View Single Post
Old September 3 2012, 12:59 AM   #153
Sci's Avatar
Location: Montgomery County, State of Maryland
Re: Is the Federation a True Democracy? And How Did It Reach That Poin

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
The debate over the merits of the Electoral College seems to me to hinge on whether one believes Bush stole the elections, regardless of it being called non-democratic by some here.
Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to hold a strong conviction about something without it being all about partisan gain. Do I view Bush's victory in 2000 as morally illegitimate? Yes. And I would argue just as passionately that Rutherford B. Hayes's victory in 1876, Benjamin Harrison's victory in 1888, and John Quincy Adams's victory in 1824, were morally illegitimate. I don't care if we're talking Bush versus Gore, I don't care if we're talking about Hayes vs. Tilden, I don't care if we're talking about Harrison vs. Cleveland, I don't care if we're talking about Adams vs. Jackson. (And I view Andrew Jackson as an American Hitler, mind you.)

I do not recognize the moral right of any group of elites -- even members of the United States Electoral College -- to give office to a head of government who has not been chosen democratically by a majority of the voters in a system of universal suffrage. Any such decision is morally illegitimate, and any such system is morally illegitimate.

But the US is not a one-man-one-vote-for-president type of Democracy.
Yes, we have established this. The question is whether or not it ought to be. Appeal to authority is an invalid argument.

It is a Democratic REPUBLIC. Is a Republic thus non-democratic by it's nature?
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the word "republic." A republic is merely a sovereign state which is not headed by a monarch. A republic may be democratic or it may be autocratic; it may be free, or it may be tyrannical. Hitler's Germany was as much a republic as Mandela's South Africa. "Republic," in other words, is a mostly meaningless categorization.

How does one prevent mob rule,
I hear about this concern a lot. What exactly constitutes "mob rule?"

and protect smaller representative groups' rights?
That's a very broad topic. Off the top of my head, things like affirmative action come to mind. In general, legislation can be passed to work to protect minorities' rights. But in the meantime, the rights of the minority do not include picking the President for everyone else, and the right of all citizens to an equal voice in choosing the only nationally-elected offices -- the President and Vice President -- is paramount.

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
So what National constitutions have express limitations of the powers of the Government in their Constitutions?

Could you educate me by naming names here?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the Constitution of Canada comes to mind. Title II of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. The Constitution of the French Republic. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Section VII of the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. The Constitution of Ireland. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. The Constitution of Sweden. The Constitution of the Argentine Nation. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. And there are more.
Democratic socialism is the hope of human freedom.
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote