Friendly reminder: The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, NOT a direct democracy

a reply to: GodEmperor

Sometimes "stupid" people are very wise.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Phage

Depends on who the one man is.

I would hope a million people with 200 IQ are wiser than one man with IQ 80.... I would hope...

In certain contexts, you mean when the United States is taking your money, they are a corporation.

You are conflating intelligence with wisdom.

No. The United States is not a corporation. There are entities within the government which are.
archive.law.fsu.edu...

a reply to: Phage

When political leadership and upper level corporate management play musical chairs. Do we really need to make a distinction?

Yea, yea, SOE what?

a reply to: onequestion

representative democracy

A Democracy is representative by definition.
Our type of government was never meant to be any form of Democracy.
The type of government we have is termed a controlled Republic.

Democracy - pure popular vote wins. No matter what. So if 3 people voted on whether or not to burn ol John at the stake and 2 voted for , poor John just had a bad day

Controlled Republic - nearly the same as a Democracy , but with someone to rule over poor John's dilemma

Peace.

a reply to: Gothmog

We do in fact have democratically elected officials.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: GodEmperor

Sometimes "stupid" people are very wise.

Not according to our current system. If it were the case, why would we have such need for an electoral college?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gothmog

We do in fact have democratically elected officials.

Yes . With the delegates to oversee and elect. Remember , it is not the people's vote that decides in the end. The popular vote does count for the most part, but the delegates decide.
Peace

a reply to: Gothmog

Only the President and Vice President are elected by the electoral college.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Sometimes being the operative word.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Only the President and Vice President are elected by the electoral college.

The Presidential candidates are nominated in the same process. And I do not recall mentioning any other office as those are the 2 highest in the land. Thus the electoral college.And the VP is not elected by the electoral college. Only the President. Matters not who is running for VP

Forgot: Even in local elections , candidates have a right to appeal with the State Board of Elections for them to review the legitimacy of the elections .

a reply to: Gothmog

They are nominated by the party

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: amazing

I am 200% against a direct democracy.

In fact the only thing i think that can truly work is a constitutionally enforced dictatorship ruled by a mythical archetypal king figure whos good and honest.

Thats besides the point and irrelevant to our world because it doesnt and cant exist, so this is the best weve got.

Why would you be against a direct democracy? It would be so much better than the convoluted system that we have now that is so easy to hijack with money and shady tactics? A direct democracy would also make it easier to have third and fourth parties on the ballots.

a reply to: amazing

Not a chance in he'll I trust the average person to know what their doing or to protect my rights.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Well,

Potentially one man can be wiser than a million more often than 1 million can be wiser than the man right?

Who would you bet on after your knowledge of history and the (assuming) 50+ years of experience with humans?

Not always.

The one man is going to have many preconceived notions and have no more knowledge/judgment than what he was personally taught. In many (most) areas of knowledge that individual is going to have a below average understanding of the field while the million are going to possess an average level of understanding on everything.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gothmog

They are nominated by the party

Not to be the Presidential candidate. To run in the primaries , yes.

originally posted by: amazing
Why would you be against a direct democracy? It would be so much better than the convoluted system that we have now that is so easy to hijack with money and shady tactics? A direct democracy would also make it easier to have third and fourth parties on the ballots.

Because a population only has an average level understanding of any given issue, and the average understanding tends to be pretty low. Just look through this thread at the average understanding of our government system, there's 3 pages so far where every single person has a different understanding of what our system is supposed to be. The same is true on every single issue you come up with.

Direct democracy is prone to people voting on issues without actually understanding the details of those issues or how the systems work. That in turn leads to massive inefficiencies and ultimately failure. Do you think English teachers are as qualified to give input on digital copyright law as lawyers or that the truck driver who uses online banking is as qualified to make decisions on internet connectivity and encryption as a software engineer? Or to flip that around, that the software engineer will best understand the logistics of a particular regulation on the trucking industry like not being able to pull to the roadside to sleep?

Both 1 man and a million are unqualified to make decisions. Who is qualified is a smaller group of people who are large enough to cover each others prejudices while still being small enough to be efficiently briefed by experts on a subject.

Not to be overly technical, but actually the United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy. The "federal" part is one of three basic types of organization of power — unitary, confederal, and federal. Most nations are unitary in nature (local government with a powerful national government).

a reply to: Kali74

Sometimes, you just don't need a second line...

a reply to: onequestion

Two things.

First, wouldn't a "constitutionally enforced" dictatorship by its own design negate the role of a dictator, for the constitution would truly be the dictator?

If you can agree with me there, then how can you argue that is not essentially what is already in play in America? You may not like it, but we are at this point, essentially doing what you are suggesting, you just don't like the outcome. I get the feeling from your previous posts and avatar that you find yourself clever, and have a feeling that you think you would be just fine as a dictator, because you'd be all lovey dovey yet firm. So you don't really want what you say, you want to project yourself onto, well, everyone...

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You are completely correct.

He is in fact not correct.

I already said we dont have a direct democracy we have a representative democracy.

This is part of the problem right here.

You obviously don't know how the US government works.

The democratic portion of our country simply provides guidance for electors to determine our governmental leadership.

Currently they are not bound in any way shape or form (other than maybe a fine equivalent to a speeding ticket) to follow the votes of the populace.