In modern usage outside the US, Madison's "democracy" is a direct democracy, the likes of which have not really been seen since the Athenian republic

Well, there is the people's republik of California, where ballot propositions are the rule and not the exception. And you see how well it has worked to have direct democracy.

---

In modern usage outside the US, Madison's "democracy" is a direct democracy, the likes of which have not really been seen since the Athenian republic

Well, there is the people's republik of California, where ballot propositions are the rule and not the exception. And you see how well it has worked to have direct democracy.

Indeed, though the Athenians would likely not recognize California as a democracy, as much as Madison wouldn't recognize it as following his idea of a "republic".

To the best of my knowledge, a place where "[w]hen an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules" has never existed. It certainly did not exist in ancient Athens, and it does not exist today in California.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

To the best of my knowledge, a place where "[w]hen an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules" has never existed. It certainly did not exist in ancient Athens, and it does not exist today in California.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is one that almost the entire population, more than 99%, are voting.

I use not to post here in Politics.

But by means of the system currrently being found in the United States, a President is supposed to be elected by means of a vote by the current people by means of a poll.

The U.S. Congress with its legislative part (the House) is doing most of the regular paperwork.

Only senior members of Congress become selected to be able to make important or major decisions by means of being a member of the U.S. Senate.

If I am not wrong, a President might lose his office by means of a majority resolution being made by the U.S. Senate. This is not something that is for the U.S. Supreme Court to make any decisions about.

But enough of that.

One thing I take notice of here locally are a couple of things which makes up a bit of a nuisance.

One such thing is the small pennant, emblem, badge or the like which is present when making a visit by means of the web at the Prime Minister of my own country.

For some reason this dragon or maybe tiger(s) represents some kind of over-valuated, keyed or overrated when it comes to certain things when it comes to thinking or attitude.

By the way, even the Prime Minister is below the King in rank, which makes my country being a Constitutional Democracy.

Using translate.google.com I have some problems finding the best word of choice when it comes to explaining.

Definitely it is stylish, but do these symbols represent the way Government is supposed to be working?

At least when it comes to a Democracy, or even a Constitutional Democracy, which I do not think the United States is by means of its legislation or jurisdiction.

Many countries in the world are not democracies. These countries are not necessarily being ruled by dictators or tyrants, making them slightly less bad than they could have been.

A couple of days ago there was a broadcast from the U.S. Congress. Was it that celebration day perhaps?

Who was making the speech? In fact I have forgotten this thing.

This because I only took notice of the two Leaders of the Congress sitting behind, side by side. At least it was not the U.S. President this time making the speech.

In the end leadership is supposed to be carried out from the top to the bottom.

For every level downwards there is supposed to be a leader or leaders.

In the end such a thing most likely makes thinking, possibly constructive thingking possible and in such a way avoiding a single entity by means of a single person who chooses to carry out things in his or her own way which may not always be beneficial to others.

Whether or not being a democracy, even a dictatorship or a regime being ruled by an authoritarian is supposed to be having its laws, in fact more so than less.

Perhaps we should not forget about those anarchies either.

To the best of my knowledge, a place where "[w]hen an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules" has never existed. It certainly did not exist in ancient Athens, and it does not exist today in California.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is one that almost the entire population, more than 99%, are voting.

Eligible to vote <> entire population.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

To the best of my knowledge, a place where "[w]hen an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules" has never existed. It certainly did not exist in ancient Athens, and it does not exist today in California.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is one that almost the entire population, more than 99%, are voting.

Eligible to vote <> entire population.

True.
Children are not eligible to vote and makes about one of six of the population.
I was more thinking of turnouts
That North Korea has those high turnouts in elections are silly.
Even the name including Democratic and Republic is silly.
However the meaning of Democracy and Republic means different in all countries.
On the other hand many eligible voters don't care to vote.
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231
Compare that to this.
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=SE

To the best of my knowledge, a place where "[w]hen an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules" has never existed. It certainly did not exist in ancient Athens, and it does not exist today in California.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is one that almost the entire population, more than 99%, are voting.

Yes in some places if you don't vote the secret police will come and have a visit with you to determine why your didn't vote.

---

Should correct myself here.

One of the sentences or paragraphs became not the best one. I will leave it as it is, however.

But when saying "jurisdiction", I really meant to say "judicial", by trying to make a distinction between the Legislative and the Judicial branch which I am correcting for right now and most importantly, the Executive branch of the Federal Government of the United States by means of the President.

Also not to forget all those friendly people around most at the time.

Always an exception to such a thing of course, but at least family matters should not be the same thing as the way politics in real life is supposed to be carried out.

Clyde you're 1 of those with the "primitive beliefs" (as you keep proving to the rest of us time and again) and as for "mob rule" you're also 1 of those that are building the foundation base for such a scenario to happen.

Wiggo...

Are you 'taking back' your previous Post?

Also a very much outdated 18th century piece of toilet paper that really has no relevance whatsoever in the 21st century and especially so with the advances in technology that have been made since it was written, but hardline fossils who would like to live in the past still take it word for word sadly. :-(

1st Amendment is "toilet paper"?

Hi Clyde,

Really lets one know what they think of Freedom and Liberty, doesn't it?

Wiggo wrote:

outdated 18th century piece of toilet paper

Wiggo wrote:

hardline fossils...
live in the past...
take it word for word...

Sigh...

Why did we even bother saving their butts from Fascist (and other) authoritarians back in WWII and the Cold War?

Why did we even bother saving their butts from Fascist (and other) authoritarians back in WWII and the Cold War?

Because we want the raw materials ...

---

To the best of my knowledge, a place where "[w]hen an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules" has never existed. It certainly did not exist in ancient Athens, and it does not exist today in California.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is one that almost the entire population, more than 99%, are voting.

Eligible to vote <> entire population.

True.
Children are not eligible to vote and makes about one of six of the population

Indeed, there may be a nation where there aren't minimum age requirements for eligibility to vote, though if such a nation exists, I'm unaware of it. There are usually other requirements, for instance, in Athens groups excluded from participation in the "democracy" included women and slaves, and it's more than the under age that are excluded in California:

To register to vote in California, you must be:

A United States citizen,
A resident of California,
18 years of age or older on Election Day,
Not currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony (for more information on the rights of people who have been incarcerated, please see the Secretary of State's Voting Rights for Californians with Criminal Convictions or Detained in Jail or Prison), and
Not found by a court to be mentally incompetent.

(source).

Note, none of the above should be understood as advocacy of voting rights for minors/felons/mentally incompetent/etc, it's merely to show that democracies, modern and ancient, do not include "the entire population".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Hi Clyde,

Really lets one know what they think of Freedom and Liberty, doesn't it?

Is it inconceivable that one could simultaneously have negative views of the two documents and positive views of the two ideas? Or, do you believe that the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are universally synonymous with Freedom and Liberty?

Wiggo wrote:

outdated 18th century piece of toilet paper

Wiggo wrote:

hardline fossils...
live in the past...
take it word for word...

Sigh...

Why did we even bother saving their butts from Fascist (and other) authoritarians back in WWII and the Cold War?

Perhaps to avoid the stars and stripes flying over the Capitol being replaced by a swastika or hammer and sickle? Though that's likely a topic for a different thread.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Why did we even bother saving their butts from Fascist (and other) authoritarians back in WWII and the Cold War?

Now that coming from a country that tried to use us as "canon fodder"?

Maybe you should go back and read what actually happened and not that garbage that your illustrious leaders wished you to believe. ;-)

And you people wonder why most of the civilised world does not want your country as "the world's police force".

No one plans on going down the tube with yous. :-p

Cheers.

[Bringing this Thread back on track...]

The US Government, under The Constitution, is a Republic:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

John Witherspoon, signer - “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal text - “It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

Benjamin Rush, signer - “ a simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.”

John Quincy Adams - “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”

Noah Webster - “In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

James Madison - “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams - “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the First Amendment - “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty !! NOTE … look at today’s sexual freedoms.

Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the Constitution - “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate … as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism … Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt.”

Samuel Adams – “… it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds …”

---------------------------------------------

As stated by the signers, we are governed by Rule of Law.


TL

If democracy is disordered, confused, evil, unstable, fluctuating, short-lived, tumultuous, disordered, very bad, tyrannical, turbulent, contentious and licentious, why has it been one of the central tenets of the foreign policy of the United States for a very long time?

---

If democracy is disordered, confused, evil, unstable, fluctuating, short-lived, tumultuous, disordered, very bad, tyrannical, turbulent, contentious and licentious, why has it been one of the central tenets of the foreign policy of the United States for a very long time?

US diplomacy in action?

When historians write about U.S. foreign policy at the end of the 20th century, they will identify the growth of democracy--from 30 countries in 1974 to 117 today--as one of the United States' greatest legacies.

I didn't know that it is the US to thank that we have many more democracies today.

The Law, by Fredriak Bastiat

After you've read that - not until then - can we talk about nuances of various political thought.

That's what I think. It is my thought that Sarge is absolutely necessary for my authority. Without that, anarchy will prevail.

The Law, by Fredriak Bastiat

After you've read that - not until then - can we talk about nuances of various political thought.

That's what I think. It is my thought that Sarge is absolutely necessary for my authority. Without that, anarchy will prevail.

For those that are interested in reading this, here's a translation into English. Should be of interest to those who want to understand the foundations of libertarian thought.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The Law, by Fredriak Bastiat

After you've read that - not until then - can we talk about nuances of various political thought.

That's what I think. It is my thought that Sarge is absolutely necessary for my authority. Without that, anarchy will prevail.

For those that are interested in reading this, here's a translation into English. Should be of interest to those who want to understand the foundations of libertarian thought.

Well that wasn't enlightening at all as by the 2nd reference to "God" I wanted to go to sleep. :-O

though I may use that tonight if I can't get to sleep

If a person can't live in a mostly peaceful civilisation without "divine intervention" or determine their own course in life for the future without it, then we are damn forever to live in a society that doesn't progress. :-(

Git out of here!

That's just rubbish and all copies deserve to be sent to the recyclers IMHO (whether anyone cares). ;-)

Cheers.

I was always taught that the USA is a democratic republic, whatever that is. I now read that it is more properly defined as a federal republic. All I know is that I, for one, am glad I grew up and lived here all my life.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I was always taught that the USA is a democratic republic, whatever that is. I now read that it is more properly defined as a federal republic. All I know is that I, for one, am glad I grew up and lived here all my life.

That's what the CIA World Book says:

constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

(source)

Interestingly, for Germany it simply has "federal republic", while Bosnia and Herzegovina "federal democratic republic".

Greenland gets "parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy", while the United Kingdom has "constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm" and Australia "federal parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm".

Perhaps the world book is in need of some updates, as the labels don't appear to be consistently applied.

Perhaps also interesting in the context of this thread are the CIA's definitions of democracy and republic:

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.
[...]
Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

(source)
Isn't "supreme power" retained by the people in the US (how does the US Constitution start?).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...