25 replies to this topic

[amit nigam]

When Mr. George Bush was elected for the first term, he won by a very thin majority, which had to be decided through court. That means that almost 50% of american population was not in his favor. [though he is one of my favorite president].

In my country India where there is a multiparty system, where hundreds of parties fight in the general election and then form a coalition government and which has been called true democracy by many world leaders, there is a great irony.

The country which is the largest democracy and also given the stamp of true democracy by the world is run by a party which got approximately 25% of the total votes. To add to this, many of the parties with which it is forming a coalition government are those against whom they have fought tooth and nail during elections and called them corrupt and so many other things. And still, while in coalition at centre, whenever there are state elections they fight against each other.

So in both cases we have seen that a party which does not have support of more than 50% of the population is running the country. Apart from that there are so many ambiguities in the system.

So how can democracy be the true solution. Though I m totally against authoratarian rule and i believe that at present democracy is the best bet. But the question is, can we devise a better mechanism.

I think something of the sort that is used in UN security council and other places like NSG group can be a solution though it will be very difficult to apply. There every person is important and no decision can be passed without approval of all.

What do u guys think?????

Edited by amit nigam, 20 May 2006 - 08:33 AM.

[trace-uk]

India has a parlamentary system of democracy like the UK (for obvious reasons). Any country that has a prime minister will have the same system.

But yes, democracy has to be the best way for the people to oust a government and install a new one without bloodshed.

[Tetraca]

The USA is not a Democracy, and never was. The USA is a republic like Rome. A true democracy is like one in ancient greece - everyone votes for the laws - not some representatives. I personally believe that actual democacy would be better than having a republic.

In the USA, we don't have a true Democracy. A true democracy is where all people vote on laws and not just a parliment or congress. That is called a republic. I don't really like the system of the republic, and I believe that we should have more of a real democracy.

Edited by Tetraca, 20 May 2006 - 11:58 AM.

[amit nigam]

i totally support u tetraca.

wat i think that on contentious issues on which there are less than 75-80% support from the elected representatives there must be a public voting .

but it will be very costly and i think impracticle.

[jlhaslip]

tetraca,
The USA is considered a "Democracy" by virtue of the fact that individual citizens are allowed to vote and elect their representatives regardless of their status other than being a citizen of the US. For instance, once upon a time, only Landowners were given the vote, now the vote is given to citizens regardless of whether they own land or not.
As for being a Republic, that has to do with the relationship between the member states and the Federal Government. Here in Canada, we are a Dominion. Same net effect. A collection of "States" or a collection of "Provinces", both are Democracies.
Other differences between the US and Canadian systems are the Nature of the "Senates". Yours are elected based on State representation (2 per State), ours are appointed by the Government in Power at the time a vacancy occurs and not based on Provincial representation. And of course, we have the inclusion of a Queen as represented by the Governor-General as the top figurehead, but that is another Topic.

[Tetraca]

amit nigam, on May 20 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

i totally support u tetraca.

wat i think that on contentious issues on which there are less than 75-80% support from the elected representatives there must be a public voting .

but it will be very costly and i think impracticle.

Yes. It would be very impractical with the amount of people in the US Alone. Even if we did it though modern technology it'd be hard to manufacture enough of a device that could send a vote from thousands of miles away. In a smaller and righer country like say luxembourg it'd be practical though.

[True2Earn]

I am 100% against democracy. Why? You can read about the differences between a democracy and a republic HERE. It is very informative and eye-opening to those that don't really understand the difference. In a nutshell, the difference between a democracy and a republican form of government is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Democracy is mob rules. Even Thomas Jefferson was against this form of government.

Quote

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
~Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
~Thomas Jefferson

Even the U.S. Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government, not a democracy.

Quote

United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The founding father of the United States of America understood that a Republican form of government would protect the individual rights and not the whim of the majority. Their belief was every human had personal sovereignity and Rights that were granted by God. As God is the highest authority, these God-given Rights could not be taken away by governments.

But, of course, this is happening now. One question I have is "If a God-given Right cannot be taken away or controlled by government, why do I have to be licensed to exercise some of them? Why is the government refusing to comply with the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution?" The American government has become too oppressive and is slowly taking away the Rights of The People. That is why I am a named Plantiff on the Landmark Case (USDC Case # 04CV01211) We The People, et al v. United States. You will see my name, Bryan K Reinhart, on page 26 of the Complaint. The lawsuit against the government is because the federal government is committing wrongful, unconstitutional acts resulting in injuries, loss and damage to millions of American citizens. You can find out more about the Fight to restore the Rights to the American people at the We The People Foundation.

Edited by True2Earn, 20 May 2006 - 07:58 PM.

[scotty_knows]

I believe that all people should have tha chance to vote in everything. States argue about their representation as a state, but the states are representing the people. Why can't people represent theirselves? Are they unworthy? Adults who vote in elections sometimes don't even know anything. There should be a test about the information about the current election, and then anybody who passes (Just because some people are younger, doesn't mean they don't know anything) should be allowed to vote. And not just in elections either.

[Tetraca]

If the Republic is to succeeed, you need a person with a nuetral opinion who would only base the decision on the pros and cons of each option. We should get rid of this Liberal/Conservative Democrat/Republican junk and get people who can make decisions without going in circles.

[jlhaslip]

Well, a little research here and it seems that the Dominion of Canada would probably best be described as a Republic, too.
The distinction between a Democracy and a Republic being : that the rights of Individuals are protected by a Constitution, in a written form, which limits the power of a democratically elected Government against violating the inalienable rights of Individuals in a Republic.
The Democracy as practiced here in Canada being a representative form of Democracy similar to the United States by virtue of the process of electing our constituency representatives. One difference between the US and Canada is that you must hold your Federal Elections on a regularly schedule basis every 4 years. In Canada, the Federal Elections must be held no later than every 5 years, or when there is an absence of confidence in the Government or when the Government feels it is politically expedient (ie: when they think they are certain of a victory).


Definition : Dominion - one of the self-governing nations in the British Commonwealth;
body politic, nation, res publica, commonwealth, country, state, land - a politically organized body of people under a single government;
Source : The Free Dictionary

Definition : Republic - The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
Source : Your Reference

Using these definitions, Canada is both a Dominion (as a political entity within the British Commonwealth of Nations) and a Republic ( as per the Definition above, having a Constitution protecting the rights of Minorities)

Point being: now that I have done this research, I agree that the "republican" form of Government is better. A Government elected by the Majority with limits on its powers which protect the rights of Minorities.