The Great Democracy

[Jessica Blue]

Is this how George Bush won the 2000 election?:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Katherine Harris was in charge of elections AND in charge of Bush's election campaign in Florida.

Apparently DBT originally came up with 8,000 felons to disenfranchise. Harris expanded the list to include people with the same birthday and surnames as felons upping the number tossed off the roles to 58,000. This, Katherine Harris proceeded to do without checking the accuracy of the list.

DBT admitted the list was at least 15% inaccurate or 8700 voters. Independent investigators after the election set the figure at 95% inaccurate: 55,000 eligible voters were prevented from voting in Florida.

Bush won with a margin of 537.

Was this the real game in 2000?: not the hanging chads and old voting machines in poor neighborhoods. Next time round, if Americans value their democracy, they shouldn't take this kind of corruption.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Is this how George Bush won the 2000 election?:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html


Great video.

It's probably too late to do anything about it as the Republicans have been busy realigning the voter districts to ensure that the next election won't be as close as the one in 2000.

:(

[Aoidoi]

Video was well done, and "God Bless Bush's America" had me smiling. On the other hand, if accurate what sort of assurances did she have that the 55k voters were Democrats? If she was really chosing by birthdate or surname (which the video implied) then one would assume the distribution roughly random.

Well, maybe not surname, given that some groups vote as blocks.

On the other hand, taking the birthdates or surnames of 8k would surely lead to more or less the entire state being tossed, as 8k birthdays would surely cover the 365 days in a year. So perhaps it was birthdate AND surname (unlike what the video portrayed)? Or was something else going on?

Also didn't mention the whole votes from the military bit, which was what the Reps were screaming about at the time.

As I concluded at the time, both sides were playing dirty pool, the Reps just managed to cheat better. Being from Chicago I'm familiar with the best cheaters winning. ;)

[Tony]

The US isnt a democracy moron.

[Jessica Blue]

Conservatives continually point out that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. This is a quibble over definitions, because a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives. Adding the term "constitutional" to the word "republic" is frivolous, since all nations have constitutions.

Why, then, do conservatives insist on this distinction? There are two reasons, both of them trivial. One is to embarrass those who make casual use of the term "democracy." Another is that conservatives are so hostile to democracy that they seek to deny its very name.

But a democracy we are. No matter which branch of government you look into, you'll find the fingerprints of democracy everywhere:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

You searched the web and the only evidence you could find was from a propaganda web site? Weak, very weak.


Care to show any constitutional evidence that would prove the US is a democracy?

[Mr Manifesto]

Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government in which the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives; a society which favours equal rights, the ignoring of hereditary class distinctions, and the tolerance of minority views.

So, whether your constitution says it or not- you're a democracy.

[Earthborn]

Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican.This is a bit wrong. Democracy does indeed come in two forms, but they are called 'direct' and 'representative'. A representative democracy does not have to be a republic.

Take for instance The Netherlands (or a number of other European nations). The Netherlands is a representative democratic constitutional monarchy. (A strange stack of words but all true nonetheless). But it is not a republic.

The difference between a monarchy and a republic is the Head of State. In a republic, the Head of State is chosen by the people, while in a monarchy he/she can become Head of State just because he/she happens to be the child of the previous Head of State and doesn't need a majority vote.

Oh, wait... Never mind... :p

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony

You searched the web and the only evidence you could find was from a propaganda web site? Weak, very weak.


But when she's right, she's right. :p

[UserGoogol]

American Heritage Dictionary: The Best English Directionary in the Universe
de·moc·ra·cy (dih-MAHK-ruh-see)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

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.

[French démocratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek demokrati : demos, people; see da- in Indo-European Roots + -kratia, -cracy.]

[Richard G]

Why, then, do conservatives insist on this distinction? There are two reasons, both of them trivial. One is to embarrass those who make casual use of the term "democracy." Another is that conservatives are so hostile to democracy that they seek to deny its very name.

The primary reason is we jealously gaurd and defend the Constitution, and the protections it provides. We do not take kindly to the mob rules mentality of many that prefer to ignore what it says, for the sake of what the majority wants. (pure democracy)

Individual rights are priority. Democracy in its purest form was deliberately, and wisely, passed over for the Republic form of goverment, which is kept in check, and limited by the Constitution.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Tony
The US isnt a democracy moron.
Correct. To quote a bit of the great Switzer:

The lessons learned by letting Ross and Jesse into the debates was
not lost on the corporate managers of this nation. The political parties,
i.e. the Democrats and Republicans, run the elections in this country,
not some impartial group of election officials, they are party people
and the evidence is clear, from the last several elections, that elections
in this country are rigged one way or another. The Democrat front runner
is now running a green campaign. I believe it is part of a charade to
get progressives keep quiet and to vote for the Democrat no matter
how much of a Republican he is in fact. Only Republicans and Democrats
are allowed in the office of national management. The assumption is
that the Greens were right but are still not worthy of any real support.
The "promise" of letting us into the debate is a ruse and a lie. First there
is no binding contract, nor will there be. Second, they would not honor
it in any case. Third, they want progressives to NOT be criticizing their
candidates which, by enlarge, they have succeeded in doing. If they did
let the Green into the debate this time, then I would be afraid of what
they had planned as it would not, could not, be good. Assassinations
are nothing new nor even abhorrent to this government, for instance.

Clinton was a democrat president who did not do his job in protecting
the American people from a fascist takeover. He had plenty of power
and evidence to have the Bush campaign and his brother Jeb and
Katherine Harris arrested for election fraud. U.S. Marshals should
have cleared the halls of the Dade County court house of all the
GOP staffers that were flown in to cause trouble and they should
have been jailed for interfering in the recounting of the votes.
Same goes for the Supreme Court, which broke the law, as well
as with the entire history of jurisprudence in America, by not allowing
the recount._ The Democrats did nothing real to protect the integrity
of our national elections, much less defend their own interests and
those in Congress supported nearly all of the Bush agenda until
campaign time. So, one must wonder why. Why would the Democrats
be so soft and wishy washy when it comes to defending the American
people from fascism? Because they are part of it and there is no integrity
left in this nations government, not in the courts, not in Congress, and
certainly not in the executive branch. This is the most corrupt national
government in modern history and it is thoroughly BI-PARTISAN. The
Justice Department did no investigation what-so-ever, NONE, into the
election fraud of 2000. There is no rule of law anymore, it is just what
the managers decide.

It's spelled: Plutocracy. :p

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Tony
You searched the web and the only evidence you could find was from a propaganda web site? Weak, very weak.Right Tony, and merely making a flat statement as though it's written in stone while calling someone a moron is not weak...?


Originally posted by Earthborn
This is a bit wrong. Democracy does indeed come in two forms, but they are called 'direct' and 'representative'. A representative democracy does not have to be a republicYes, it was a bit wrong. Australia too is a representative democracy and not a republic.

[Tony]

He got this right:

Why would the Democrats be so soft and wishy washy when it comes to defending the American people from fascism? Because they are part of it and there is no integrity left in this nations government, not in the courts, not in Congress, and certainly not in the executive branch. This is the most corrupt national government in modern history and it is thoroughly BI-PARTISAN.

But forgive me for being skeptical of a "progressive's" motivations. This guy is probably mad that we have too much freedom; there isn't a tax increase, intrusive regulation or law a "progressive" didn’t like.

[Bjorn]

Americans seem to emphasize 'we are not a democracy', as if this makes the US constitution very different from other countries'.

But most 'democracies', at least in Europe, are just as much 'representative democracies' as the US - maybe with the exception of Switzerland.

It takes a lot to change the constitutions, it cannot be done by a simple majority, and it takes quite some time even if there is a 100% support for the change.

Would someone like to explain the difference to this amateur?

[Dancing David]

Thank goodness and some wise people that we are a representative democracy, but gosh i just have to laugh, this is the most corrupt government, that is a laugh, GWB does not even rock the coruption meter, look at the Senate prior to 1920, loook at the Grant administration, now there was corruption that would make even Ronbo blanch!

all I have to say is Sour Grapes and pooh on 'proportional representation', if third parties want to exist then they will have to build local power structures first and win local elections, pooh, if you can't run on a local platform and get elected the you have NONE to represent.

[Jessica Blue]

Tony,

Who cares what he said about these things? Why dont you just comment on the relevent passage and point out where you think its wrong instead of fixating on his liberal bias.

You still haven't offered up any argument as to why you think it's wrong to refer to America as a democracy.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Contary to the claims of East Germany in it's heyday, the U.S. is the real (but not the only) Democratic Republic.

Democracy is our system of politics.
A Republic is our system of government.

Why do the knee jerks feel the need to spout talk radio propaganda again and again even after being shown it's false?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

You still haven't offered up any argument as to why you think it's wrong to refer to America as a democracy.

I don’t necessarily think its wrong, but I think it's improper and inaccurate.

Ohh and sorry about the moron thing, I was tired and in a bad mood when I wrote that. :)

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Tony
I don’t necessarily think its wrong, but I think it's improper and inaccurate.

Then please explain the differences between a representative democracy and a republic.