The USA the greatest democracy ?

Mr.Micro

How can a democracy be a democracy when one individual has the power to veto motions or bills passed by Congress and or the House of Representatives. This one individual namely GW Bush has supreme power which is hardly democratic.

Mick86

The veto can be over ridden by two thirds of both houses.

Mr.Micro

Thats still an awful lot of power considering both Houses would be needed to muster two thirds each . I suppose its form of Democracy extreme .What happened to a simple majority ?

Sand

Tyranny of the majority happened to simple majority.

The individuals who wrote the US constitution deeply distrusted and/or were deeply pessimistic about the illiberal nature of democracy [ 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner...] and built an entire system of checks and balances to prevent any branch [Legislature, executive or the judiciary] from wielding undue power, and to protect liberty which they saw as often being endangered by democracy [Again wolves, lambs, dinner, voting].

People might hate that when theyve got 51% of the votes and not 67%, but it forces both sides to actually negotiate and debate and work in some sort of consensus. Rather than just riding roughshod over the opposition and their voters.

Manic Moran

Sand said that rather well.

The other point to note is that technically the US is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy, though it does fall under the concept of a 'democratic government' as per common usage.

NTM

Mr.Micro

People might hate that when theyve got 51% of the votes and not 67%, but it forces both sides to actually negotiate and debate and work in some sort of consensus. Rather than just riding roughshod over the opposition and their voters.[/QUOTE]


The trouble though is getting such numbers as 67% which I believe is almost impossible ,which effectively means a US President has enormous power to pursue personal beliefs in the National interest with the only check it appears the number crunching 67% of both houses?

Manic Moran

What number would you suggest, then? 55%? 60%? 2/3 is a reasonable number to allow discretion without ability to do nutty things over the will of voters.

And if it's downright illegal, you just need a 51% of the court to say so.

NTM

digitally-yours

Definition of democracy = Gov for the people by the people

Do you think that applies to USA ?



Also I have seen this latest documentary 9/11 Press For Truth and i have to say that its SHOCKING its the most convincing evidence yet available in the media.

Revealing how Washington operates and how secret services operate.

I would highly recommend watching this worth every second.Highly Informative with very strong video evidence.

[mod edit] <url removed> - this entire post is way off-topic and likely to be inflammatory. If you want to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories, do it on the Conspiracy Theories board.

Back on topic. [/mod edit]

bonkey

Mr.Micro wrote:

What happened to a simple majority ?

Thats how the President is elected, but you seem to be complaining that the results of a simple majority result in supreme power.

One could argue that there's a difference between electing a single party and a single individual, but the reality is that the decisions of neither are controlled by the voters post-election.

The 66% figure is well chosen. If one assumes a close split of power between two parties, it boils down to one party fully opposing something and roughly one third of the other party. In effect, it means that if one third of the party "in control" oppose a measure, that measure can be defeated by getting the opposition to agree to oppose. That's not an unreasonable benchmark.

Having said that, I prefer the Swiss system. Of course, it should be noted that the Swiss system was based on and derived from the American system.

Dr_Teeth

If you think vetos are bad, have a look at signing statements..

Mr.Micro

Manic Moran wrote:

What number would you suggest, then? 55%? 60%? 2/3 is a reasonable number to allow discretion without ability to do nutty things over the will of voters.

And if it's downright illegal, you just need a 51% of the court to say so.

NTM

Thank you MM I feel appropriately chastised. A definition of nutty things with regards Mr GW Bush is a whole other forum.

sovtek

Mick86 wrote:

The veto can be over ridden by two thirds of both houses.

Not any more...read signing statements.

eoin5

As a democracy its pretty undemocratic as well as anti-democratic.

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote:

Not any more...read signing statements.

You know that they have no legal effect?

NTM

You Suck!

representive democracy is a pain in the (*)

Funny thing being that in the two hundred years since, no one has seriously suggested or implemented a major improvment or alternative. Its almost a lack of innovation in any serious sense. Which is a pity as we now have the technological ability to implement some radical forms of direct democracy or at the very least streamline the existing form.

monosharp

The USA claims to be a Republic not a Democracy. And no they are not the same thing.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

In my personal opinion, on the Capitalism vs Communism/Socialism debate (No Capitalism does not = Democracy and Socialism/Communism does not = authoritarian etc)

They are both as bad as the other. (Capitalism vs Communism).

In Capitalist Yankland you have people starving on the streets, people who are going to die simply because they can't afford medical procedures or even worse, can't afford simple medication and this is better then how things were in Communist Russia how ?

I think the best solution is somewhere in the middle, between a Capitalist and Socialist society. I think a lot of European Countries are a lot closer to a "better" society then the US or any other part of the world.

Look at Frances healthcare system for example, not perfect but damn better then anyone else's.

The richest Capitalist country in the world won't even provide Universal Healthcare. -> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

monosharp

You Suck! wrote:

Which is a pity as we now have the technological ability to implement some radical forms of direct democracy or at the very least streamline the existing form.

As an IT guy let me say this.

If you are talking about e-voting then ... ha.

You could spend 20 years developing a "secure" system for e-voting and someone would find a way around that security in a week. Computers are not secure, software is not secure, no Data is secure. Absolutely nothing in IT is tamper proof.

I always find this really funny when guys talk about the fantastic new security procedures on their computers.

Bio-Metrics for example (Fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition etc etc etc) I had a class on this in college and the presenter was talking about possible ways to get around the security e.g > Cut out some lads eye, take a graft of their fingerprint etc etc.

At the end of the f'ing day, the computer is still running an Operating System, more then likely windows. Anyone with any IT know how with physical access to a machine will laugh at these measures. "Oh look this thing wants a scan of my eye, a sample of my DNA and voice recognition to log-on. Whatever shall i do ???? Oh wait i'll just yank out the bloomin hard drive shall i ?"

Then the machine is more then likely connected to a network of some kind, then your data's most definitely not safe.

eoin5

monosharp wrote:

As an IT guy let me say this.

If you are talking about e-voting then ... ha.

You could spend 20 years developing a "secure" system for e-voting and someone would find a way around that security in a week. Computers are not secure, software is not secure, no Data is secure. Absolutely nothing in IT is tamper proof.

I always find this really funny when guys talk about the fantastic new security procedures on their computers.

Bio-Metrics for example (Fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition etc etc etc) I had a class on this in college and the presenter was talking about possible ways to get around the security e.g > Cut out some lads eye, take a graft of their fingerprint etc etc.

At the end of the f'ing day, the computer is still running an Operating System, more then likely windows. Anyone with any IT know how with physical access to a machine will laugh at these measures. "Oh look this thing wants a scan of my eye, a sample of my DNA and voice recognition to log-on. Whatever shall i do ???? Oh wait i'll just yank out the bloomin hard drive shall i ?"

Then the machine is more then likely connected to a network of some kind, then your data's most definitely not safe.

As an IT guy let me say you should look into e-voting systems a bit more. These systems are designed and tested by the leading experts in Crypto and Formal Methods. Theyre not open systems (though the software may be) and they require an obvious crime to even get near them. At the end of the f'ing day theyre easily as secure as any manual system.

Time Magazine

bonkey wrote:

Mr.Micro wrote:

What happened to a simple majority ?

Thats how the President is elected

We wish.

Al Gore: 51,003,926 (48.38%)
George W. Bush: 50,460,110 (47.87%)

Manic Moran

We wish.

Al Gore: 51,003,926 (48.38%)
George W. Bush: 50,460,110 (47.87%)

You're not looking at the right figures.

Al Gore: 266 (49.54%)
George W Bush: 271 (50.46%)

NTM

Time Magazine

You're not reading what I quoted.

Manic Moran

Ibid wrote:

You're not reading what I quoted.

On the contrary. I did indeed.

You simply misunderstood the data you had collected.

This is what you apparently contested. (As I understood 'we wish' to signify)

Originally Posted by Bonkey

Originally Posted by Mr.Micro
What happened to a simple majority ?

Thats how the President is elected

I quote now from the US Constitution, from Article II, Section 1:

The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President

I don't see the discrepancy.

NTM

You Suck!

monosharp wrote:

As an IT guy let me say this.

If you are talking about e-voting then ... ha.

You could spend 20 years developing a "secure" system for e-voting and someone would find a way around that security in a week. Computers are not secure, software is not secure, no Data is secure. Absolutely nothing in IT is tamper proof.

I always find this really funny when guys talk about the fantastic new security procedures on their computers.

Bio-Metrics for example (Fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition etc etc etc) I had a class on this in college and the presenter was talking about possible ways to get around the security e.g > Cut out some lads eye, take a graft of their fingerprint etc etc.

At the end of the f'ing day, the computer is still running an Operating System, more then likely windows. Anyone with any IT know how with physical access to a machine will laugh at these measures. "Oh look this thing wants a scan of my eye, a sample of my DNA and voice recognition to log-on. Whatever shall i do ???? Oh wait i'll just yank out the bloomin hard drive shall i ?"

Then the machine is more then likely connected to a network of some kind, then your data's most definitely not safe.

I've worked in the industry

But even despite these problems, no one has even as yet envisioned a theoretical framework by which individuals in a society could be enabled by technology to have a more direct input. But thats just a symptom of a deeper problem, that is a lack of innovation around democratic models of government. Wish I'd payed more attention in systems design now

bonkey

You Suck! wrote:

representive democracy is a pain in the (*)

Funny thing being that in the two hundred years since, no one has seriously suggested or implemented a major improvment or alternative.

You don't consider quarterly referenda combined with the ability for the public to force an item onto the ballot (within a comparatively short timeframe of a small number of years) through signature-collection as a major improvement?

Exactly what are you suggesting?

Representative democracy is a balance between levels of participation and levels of control. While denizens of the politics forum might love the chance to have their voice given weight in each and every vote carried out in the Dail, the reality is that the vast majority of the population don't want anywhere near that level of participation and wouldn't use it if they had it.

This would then result the ability for small interest-groups to carry the day, regardless of what the representatives chosen by the populace at large had to say on the matter.

Its almost a lack of innovation in any serious sense.

Perhaps you should consider that this is because there isn't widepsread agreement that there's a problem which needs solving.

Which is a pity as we now have the technological ability to implement some radical forms of direct democracy or at the very least streamline the existing form.

You don't need technology for most of it. The Swiss have had a form of direct democracy for a hundred and fifty years now. Only relatively recently did they force the last communities to abandon the "show of hands" method of voting - not because it was unworkable, but because of issues of voter-privacy.

What you do need is the willingness to basically say "lets make a fundamental change to the way our contry works. Lets say that our current system is badly flawed and we want a radical change with no guarantee it will really make things better".

Thats a willingness you won't get, outside of a small number of idealists.

oscarBravo

eoin5 wrote:

As an IT guy let me say you should look into e-voting systems a bit more. These systems are designed and tested by the leading experts in Crypto and Formal Methods. Theyre not open systems (though the software may be) and they require an obvious crime to even get near them. At the end of the f'ing day theyre easily as secure as any manual system.

Discussions of electronic voting are off-topic - there's a forum for them. And I think you'll find your views will be strongly contested.

Time Magazine

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't see the discrepancy.

Ah, so you didn't understand the concept of a simple majority rather than not reading it .

The "simple" element generally refers to a straight paper count. Certainly Bush won the population-distorted election, but he did not win the simple majority.

Simple majority is defined as "Majority, a voting requirement of more than 50% of all ballots cast". Meanwhile ballot is defined as "a slip or sheet of paper, cardboard, or the like, on which a voter marks his or her vote."

No candidates won a simple majority in 2000 election, but Al Gore had the most ballots to his name. A full 543,816 more than the nearest rival.

Now I know that's not how the American Presidential election works. Much like our proportional representation system, the votes are divided and tallied up subject to constraints. That's not what I was refuting. I was refuting, rightly, that the presidential election mechanism is done by means of a simple majority.

djpbarry

The problem with democracy, if it can be called a problem, is that it only works when everyone participates. The majority of Americans do not want Bush as president; only about 18% of the population voted for him in 2000, but of course, less again voted for Gore. Therein lies the problem.

Manic Moran

I try again.

Manic Moran wrote:

The other point to note is that technically the US is a Representative Republic

I understand this is a difficult concept for non-Americans (and indeed, some Americans) to understand due to the unique Federal nature of the country, but in a Representative system, we have representatives to do our voting for us. Not only on legislative bills, or appointments to the Courts, but also for the position of President.

The closest analogy I can think of is to ask if you partook in a vote to elect Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering to the position he currently holds.

When it comes to President of the US, the voters are not the 300 million Americans. They are the 571 Electors, who represent the voters of their States.

Simple majority is defined as "Majority, a voting requirement of more than 50% of all ballots cast". Meanwhile ballot is defined as "a slip or sheet of paper, cardboard, or the like, on which a voter marks his or her vote."

Despite the fact that 'Simple Majority' has a different meaning in common usage depending on where you are (In American terms, it means an absolute majority: More than 50% of the vote. In European terms, it means a plurality: More votes than anyone else. I presume, being a European board, the latter was the one we were using), the use of a ballot in the Presidential Election is confirmed by looking at US law.

Again, the US Constitution:

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons

When I go down to the local ballot station, and check the box for George W. Bush or Mickey Mouse or anyone else, I am not voting for President. I am partaking in a referendum to indicate to my State's representatives which way I would like them to vote. In most (all?) cases, State Law requires the State's Electors to follow the results of that referendum, but not necessarily all to the same degree. For example, there is a measure in California's legislature right now which would split CA's presidential electoral votes in a manner similar to some other States. There was a bill passed in CA (but vetoed by Arnie, fortunately) which would completely ignored the State referendum result entirely.

I was refuting, rightly, that the presidential election mechanism is done by means of a simple majority.

And you are quite simply wrong to do so. The President is elected by counting the 571 votes cast. Whoever gets the most, wins. Period.

NTM

Time Magazine

Okay, let's try make this easy.

The election of the President of Ireland is done by a simple majority.

The election of the President of the USA is done by a complicated majority. I understand the mechanism by which this is done. Using the American definition, no candidate in the 2000 Presidential Election received a simple majority. Using the European definition, the victor of the 2000 Presidential Election did not receive a simple majority.

Voting by proxy is not a simple majority vote. You seem to be failing to make a distinction between a simple ballot and constituent vote. I assert there is a difference, not entirely unlike the fact that our Taoiseach is elected by TDs. If you do not accept this distinction, we're literally arguing semantics, and I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore with that.

djpbarry

Manic Moran wrote:

The President is elected by counting the 571 votes cast. Whoever gets the most, wins. Period.

Yes, but as you said yourself, the electors' vote is based on the popular vote. Now, while a simple majority in the popular vote does not necessarily mean anything, this vote is still highly influential in determining the next president. For example, a large majority in the popular vote is likely to be reflected in the vote of the electors, assuming this majority is spread relatively evenly across the country. But you are quite right in saying that this is not a democracy.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote:

The majority of Americans do not want Bush as president; only about 18% of the population voted for him in 2000...

That doesn't mean that 82% didn't want him to be president. If someone didn't vote, the assumption is that they don't care who's president.

That's leaving aside the issue of deliberate and/or indirect disenfranchising of entire groups of voters, which is a separate - and very serious - issue.

Manic Moran

Ibid wrote:

Using the European definition, the victor of the 2000 Presidential Election did not receive a simple majority.

I'm not sure how to make this more clear. "Presidential Election" is a misnomer. When voters go to the polls on the third Tuesday in November (or whenever it is), they are not partaking in the Presidential Election, but are particpating in the overall process.

You seem to be failing to make a distinction between a simple ballot and constituent vote.

And you are failing to realise the the President is not President of the American People but of the United States. The fact that the simple popular vote of the population of the entire Federation is not used is no accident. The States vote for the President, not the individual citizens. I, as an individual citizen, have voted in the direct election of my political/legal entity's leader, currently the Governator. The States' electors, when voting for President, are entitled to use whatever method they chose to determine which way to vote. If the states wish, the votes can be allocated by sticking names on snail shells and seeing which name crosses a finish line first. I like the New Mexico version, where ties are broken by drawing cards.

NTM

monosharp

eoin5 wrote:

As an IT guy let me say you should look into e-voting systems a bit more. These systems are designed and tested by the leading experts in Crypto and Formal Methods. Theyre not open systems (though the software may be) and they require an obvious crime to even get near them. At the end of the f'ing day theyre easily as secure as any manual system.

Bull-muck.

In florida last year they discovered votes meant for republicans were going to democrats, apparently this was a "screen calibration error". ha

Computers are insecure, cryptography is insecure.

Look at all the anti-pirate crypto stuff out there and name a single one that hasn't being hacked around ? Just one ?

Whatever about the e-voting machines, the crypto stuff on them and any physical security its still hardware running software and therefore about as secure as a sieve patched with chewing gum.

Your probably right in that e-voting machines would be more secure then an average workstation machine but they are still insecure.

Time Magazine

Manic Moran wrote:

The fact that the simple popular vote of the population of the entire Federation is not used is no accident.

Thank you.

I know it's no accident. I never said it accidentally happened that they assigned points to each state. I quoted bonkey to clarify it's not a simple popular vote.

Now there may be an opportunity to debate the merits of the vote by proxy.

djpbarry wrote:

The majority of Americans do not want Bush as president; only about 18% of the population voted for him in 2000

Lol, can I see your calculations on that please?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

40 percent voter turnout, and about 50% of the vote that turned out?

Time Magazine

Surely you shouldn't count under-18s in the population though?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I guess not, but i've often heard the 40% figure trotted out on news channels so i assumed it was 40 percent of the elegible voters, but i am frequently wrong in my assumptions.

eoin5

monosharp wrote:

Bull-muck.

In florida last year they discovered votes meant for republicans were going to democrats, apparently this was a "screen calibration error". ha

Computers are insecure, cryptography is insecure.

Look at all the anti-pirate crypto stuff out there and name a single one that hasn't being hacked around ? Just one ?

Whatever about the e-voting machines, the crypto stuff on them and any physical security its still hardware running software and therefore about as secure as a sieve patched with chewing gum.

Your probably right in that e-voting machines would be more secure then an average workstation machine but they are still insecure.

I never said that e-voting was completely secure, I said it was easily as secure as manual voting systems. A better way of thinking about it is that people are insecure too. As oscarBravo said theres a forum for that if you want to discuss it further.

djpbarry

Ibid wrote:

Lol, can I see your calculations on that please?

Certainly. About 50.46 million people voted for Bush in 2000. The population at the time was about 281.421 million (According to the 2000 census). That means about 18% of the population voted for Bush. If we discount the under-18's (72.29 million), that means about 24% of the electorate voted for Bush.

Hotblack Desiato

eoin5 wrote:

I said it was easily as secure as manual voting systems.

Pigs might fly, and that's all I'll say on that topic in this forum.

Getting back on topic - the well known and numerous problems with voting machines (mechanical and electronic) in the US would certainly be a big minus in the 'greatest democracy' stakes - though not nearly as much imho as the manipulation of voter rolls. Perhaps it's time that the prohibition on convicted felons voting is removed as that appears to be the most frequently abused rule.

Time Magazine

Do you not think the percentage you quote (18%) is entirely unfair seeing as the maximum "percent" any candidate could get, had s/he received all the ballots of that election, would be less than 38%?

bonkey

Its not entirelyunfair...but it is somewhat of a logical non sequitor to conclude that because the President only received votes from 18% of the population (or 24% of the adult population) that the majority didn't want him as President.

Ignoring that people didn't actually vote for either candidate in the first place, its still not necessarily true to claim that someone who did not vote did not want this man elected. Some may have. Some, in fact, almost certainly did, but for one reason or another did not vote.

Its also important to note that "did not want him" is distinct from "wanted someone else". People who didn't care who got elected President fall into the former category, but not into the latter.

Time Magazine

Logical non sequitors aside, I don't like mis-representations of anything (except positive mis-representations of me, of course). Had every ballot in that election been cast for Candidate A, nobody would doubt his/her democratic mandate. However, using the Huge Denominator Method, "only 37.5% of the population voted for him/her". This, to my mind, is a mathematical misnomer to distort the reality of his/her approval.

In the same way you could increase the denominator further by including all Americans ever born and then trot out the line "Only 10% of Americans ever voted for Candidate A." Although that's laughable, as the denominator djpbarry includes 80 million under-18s who have has much of a chance of voting as the deceased, it's only adding insult to the mathematical injury.

Back on the more general topic, here's what economists are useful for. The Economist's "Democracy Index" ranks countries based on functioning government, freedom of press, personal liberties etc. It's interesting, America doesn't make the top 15. In fact it comes behind Spain, who were recently ruled by a one-party dictator for forty years and only have a democratic constitution since 1978.

That said, I can see some flaws with the report. Switzerland, with its ridiculous amount of direct participation, is apparently only 0.1% more of a democracy than Ireland.

Manic Moran

ninja900 wrote:

Perhaps it's time that the prohibition on convicted felons voting is removed as that appears to be the most frequently abused rule.

I doubt it. The usual one is the Dead Vote. I seem to recall there was one small town where more dead people voted than live people, but you'll see reports all over the kip.

There are only a dozen states which prohibit felons from voting for life. (Remember, States set the rules, not the Federal Government) The ones who are in prison who are barred (In another 20 states or so) are easy to keep track of and shouldn't be an issue. Whilst it may be an issue in swing states with high criminal rates, it's not a notable nationwide problem. There are bigger fish to fry.

NTM

eoin5

Ibid wrote:

Logical non sequitors aside, I don't like mis-representations of anything (except positive mis-representations of me, of course). Had every ballot in that election been cast for Candidate A, nobody would doubt his/her democratic mandate. However, using the Huge Denominator Method, "only 37.5% of the population voted for him/her". This, to my mind, is a mathematical misnomer to distort the reality of his/her approval.

In the same way you could increase the denominator further by including all Americans ever born and then trot out the line "Only 10% of Americans ever voted for Candidate A." Although that's laughable, as the denominator djpbarry includes 80 million under-18s who have has much of a chance of voting as the deceased, it's only adding insult to the mathematical injury.

Back on the more general topic, here's what economists are useful for. The Economist's "Democracy Index" ranks countries based on functioning government, freedom of press, personal liberties etc. It's interesting, America doesn't make the top 15. In fact it comes behind Spain, who were recently ruled by a one-party dictator for forty years and only have a democratic constitution since 1978.

That said, I can see some flaws with the report. Switzerland, with its ridiculous amount of direct participation, is apparently only 0.1% more of a democracy than Ireland.

If you take what the US have been doing and compare it to the wishes of the population it doesnt seem too odd to me that theyre so far down the list. The press is only free to a certain extent. Personal liberties are being eroded by The Patriot Act and others. I dont think its top 15 material.

Mr.Micro

eoin5 wrote:

The press is only free to a certain extent. Personal liberties are being eroded by The Patriot Act and others. I dont think its top 15 material.

Quite right .Democracy is only a word .Those in power have a way of eroding democracy in the name of security ,percieved threats or national interest . When US adopted the Patriot Act civil liberties are slowly being eroded ,with e mails ,phones and many other forms of communication being monitored . When the unfortunate US soldiers were killed in Iraq in recent times , the US Government would not even allow the press to show the pictures or related matters in the press .Even us Europeans have to give too much of our details if we wish to enter the US.I fear it is draconian and far too invasive .So what price has will be paid for the the "big brother measures". The US is no longer the greatest democracy.

extragon

The US is not "the greatest democracy" because of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
This may be reasonable in Congress, but at State level, even at city and county level - there are only two parties with little to choose between them. You might imagine somewhere like California having a Green representative, for example, in the State assembly, or a member with radical ideas about health care reform.
Not a chance. Not a single one. All opinions come filtered through the two party system and the big money interests that pays for it. It's almost bizarre, when you look at the composition of even the humblest council chamber and compare it to what would be the norm in Europe. Apart from the very occasional, and personally wealthy, independent - there are only two parties. Period.

Add to that - no free TV slots for minority parties, the need to raise millions of dollars to make a reasonable bid for national election, the first past the post system, unlimited gerrymandering opportunities for whoever is in power with the drawing up of electoral boundaries which make no geographical sense. You can change the personalities, but you cannot change the ideas, or even make a dent ( unless they come pre-approved by big business ). It may seem like this in Europe, sometimes, but the fact that an established party could split, or that a swing to the left is at least possible makes leaders more responsive to social issues.

Manic Moran

Whilst I agree with you, for the sake of being picky, there are a number of Green Party types in elected office at local (County and below) level, and I was able to track down at least one State Assembleyman in Maine. And of course, there's Jesse Ventura, independent, not Green.

The Governator is considered a de-facto independent as well, even though he's officially a Republican.

NTM

Mr.Micro

I agree with Extragon. Democracy as we know it in most western countries is heavily influenced by big business and paid lobbyists.It is rare that the ordinary consumer ,individual or voter benefits .Once the 2 party system is voted in the members of the 2 party system generally stick to party policy even if that policy offends their principles and values .We have seen it here in Ireland many times ,most recently the appointments to the Seanad , no ability required .and in the US I believe Mr .Bush appoints many of his friends to key posts.So democracy is only on polling day.

djpbarry

bonkey wrote:

it is somewhat of a logical non sequitor to conclude that because the President only received votes from 18% of the population (or 24% of the adult population) that the majority didn't want him as President.

Ok, fair enough, I phrased that poorly. What I should have said was that only 24% of the population wanted Bush as president.

bonkey wrote:

Ignoring that people didn't actually vote for either candidate in the first place, its still not necessarily true to claim that someone who did not vote did not want this man elected. Some may have. Some, in fact, almost certainly did, but for one reason or another did not vote.

If someone wanted Bush elected president but did not vote (for whatever reason), I’m going to assume that they did not feel all that strongly about it. If they had, they surely would have found the time to vote (in most cases at least).

Ibid wrote:

Had every ballot in that election been cast for Candidate A, nobody would doubt his/her democratic mandate. However, using the Huge Denominator Method, "only 37.5% of the population voted for him/her". This, to my mind, is a mathematical misnomer to distort the reality of his/her approval.

The point I was trying to make was that a relatively small percentage of the population partook in the election, probably due to disillusionment with the system.

Manic Moran

Or disillusionment with the candidates. (Which, granted, can be a byproduct of the system)

I'm one of the people who didn't vote in 2004. Nobody really seemed deserving of my vote.

NTM