America: A Democracy?

omnicorp

If a candidate can get most of the people to vote for him and lose, is that a democracy?
This is what happened to Al Gore in the 2000 election against George Bush where Al Gore got most of the popular vote BUT George Bush "won" through the Electoral College system where each state has a number of votes depending on its population AND ono for each senator in the US senate.

After years of the USA prancing about "spreading democracy" it turns out that their political system isn't really democratic.
Anyone else shocked and horrified at their Hippocritical attitude?

I feel a new Yam-Man Comic coming...

America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free
America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free
America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free
America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free
America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free
America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free
America: Land of the Free America: Land of the Free

tuxy

can someone ban this clown please

RE*AC*TOR

omnicorp - spare us the fúcking Yam-Man shíte.

bobbyjoe

Anyone else shocked and horrified at their Hippocritical attitude?

Your only finding this out now?

The electoral college is supposed to stop the larger states having all the power and to spread it a bit.

Agree with you its a bit sh1te,
That and having to have 500 million dollars to even think about running
oh yeah and the fact that there are only really two parties,
and that their both pretty much the same
and, and , and

FatherTed

Your are so fucking stupid. The US has a thing called the "Constitution" and this says is how it is done.

Isnt it also possible for a party like Fianna Fail to get 51% of the votes and still lose the election? So I guess Ireland is not a democracy too, right?

secret_squirrel

He does make a good point though - I remember being completely shocked when I read about the whole 'democratic' election process in the states. How can anything involving the college of electors be part of a demoncratic process? The american system is about as democratic as the democracy that originated with the ancient greeks.

RE*AC*TOR

This is nonsense - America isn't a country like Ireland. It would be more atune to some future EU state. All the individual states have certain rights of government, and at different points in history signed up to the states etc. For the most part the states with the most EC points have the biggest population - so its not grossly undemocratic. If you want to point out undemocratic institutions - look at thje House of Lords in the UK, the Irish Senate (or for that matter the unchallenged irish presidential reelection).

ionapaul

How can any system involving unelected and appointed senate members be democratic? How can any system allowing candidates who received LESS first preference votes than others yet are elected before them be democratic? How can any system that allows the head of the government be chosen by the votes of other politicians, rather than the votes of the electorate, be democratic? (anyone remember voting for or against Bertie for Taoiseach? nope) How how how? Don't kid yourself that we have any greater claim to democracy than the Americans - we don't.

bobbyjoe

A bit about it

here
and
Wikpedia

DadaKopf

It depends how you define democracy. If by democracy you mean "rule by the people" then, no, it's not. If, on the other hand, you mean "the occasional exchange of elites decided through periodic elections by people who mostly don't know what the hell's going on and they don't care, which is then decided by an electoral college which decides the election on the basis of how many republican or democrat senators there are in the country", then it's a democracy.

I don't think it's a democracy.

RE*AC*TOR

DadaKopf wrote:

It depends how you define democracy. If by democracy you mean "rule by the people" then, no, it's not. If, on the other hand, you mean "the occasional exchange of elites decided through periodic elections by people who mostly don't know what the hell's going on and they don't care", then it's a democracy.

I don't think it's a democracy.

The people have the choice, however, to vote for a third party. There are actually several parites with Presidential candidates, independent, green, libertarian etc etc. The people do ultimately choose the president, the senators, the governors etc so it IS a democracy. In practice only 1 governor is an independent, every other office is filled by a Republican or Democrat may seem to be a closed shop system, but it is one that was voted for (repeatedly) by the American people.

secret_squirrel

So far you've all failed to address the point that I made which was the electoral college system is fundamentally undemocratic in that 5-50 people in a state can completely overrule the wishes of the people in that state. As mentioned by Dadakopft it was designed for the elite to keep power in the event that they didnt like the result of an election. And arguably instead of acting in the interests of democracy in florida the last time round the electoral college prevented democracy from taking its course.

TBH I dont see whether any other democracy deserves its name is relevant.

aidan_walsh

Somehow, I tend to ignore 13 year olds when they try to lecture me on politics... Come back when you know what you're talking about, kid...

RE*AC*TOR

secret_squirrel wrote:

So far you've all failed to address the point that I made which was the electoral college system is fundamentally undemocratic in that 5-50 people in a state can completely overrule the wishes of the people in that state.

If 5-50 more people in that state vote for a particular candidate, that strikes me as being democratic. Its like segementing a pie. You see which president each slice like best and assign points to the slices based on polulation based. Based on the results of each 10-year census, the 50 states are rewarded one electoral vote for each of their Congressional districts. In a pie as big as America, this is a convenient way of spreading the workload.

secret_squirrel wrote:

As mentioned by Dadakopft it was designed for the elite to keep power in the event that they didnt like the result of an election. And arguably instead of acting in the interests of democracy in florida the last time round the electoral college prevented democracy from taking its course.

Dadakopft suggested that the electoral college system has resulted in a system where the elite control the power. He never said it was designed for this purpose. I don't disagree that the current system is effectively closed, but the people have the power to change that if they want to.

secret_squirrel wrote:

TBH I dont see whether any other democracy deserves its name is relevant.

I was merely suggesting that compared to other so-called democracies the american system is well-developed. It has become an easy target for people to criticise ........... TBH

johnKarma

Good god, I hate these electoral college discussions.

People adopt such dogmatic definitions of "democracy" that the discussion becomes meaningless.

Democracy is a vague term. Here are only five possible definitions of democracy from dictionary.com:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Note that majority rule is only one possible definition.

America _is_ a democracy by any world standard. There are multiple levels of democratic government in the US, starting at regional levels up through the State executives and legislatures to the Federal Government.

The United States as a whole and each State individually are free to choose the exact rules of their democracies as they see fit. Just as we are. No system of democracy is perfect, and it's very easy to criticise another country's system from afar. Even within europe there are multiple variations upon the themes of presidential, parliamentary, federal, and direct democracy. The central theme is that the people consent to the sytem within the constitutional framework. No one is in a better position to assess the fairness of the US Constitution than the American people themselves.

The United States chose the Electoral College system to ensure the unity of their republic, just as they chose to delicately balance the role of the federal institutions and the States. If it were not for the Electoral College System, large swathes of the population might well go unlistened to during the federal election season. For the very same reason Ireland, along with all the other small states in the European Union, has a disproportionately important say in the goings-on of the European Institutions. Surely you all think this should be abolished too?

I'm no fan of recent US policy either internally or externally, nor am I saying that the Electoral college does not need to be re-balanced or maybe even abolished if it has outlived its usefulness. However, childish, knee-jerk rants about the Electoral College and American democracy make it even easier for the Americans to dismiss criticism from Europe.

nutkase

The US has a thing called the "Constitution" and this says is how it is done.

Isnt it also possible for a party like Fianna Fail to get 51% of the votes and still lose the election? So I guess Ireland is not a democracy too, right?[/QUOTE]

The electoral college is an attempt at Proportional representation when a voter places the vote they vote for a candidate and thats it. It may be nice to have PR on the ballot so if You want Bush in office and you definitely do not want Kerry then put the candidates in order of preference. Nader then upsets the applecart because he is 2nd choice. Fianna Fail do not get the election won because a voter puts a wider opinion than yes Fianna Fail No Fine Gael right? voting fianna fail 1 Labour 2 Fine Gael 3. When I used to live over there isn't that the way Fitzgerald got in with Dick Spring?

There seems to be a problem with the ballot machines already as well: in states with electronic ballot machines reports of there already being 2-300 votes for Bush already in the machines b4 the 1st vote is even cast.

DadaKopf

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The people have the choice, however, to vote for a third party. There are actually several parites with Presidential candidates, independent, green, libertarian etc etc. The people do ultimately choose the president, the senators, the governors etc so it IS a democracy. In practice only 1 governor is an independent, every other office is filled by a Republican or Democrat may seem to be a closed shop system, but it is one that was voted for (repeatedly) by the American people.

This was kind of my point. American democracy looks like a democracy but the question is: what is the quality of that democracy?

You can tick off a check list of America's democratic credentials, but I'd say the quality of American democracy is pretty poor.

RE*AC*TOR

That's a bit sillt really. Its like looking at a prisoner, who gets out of jail, but then proceeds to sit in a 10ft by 10ft room. Its his freedom to do with as he pleases. The quality is subjective, and ultimately not for us to decide.

pickarooney

bobbyjoe wrote:

A bit about it

here
and
Wikpedia

How do you pronounce "www.fec.gov"?

DadaKopf

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

That's a bit sillt really. Its like looking at a prisoner, who gets out of jail, but then proceeds to sit in a 10ft by 10ft room. Its his freedom to do with as he pleases. The quality is subjective, and ultimately not for us to decide.

In democracies, the quality of democracy is for its people to decide. When democratic states become unresponsive to the needs of all citizens (i.e. subvert its moral and theoretical foundations), the question of quality becomes necessary.

Democracies can look like them, talk like them, walk like them, but deep down, they can be something else entirely.

RE*AC*TOR

DadaKopf wrote:

When democratic states become unresponsive to the needs of all citizens (i.e. subvert its moral and theoretical foundations), the question of quality becomes necessary.

some would say, its the majority of citizens, not all.

nutkase

johnKarma wrote:

Good god, I hate these electoral college discussions.

America _is_ a democracy by any world standard. There are multiple levels of democratic government in the US, starting at regional levels up through the State executives and legislatures to the Federal Government.

I apologize for getting off the subject but the following puts the importance of the electoral college for the american voter in perspective

There is going on than meets the eye today, not only is the american voter deciding who to put in the whitehouse but the regional level has an extremely confusing barage of issues. Take for example California. On a state Level there are propositions on the ballot. Proposition 70 The Native Americans operate Casinos on thier tribal lands it is just like Vegas they pay a portion of the income as a business pays state taxes. Govenor Arnold the terminator wants more of the income given to the state and wants stricter control on what they do on their land he ran on the ticket not taxing business to get elected. Another propostion is trying to force a Company called "Wal-Mart" (kind of like Dunnes Stores)to pay for employees health insurance. A similar Store Target (little bit more Marks and Sparks) already pays for employee health insurance employees from companies earn the same wage. If a Target employee goes to the Emergency Room they would pay about $50 for the whole thing. The Wal-Mart employee on the other hand is responsible for 100% of the bill not just hospital, the doctor ambulance everything average bill would be $1200. and they normally would go to a County run Hospital unable to pay. The taxpayer foots the bill Target employee through raised taxes. Hospitals are closing because of this issue. Arnold does not want Wal-Mart to be forced to give insurance or pay higher taxes citing it will drive Wal-Mart out of state.

That is just 2 of the decisions that the voter has to make. There are many more about school funding Police funding besides the President. The scare tactic ads on TV about this mumbo jumbo is something else.

Gurgle

The president is the leader of the united states.
He is not the leader of the american people. He does not need a vote majority, he needs a mojority in weighted votes by state.

The electoral vote allows a state to choose their president then throw the whole weight of the state behind that candidate. Thats how it was intended to work, thats how it works.*

* Doesn't mean I think its a good idea.

omnicorp

Gurgle wrote:

The president is the leader of the united states.

well, a democracy is a government of the people.
A republic is a government for the people.
A bit of a contradiction on both terms by George Bush.

A democracy by the government for the government is not a democracy.

You can say they're different, that there are different systems of democracy, doesn't change the picture.
Oh, and about past points, I think the EU is not a democracy.

oh, and Bush won, Yeah you've all heard, but it deserves a mention.

damned_junkie

On BBC's election coverage lastnight they asked a Republican speechwriter whether or not he thought the Electoral College system should be abandoned or modified. In his opinion the elctoral college system should not be changed because it guarded against situations like the last French presidential election where the run off between Chirac and LePenn was a landslide because nobody wanted LePenn.
Now I'm no expert on politics but I fail to see the link.(if someone can point it out to me please do) It made me wonder if this was a stock answer used by republicans to bamboozal a public that really wouldn't know much about French election procedures.

omnicorp

it seems that if nobody wanted LePenn elected, he shouldn't have got elected and he didn't. Democracy.

Thraktor

damned_junkie wrote:

On BBC's election coverage lastnight they asked a Republican speechwriter whether or not he thought the Electoral College system should be abandoned or modified. In his opinion the elctoral college system should not be changed because it guarded against situations like the last French presidential election where the run off between Chirac and LePenn was a landslide because nobody wanted LePenn.
Now I'm no expert on politics but I fail to see the link.(if someone can point it out to me please do) It made me wonder if this was a stock answer used by republicans to bamboozal a public that really wouldn't know much about French election procedures.

The reason he made the reference to LePenn was that he was asked if an election by direct universal suffrage (i.e., whoever gets the most votes wins), requiring a majority, be a better system. The system that would be pt in place would be pretty much exactly the same as that in France, where if no candidate wins a majority, there is a second "run-off" election between the top two vote-getters. The problem with this, as it is argued happened in France in the last presidential election, is that a smart thinking left (or right)-wing party could secretly support certain oppostion-wing parties (knowing that it would subtract from the votes of their competitors, but not themselves), fragmenting the other-wing vote, resulting in an extreme left/right candidate to go up against in the second round run-off, which, as Chirac showed us, is much easier to defeat.

The fact is that pretty much every electoral system (direct or indirect) that you can think of can be concieveably taken advantage of in one way or another by party politics, selective campaigning and the like. The american system may not be perfect, but considering the popular vote and college vote have only disagreed a handful of times within the last two-hundred plus years, it seems to be doing quite a good job.

Also, on the original point, the USA is a representative democracy, much like us. We don't directly elect Bertie as our Taoiseach, we elect TD's who (if in the majority government), choose him representing the way we voted. If you want to see, however, what you call a true democracy, you'd have to go back to Greek times, whereby every single issue affecting the city would be voted on in a council held once-weekly comprising the city's entire electorate, without any elected officials, even to oversee (the "chair" for the vote would be rotated on a regular basis). Nice in principle, but if you actually look at it in today's settings, it's far too slow and inefficient to work, especially regarding foreign affairs. Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now, and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

therecklessone

Thraktor wrote:

Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now, and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

Jaysus but you better hope bonkey doesn't see that...

secret_squirrel

Thraktor wrote:

the city's entire electorate, without any elected officials, even to oversee (the "chair" for the vote would be rotated on a regular basis). Nice in principle, but if you actually look at it in today's settings, it's far too slow and inefficient to work, especially regarding foreign affairs. Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now, and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

Its worth bearing in mind that the electorate in the greek case was also only a tiny subset of the greek population. Making it even easier to manage than it should have been.

Holding a sizeable percentage of the worlds private wealth is a fair achievement.
Virtual immunity from any other country getting narky with them for the same reason would be another.
Having a rifle in every basement without the whole country going postal would be another.
Not being able to flush the loo after 10pm in an apartment block would also be a triumph for social justice.

bonkey

Thraktor wrote:

Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now,

Switzerland has existed in its modern "neutral with semi-direct deocracy" form since 1848. Thats a mighty short time to squeeze 350 years into.

and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

Well, one thing they've achieved is unparallelled recognition of their neutrality. When's the last time you heard the North Koreans complain about the Swiss observers on the North/South border?

Another thing they've achieved is a peaceful nation with a high standard of living, but I can see why there's nothing really memorable in that.

(And lets not forget many major brands of premium watches - thanks to the Hugeonots - and some sort of knife thingy)
jc

Redleslie2

Thraktor wrote:

Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now, and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

The Red Cross.

damned_junkie

Thraktor wrote:

Switzerland have been a neutral semi-direct democracy for over 350 years now, and for the life of me I can't think of a thing they've achieved in that time bar the invention of the cuckoo clock.

Appart from all the other valid points. If you have ever actually been to Switzerland you wouldn't doubt that they seem to have a pretty incredible record of protecting their natural environment. There are fish and swans in the rivers of Zurich... To my mind this points to a system that isn't being taken advantage of.

Thanks however for illustrating the point about the LePenn connection. I see how it makes some sense now, although supporting an extremist party would surely deplete funds available to run your own campaign which would jeapordise your own candidate. The risk of a backfire would seem so great that it would be a foolish tactic.

On the main topic. I question America's democratic status simply because of it's bipartisan system. It seems to remove any scope for political change. I mean you basically have a choice between Conservative and Ultra conservative. Of course this could just be a fair representation of the American electorate, which is a scary thought. We all remember what happened to Dukakis.

simu

Thraktor wrote:

The system that would be pt in place would be pretty much exactly the same as that in France, where if no candidate wins a majority, there is a second "run-off" election between the top two vote-getters..

Why don't they let people give preferences where there are more than two candidates? It seems fairer and less hassle...

Thraktor

bonkey wrote:

Switzerland has existed in its modern "neutral with semi-direct deocracy" form since 1848. Thats a mighty short time to squeeze 350 years into.

Well, they've been neutral for a bit over 356 years (declared at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, if I'm not mistaken), and although their current form of governance, as you rightly point out, technically originated in 1848, they were, for significant proportions of the time previous to that (obviously the international political climate of each era caused a number of changes), considerably more democratically-oriented than the norm at the time, particularily on the level of individual cantons. Regardless, if Switzerland is such a successful model of governance, why, may I ask, are there still places in it in which women are not allowed to vote?

My original point, however, is that a representative democracy is generally a much quicker, more effective and more responsive democracy than that which can be achieved by a direct democracy.

bonkey

Thraktor wrote:

if Switzerland is such a successful model of governance, why, may I ask, are there still places in it in which women are not allowed to vote?

Where? Women got the right to vote federally in 1971, and the last regional area to give them the right to vote was Appenzell in the early 90s.

My original point, however, is that a representative democracy is generally a much quicker, more effective and more responsive democracy than that which can be achieved by a direct democracy.

If you replace "is" with "was" I wouldn't disagree with you.

However, if - as you just argued - Switzerland has been effectively neutral for 350 years, then I fail to see how you see its lack of foreign influence as being based on its flavour of democracy, rather than on its neutrality.

Its not a perfect system (check out maternal rights for a more glaring anachronism than the right to vote) by any means, but it is far from ineffective.

Perhaps the greatest benefit it has is that it easily allows the public to change the system if they perceive it as being flawed....

jc

DadaKopf

Thraktor wrote:

you'd have to go back to Greek times, whereby every single issue affecting the city would be voted on in a council held once-weekly comprising the city's entire electorate, without any elected officials

You don't have to go back that far. The city council in Porto Alegre in Brazil is now run as a participatory (or deliberative?) democracy. By all accounts, it's doing very well.

DadaKopf

Well, they've been neutral for a bit over 356 years, declared at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

But didn't Switzerland continue to send mercenaries all over the place? Or did this stop in 1648, too? Although they're still in the Vatican, eh?

The Clown Man

Actually, the only doubt I have about American democracy is that I doubt the majority of the American populace are actually able to make a free, informed decision at all.

Now, I'm not saying they are all stupid or anything, far from it, I'm just saying that all they know is what they can see around them. And what they are shown.

News covers the war in Iraq like its an exciting show - "SHOWDOWN!!! in IRAQ" - and makes it look like America is winning and everything is rosey.

The vast majority of them do not have a clue where Iraq even is on the globe or know anything of it's history. They all believe that Iraq wants to destroy their way of life and their "freedom" when actually Iraq has never once attacked an American. Only retaliated. Iraq doesn't care what the hell America do as long as they leave them alone.

Schools hammer patriotism into kids, saluting the flag every morning and singing the national anthem. The average kid is raised as a patriotistic zealot from as early as 3.

They are made believe by the media that all these foreign nations are evil and that they are under attack and that everyone is against them when actually, the only time they have been attacked since Pearl Harbour was 9/11. And then it was an islamic religious fanatic group from Saudi Arabia.

So what else can they believe? And are they really free if this is all they know?


If the American populace actually knew that Afganistan was only one of the many countries that had no beef with OBL going where he liked, that Saudi Arabia was actually the country that grew these terrorists, that Saddam Hussien despised OBL as much as Bush did and that he had absolutely no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and hadn't lifted an aggressive finger since he was neutralised in 1991, would they really have let Bush do all that he has done?

We can all see the glaringly obvious reasons for why Bush should be removed, but the fact is, they can't.

Not their fault. But if they are being so blatently mislead so that they can be convinced that they are doing the right thing while they are actually doing the wrong thing, have they actually made a choice? Or been told what to vote. Is that a democracy?

Is blinding the people from the truth not the same as attempting to rig the vote?

bonkey

DadaKopf wrote:

But didn't Switzerland continue to send mercenaries all over the place? Or did this stop in 1648, too?

No, and yes.

Although they're still in the Vatican, eh?

This was a negotiated exception, and remains (I believe) the only foreign location that the Swiss send armed military support to. They can, and do send military ovservers abroad, though.

There's been a small group of them in the Korean DMZ for 50 years*, for example

jc

* Obviously teh personnel within the group haven't individually been there 50 years, so spare the wit.

DadaKopf

bonkey wrote:

* Obviously teh personnel within the group haven't individually been there 50 years, so spare the wit.

The thought didn't even cross my mind! :rolleyes:

omnicorp

em, firstly, "the" is not "teh"

But mainly, Swtizerland developed Calvinism, the Protestant religion of the North, Scotland, South Africa and other places.

Great place for skiing too.

And what does this have to do with the discussion? Bonkey and Dadakpf, going off topic, and moderators too...

bonkey

...and omnicorp breaking the rules by having an issue and not reporting it, but rather responding to the posts he has an issue with....

Its amazing how as mods we're expected to be flawless, even when being criticised in flagrance of the rules....

jc

omnicorp

ok, I'm sorry.
Well, I got 17 reasons not to kill myself cos Bush won from Michael Moore.
Thars considerate of him.
Makes a good point in that the best part of the USA's "democracy" is that the he can only be president for 8 years max.

Macaco

America is a democracy of sorts, but democracy can be perverted by having huge concentrations of wealth and power. The concentration of media ownership, and the reliance of parties on corporate sponsorship, as well as the dominance of the political and economic power by a small and wealthy elite means that it is a very limited democracy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

omnicorp

Macaco wrote:

America is a democracy of sorts, but democracy can be perverted by having huge concentrations of wealth and power. The concentration of media ownership, and the reliance of parties on corporate sponsorship, as well as the dominance of the political and economic power by a small and wealthy elite means that it is a very limited democracy.

exactly. But, that said, I can understand the States wishes to have the Electoral College system but now that it is more of a country than a collection of states it seems a bit unescasery.

Dr_Teeth

I don't really mind the electoral college - it's there to ensure that all the states have a decent voice in an election. My major issue with it is that the party that wins the election gets *all* the college votes for that state. That's crazy.

If the democrats win by 51% in one state, all the republican votes in that state are completely ignored, it's as if they never turned up to vote. If the republicans win by like 53% in another state, it's the same thing with the democrat votes - they might as well not have bothered.

The vote of a republican in california or a democrat in florida was not represented in the final tally to elect the president, I don't think that's right.

omnicorp

of course it's not, neither is Partisan tactics or focusing on moral issues by an immoral president but that didn't stop them

Ivan

The Clown Man wrote:

Actually, the only doubt I have about American democracy is that I doubt the majority of the American populace are actually able to make a free, informed decision at all.

Now, I'm not saying they are all stupid or anything, far from it, I'm just saying that all they know is what they can see around them. And what they are shown.

News covers the war in Iraq like its an exciting show - "SHOWDOWN!!! in IRAQ" - and makes it look like America is winning and everything is rosey.

The vast majority of them do not have a clue where Iraq even is on the globe or know anything of it's history. They all believe that Iraq wants to destroy their way of life and their "freedom" when actually Iraq has never once attacked an American. Only retaliated. Iraq doesn't care what the hell America do as long as they leave them alone.

Schools hammer patriotism into kids, saluting the flag every morning and singing the national anthem. The average kid is raised as a patriotistic zealot from as early as 3.

They are made believe by the media that all these foreign nations are evil and that they are under attack and that everyone is against them when actually, the only time they have been attacked since Pearl Harbour was 9/11. And then it was an islamic religious fanatic group from Saudi Arabia.

So what else can they believe? And are they really free if this is all they know?


If the American populace actually knew that Afganistan was only one of the many countries that had no beef with OBL going where he liked, that Saudi Arabia was actually the country that grew these terrorists, that Saddam Hussien despised OBL as much as Bush did and that he had absolutely no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and hadn't lifted an aggressive finger since he was neutralised in 1991, would they really have let Bush do all that he has done?

We can all see the glaringly obvious reasons for why Bush should be removed, but the fact is, they can't.

Not their fault. But if they are being so blatently mislead so that they can be convinced that they are doing the right thing while they are actually doing the wrong thing, have they actually made a choice? Or been told what to vote. Is that a democracy?

Is blinding the people from the truth not the same as attempting to rig the vote?

I know, lets form an international coalition and invade America.

We can bring back Democracy to them, on the end of an Uranium-depleted anti-tank shell.

Sure, they wont like it at first.

But once we depose their democratically elected leader (although everyone knows the only reason he won was due to propaganda and fear), replace him with our own pre-approved government. Next we can begin selling contracts to our own, local corporations and begin sending in private contracters.
Then finally, once we have destroyed a large portion of their civilian infrastructure, killed 100's of thousands of civilians and controlled the flow of their natural resources from their country, we can all sit around a campfire singing "coom-bi-ya my lord" and roasting marshmallows.

Ah, democracy, what a hypocracy.

omnicorp

democracy CAN work, but when it is corrupted by big business it doesn't.

Ivan

omnicorp wrote:

but when it is corrupted by big business it doesn't.

You say that as if it were possible any other way.
But then that would be off topic...
So no, America isnt a democracy.

Not in the apparently flawless sense, which is vastly superior to Communism and allows everyone to live happily ever after.
</bitter rant>