two party system

Not true.


Democracy is rule bythe people, FOR the people.


The form of government in the United States is anything BUT a democracy.

 

In theory it's not a bad idea, it's just for such a large country representatives should be responsible to their constituents only, locally it wouldn't work and nationally it couldn't work either, even in our current 2 party system, the parties themselves are very localized in each state. Say a party got 10% of the vote across the entire country, who exactly would their people in congress be recognizing? Our entire system works on a very localized system of government

 

As for democracy, there's a reason we're not a full democracy and we're a democratic republic, because it seems good in theory to have full democracy until the angry mob forms.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, liberty is 2 wolves and a well armed sheep deciding what to have for dinner

 

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says anything about the US being a democracy. As far as I know, the word democracy is not even mentioned.

It is a common misconception that the words republic and democracy are interchangeable, but they're not. If you break the word democracy down into two parts, it translates to mob rule. In a democracy, a 51 percent majority has the power to enslave the 49 percent minority. However, under a constitutional republican form of government, elected officials are held accountable for their actions according to the document called the Constitution.

Today, children are brainwashed from a young age to believe the US is supposed to be a democracy, and that democracy is a GOOD thing. Democracy marks the middle point between freedom and socialist totalitarianism.

Free nations often start out as republics, the stealthfully become democracies, then socialist democracies, then socialist states, ultimately resulting in communism/fascism.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say the US is a "democratic republic"? The answer is nowhere does it say that. The term "democratic republic" was used as the official title of many Marxist states during the Cold War. The US is a constitutional republic, or rather it is supposed to be. There is a big difference between a constitutional republic and a "democratic republic"; a term that does not even make sense because the two words contradict one another when properly defined.

 

We're a democratic republic in practice, not name. The constitution provides for a republic with elected officials where the people are sovereign, we're a democratic republic


Unless you believe all elections are a fixed outcome to begin with

 

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

 

The first sentence is a run-on.

You could always opt for a the Single Transferable Vote system to balance the local, federal, and wasted ballots out evenly to make it more fair.

 

Rat once jumps up to promote and defend the influence and power of wealth.

The US constitution doesn’t talk about democracy because it was intended to protect the interest of the white property owning classes and has been relatively good at it.

The only potential drawback to that power has been the extension of the voting rights, but they have been very astute in manipulating the system due in large part to the influence that private money has been allowed to play within the US political system.

But wealth always fears that it might lose its grip on the system and the masses might vote more in their own interests and for left wing distributive and equitable policies.

That is why many right wingers like Rat and the John Birch Society are always screeching loudly that any left wing turn inevitably leads to a communist tyranny.

Although they never seem able to defend that view in any rational way.

 

Why is it that so many people seem to think that slogans can take the place of open and honest discussion?

This from wiki

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin


Hell yet another right wing libertarian pushing the right wing political agenda.

 

The thing is that human beings are not unthinking animals the wolves wouldn’t ‘decide’ anything they’d just eat the lamb.

Human on the other hand can decide and have had some 5000 years of political thought to fall back on to decide the best means to protect the rights of individuals and groups within a democratic system.

There are some people that want to exploit, dominate and hurt others but one of the best ways to ward against that is to have democratically elected governments to bring in laws that limit or stop such things.

It’s not perfect but then few things man made are.

 

Then why not focus the attention on modifying the electoral college function on a state level. I waited and watched after Bush's first election to see if there would be any modifications. It dropped off the radar.

 

Notice how I never said it was Franklin, because there's no evidence it was, it doesn't change the fact the metaphor is true

 

Mad

in what way?

as i've already said

 

You guys are lookin at the problem the wrong way. Ideally we should not have a party system at all, it should be solely comprised of individuals.

The party system is a tool which is pretty much solely used to funnel money to individuals which other individuals (within the America) want in the spotlight. There are so many conflicting individuals within a party that it's foolish to say that Democrats/Republics can umbrella these politicians.

Really, we have to ask why money plays such a giant role in politics in the first place, and why we think in "Democrat/Republican" when really money dominates who they nominate.

 

That is exactly what the problem is. But those that advocate the two party system will scream class warfare if you mention it too loudly. But in essence the two party system protects only one class at the expense of the others.

 

I think we should all register independent and keep them guessing. Or perhaps there should be an automatic universal registration of all legal US citizens with no blank for party affiliation. That would put fears of Acorn type activities to bed. With today's computer technology I don't know why this wouldn't work. Like 18 year old males receiving draft cards. On your 18th birthday you receive a voter registration card with a postage paid return envelope. Just to verify you exist. Would also add to the juror pool.

 

So what has changed? Are you saying the ruling elite have somehow become more humane and actually care about the little guy? Are you saying that somehow the corporate interests that control the government WANT democracy because it's in the people's best interests? Please explain yourself.

Why did the "elite" back then not favor democracy, but today they do, during a time when corporations run the world and control governments to meet their ends?

I am not a fan of the founding fathers, most of them were Freemasons operating with ulterior agenda. I am simply pointing out the consistent direction in which things have been moving, and the further we move in this direction, the more tyrannical things become.

America went from being a relatively free country to a fascist country run by corporate interests and central bankers.

 

The point is you can't have democracy alone without liberty and justice, pure democracy is mob rule, and populist spur of the moment actions by a slight majority can lay havoc, hence why we have a protect minority

 

.