The US-"Democracy" conspiracy theory

[Oliver]

Since no one comes up with some good, new conspiracy theories, i have a new one for you that came into my mind some weeks ago when i posted within politics about the Two-Party-System.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63611

First i thought it belongs to politics, too - but since it is a conspiracy theory...



After asking i came to following conclusions:

The whole american system is one big conspiracy from powerful people who want to keep their power - come what may.

1. The 2 party system was build to give it a look that the citizens have an option if they vote for one of these parties:

2. Only rich and powerful people have a chance to get the power.

3. At least 30 percent of americans who disagree with with the two "leading" parties have no voice at all. (shut up, scum?)

4. The 2 leading parties seem to be hostile from external view but there is no opposition at all.

[defaultdotxbe]

its sort of a two edged sword, people can vote for whoever they want, but they tend to vote fro whoever has the most money (and flashiest commercial)

http://peterswank.com/jokes/despair/conformity.jpg

"The masses are asses" -Alexander Hamilton

[firecoins]

People end voting for issues, lesser of 2 evils or not at all. I, being a libertarian, just can't seem to an elect least of 3 evils in. :)

[firecoins]

2. Only rich and powerful people have a chance to get the power.




Its funny how many rich democrats there are. Gov. John Corizine, NJ, John Kerry Heinz $ Ted Kennedy the 2 "honorable" men from MA. etc etc (Heinz is his married name sinc his wife has the money)

[defaultdotxbe]

2. Only rich and powerful people have a chance to get the power.
lol

although i agree about rich people, who was the msot successful "thrid party" (presidential) candidate? now tell me who was the wealthiest third party candidate?

[Dog Town]

lol

although i agree about rich people, who was the msot successful "thrid party" (presidential) candidate? now tell me who was the wealthiest third party candidate?

Ross the boss!

[Oliver]

So no one really disagrees with my CT´s? :boggled: Well, i guess it´s time to publish it within the New York Times and i blame you for any criticism i get. :D

[case sensitive]

270 millions (or whatever) and two parties.

It ok I guess. You only have two radio stations and two tv stations. Because americans think two is enough.

You eat pizza or hamburgers. Drink water or beer. It is great.

Two political parties that covers everyones opinion. Only in America!

The greatest democracy on earth.

[gumboot]

270 millions (or whatever) and two parties.


300 million now. :)

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Mhmm, i heard it´s not a democracy in terms of a democracy.
That´s the main point of my conspiracy theory. :D



I don´t care very much about sources in ct-mode but i guess it was this one:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38047&highlight=democracy+america

[Childlike Empress]

Since no one comes up with some good, new conspiracy theories...

Did you introduce them to Neuschwabenland already? I "really" miss discussions about it here. -> UCT (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/nazi.html) (unified conspiracy theory). ;)

[Oliver]

Did you introduce them to Neuschwabenland already? I "really" miss discussions about it here. -> UCT (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/nazi.html) (unified conspiracy theory). ;)

*lol* No, but thank you for the idea. :D It´s an issue for some CT´ists boards. Muhawawaw. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy061.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy092.gif

[Pardalis]

After asking i came to following conclusions:

The whole american system is one big conspiracy from powerful people who want to keep their power - come what may.


Only one thing to say Oliver, the best thing to do when you're making a judgement about a country is to go there at least once.

[gumboot]

Mhmm, i heard it´s not a democracy in terms of a democracy.
That´s the main point of my conspiracy theory. :D



I don´t care very much about sources in ct-mode but i guess it was this one:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38047&highlight=democracy+america




That post you linked to is rather odd and interesting.

There's one thing I do find funny though...

The focus on "democracy" seemed to be on the Head of State. A democracy is not meant to have a head of state. The entire POINT of a democracy is to ensure there is no head of state.

I feel the big flaw in the US as a democracy is the notion of a democratically elected head of state. It becomes the focus of the democratic status.

This is against the spirit of democracy.

To be a true democracy, the election process in the USA should focus on the house of representatives. This is the distinction between the USA and other democracies like the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand.

Here, we vote for a local representative who (theoretically at least) represents OUR interests in government and votes to reflect our interests.

And it is the voting in the house of representatives that is the democratic process. Not the elections.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Only one thing to say Oliver, the best thing to do when you're making a judgement about a country is to go there at least once.

I was there and in canada, too... nyaaah nyah-nyah nyaaah nyaaah. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy075.gif
And since most american CT´ists have no clue about the Reichstagsbrand... ;)

[Pardalis]

OK you got me there Oliver. :o

[Oliver]

OK you got me there Oliver. :o

So you don´t believe that the 2-Party-System is a conspiracy? BTW - how much parties does the canadian parlament have? Three, right?
Maybe this will be my next big conspiracy theory. :D

[Pardalis]

It might be a flaw, but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

[Pardalis]

BTW - how much parties does the canadian parlament have? Three, right?

We have many, but we mostly rock back and forth between Conservatives and Liberals. So basically we have two parties. I vote for the Bloc anyways. :D

Maybe that's the flaw of democracy, the parties that are in-between get ignored because when given the choice, most people won't bother.

[Oliver]

It might be a flaw, but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

We have 13 Parties even if not all of them are within the Parlament because they didn´t passed through the 5% Barrier. So every democracy with just 2 Parties looks like a bad hoax or to be more polite, like a CT to me.

Btw:

I don´t take it too serious. I just wanted to know if someone is able to disproof me...

...wich did not happen so far. :D

[Pardalis]

Sorry for having been uptight Oliver.

We have 13 Parties

Really? Are at least more than two get usually elected?

[Oliver]

Sorry for having been uptight Oliver.



Really? Are at least more than two get usually elected?

Of course more then 2 parties get elected. That´s why parties use to build coalitions after finding a shared direction to have more power within the government.

The good thing is that nearly every citizen has it´s representative within the government. The bad thing is that it needs more time for decisions because more parties are involved.

[gumboot]

The current New Zealand government consists of something like 5 parties.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

The current New Zealand government consists of something like 5 parties.

-Gumboot

Does a two-party system also sounds very strange to you, Andrew?

[gumboot]

Does a two-party system also sounds very strange to you, Andrew?


Not really. Before we switched to MMP we basically had a two party system. What I find more odd is the idea of electing a head of state, combined with the idea that the primary democratic process is electing a head of state, rather than electing representatives in government.

That's what I find really odd.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

The bad thing is that it needs more time for decisions because more parties are involved.

Maybe this has the advantage that bad laws might be more difficult to get passed this way (such as the Military Commission Act).

[Oliver]

Maybe this has the advantage that bad laws are more difficult to get passed (such as the Military Commission Act).

Such a law would never pass here because all the different opinions, i guess.

ETA: You need 3/4 majority to pass such a law...

[Pardalis]

The problem with the two party system is also that it polarizes the public's opinion. It encourages partisan bias even more, and people who don't want to affiliate themselves with either of those extremes can't really hope that their vote will count. That's a shame.

You're lucky to have a government which has more than two options.

[Brainache]

Australia has more than two parties, although only really two major ones.
Labor and Liberal. The Liberal party are in a coallition with the National Party.
We have Democrats and Greens and an assortment of smaller single issue type parties. We also have a fair few Independent MPs and Senators.

But basically on election day most people vote either Liberal(right) or Labor(left).

[Oliver]

The problem with the two party system is also that it polarizes the public's opinion. It encourages partisan bias even more, and people who don't want to affiliate themselves with either of those extremes can't really hope that their vote will count. That's a shame.

You're lucky to have a government which has more than two options.


I don´t know if it´s a shame or a conspiracy. I guess at the time this system was invented there should have been more opinions/parties than two. Very strange thing for the CT´ist in me. :D Maybe the freemasons were involved. :D

[PerryLogan]

There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

The Democrats's paucity of cash might suggest they represent the common people a lot more than the Republicans do--and this hypothesis is borne out by examining the records of both parties. The Democrats fight for the environment; the Republicans fight against it. The Democrats fight for civil rights; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats fight for food and workplace safety laws; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats got you the Freedom of Information Act, while the Republicans fought against it. And on and on.

You see? There goes your theory.

[Oliver]

There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

No no, my point is that only rich people who are able to get the money to run for the election are able to run at all. ;) In other democratic countries its the concept and smartness that let you climb the ladder, not the money.

[Donal]

There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

The Democrats's paucity of cash might suggest they represent the common people a lot more than the Republicans do--and this hypothesis is borne out by examining the records of both parties. The Democrats fight for the environment; the Republicans fight against it. The Democrats fight for civil rights; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats fight for food and workplace safety laws; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats got you the Freedom of Information Act, while the Republicans fought against it. And on and on.

You see? There goes your theory.


Do you work for the DNC or something? Do you have any proof that the Democrats have access to fewer resources than the Republicans?

Anyway, we do have a lot of Third Parties here. The problem is, most of them only focus on single issues(Righ to Life Party) or take far end stances on all the issues(Green Party).

I think the most succesful TP candidate we've ever have run for president was Teddy Roosevelt. This was after he served as a Republican. He retired from public life, didn't like what he saw, so he came back and really screwed up the Big 2. He didn't win, but he gave third parties a real hope.

Third Parties like the Poipulists in general tended to be a little successful on the local levels in late 1800s and early 1900s, but on the national level, the Big 2 simply absorbed their ideas in the official platforms. Of course, lately, the Big 2 just ridicule and ignore anything coming from the Third Parties. Its much easier and safer to stick to your voting base and vilify the other guy than to evolve and take a chance on an issue that you aren't sure will be accepted.


But, these are politicians we are talking about. Their job is to be elected, not to be leaders.

[Zygar]

I don't think the OP is big news. I think most intelligent Americans believe that this is at least mostly true. At least the majority of the non-aligned Americans.

Actually, I am aligned. I'm a Republican (although I'm rethinking it with the current faith-based regime), and I believe in the CT, although I don't necessarily believe that it is full-blown.

[Oliver]

Is this the first conspiracy theory that wasn´t debunked in here?

[Oliver]

Anyway, we do have a lot of Third Parties here. The problem is, most of them only focus on single issues(Righ to Life Party) or take far end stances on all the issues(Green Party).

So these thirt parties could have the chance to get into the parmalment - there is more room in the parlament for more then two parties? :confused:

[Donal]

So these thirt parties could have the chance to get into the parmalment - there is more room in the parlament for more then two parties? :confused:


Ya, probably the House of Representatives. We have a bicameral legislative branch. There is I think one independant there right now. Since representatives are elected by their local district, an TP has a better chance of grabbing a few seats with proper grass root campaigning.

Of course, who wants to go through the hard work and time consumption of an actual grass roots campaign when you can get on TV with a big national campaign?

[Oliver]

Ya, probably the House of Representatives. We have a bicameral legislative branch. There is I think one independant there right now. Since representatives are elected by their local district, an TP has a better chance of grabbing a few seats with proper grass root campaigning.

Of course, who wants to go through the hard work and time consumption of an actual grass roots campaign when you can get on TV with a big national campaign?

And what about the other three points of my conspiracy-theorie? :)

[uk_dave]

Did you introduce them to Neuschwabenland already? I "really" miss discussions about it here. -> UCT (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/nazi.html) (unified conspiracy theory). ;)


Perhaps we need a grand unified conspiracy theory.

But it all good. Relatively.

;)

[Marc L]

I feel the big flaw in the US as a democracy is the notion of a democratically elected head of state. It becomes the focus of the democratic status.


Actually, the biggest flaw in the US as a democracy is that it wasn't set up as one.

Marc

[Oliver]

Actually, the biggest flaw in the US as a democracy is that it wasn't set up as one.

Marc

What was the initial setup?

[Marc L]

What was the initial setup?

A federal republic. The difference, as I understand it, is that a democracy is literally ruled by all eligible citizens (as you mentioned above). A republic is ruled by elected/appointed representatives. *

*admittedly, my understanding of what a republic is may be shaky, so if someone else knows better, feel free to correct me.

Marc

[Zygar]

A federal republic. The difference, as I understand it, is that a democracy is literally ruled by all eligible citizens (as you mentioned above). A republic is ruled by elected/appointed representatives. *

*admittedly, my understanding of what a republic is may be shaky, so if someone else knows better, feel free to correct me.

Marc

No, you are right. We are a Republic, and not a true Democracy.

[Oliver]

No, you are right. We are a Republic, and not a true Democracy.

May i ask where did this system come from, who invented it and for
what reason? It´s hard to understand - living in a democracy with
13 parties. :boggled:

[gumboot]

May i ask where did this system come from, who invented it and for
what reason? It´s hard to understand - living in a democracy with
13 parties. :boggled:


A modern country cannot function as a true democracy...

Hence a modern country has to determine representatives whom vote on behalf of the population.

It happens that it was determined these representatives would ALSO be selected by vote, and over time, people have (wrongfully) identified the process of democracy as the process of voting for representatives in government. This is incorrect. The process of democracy is when said representatives vote on laws etc...

A republic is a "non-monarchy" - that is a form of government in which the political powers of the leaders are based on principals that are not beyond the control of the general population.

This is in contrast to, say, a divine monarchy where the political powers of the leaders are based on religious and unquestionable principals, that the population have no influence over.

Thus, ALL democracies, by definition, are republics.

The term "republic" originates from Rome, which was, of course, a republic. The American form of democracy is much more in keeping with the Roman form of democracy than the Athenian one - that is the emphasis on electing a head of state whom acts as a single leader for the governing council. In the US, being the President and Congress, in Rome being initially the Consuls and later the Imperatas and the Senate.

In contrast, the entire purpose behind the creation of Athenian democracy was to prevent there even being a head of state.

I feel that, at least in smaller countries, modern telecommunications technology makes more traditional Athenian democracy possible - that is all citizens would vote on the passing of key laws in a referendum type scenario. Thus the primary function of various political parties would be to educate the population regarding the various bills.

I believe one of the Scandanavian nations (I think it's Norway or Sweden?) already uses extensive referendums which are legally binding.

(There has been much fuss in NZ because our referendums are not legally binding - some years ago we had a referendum in which 98% of the voters demanded certain action from the government - the government has not acted accordingly)

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

At least the swiss citizens have the possibility to vote directly in important questions via referendum. But i don´t know which other states also share this possibility.

[Oliver]

There's a logical problem with saying the two parties were created by the rich to fool us.

The money differential between Democrats and Republicans is huge. It's a real David and Goliath battle, as far as the money goes.

This argues against your conspiracy theory. At least you need to explain why the conspirators would give one party ten times as much money as the other.

The Democrats's paucity of cash might suggest they represent the common people a lot more than the Republicans do--and this hypothesis is borne out by examining the records of both parties. The Democrats fight for the environment; the Republicans fight against it. The Democrats fight for civil rights; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats fight for food and workplace safety laws; the Republicans fight against them. The Democrats got you the Freedom of Information Act, while the Republicans fought against it. And on and on.

You see? There goes your theory.

Well i guess the different budgets didn´t exist
in the beginning - so my conspiracy theory
still makes sense. :)

And to be honest: I see no big fights between
D´s and R´s. If 2 parties have to agree with
each other, it´s a pretty small problem to find
a shared curse compared to 5 or more parties.

[chran]

At least the swiss citizens have the possibility to vote directly in important questions via referendum. But i don´t know which other states also share this possibility. Denmark does. I actually found a page about it at the Danish Parliament. Didn't know that existed - it's pretty cool.

http://www.folketinget.dk/baggrund/00000044/00232606.htm

1916 was a referendum about the sale of the West Indies Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_indies) to the US, which today are the Virgin Islands (I did not know that!)!

The we have a bunch of referendums about changing the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_constitution), mainly lovering the eligibility for being elected to Parliament from 25 (1953) to 18 (1978).

In 1973 we joined the EEC (referendum in 1972), in 1993 we adopted the Maastricht Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty), with the Edinburgh changes (leading to riots in Copenhagen :eek: ). We adopted the Amsterdam Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Treaty) in 1998, and we rejected the Euro in 2000.

Sorry for the list, I kinda geeked out for a moment after finding that page :D

[Oliver]

Denmark does. I actually found a page about it at the Danish Parliament. Didn't know that existed - it's pretty cool.

http://www.folketinget.dk/baggrund/00000044/00232606.htm

1916 was a referendum about the sale of the West Indies Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_indies) to the US, which today are the Virgin Islands (I did not know that!)!

The we have a bunch of referendums about changing the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_constitution), mainly lovering the eligibility for being elected to Parliament from 25 (1953) to 18 (1978).

In 1973 we joined the EEC (referendum in 1972), in 1993 we adopted the Maastricht Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty), with the Edinburgh changes (leading to riots in Copenhagen :eek: ). We adopted the Amsterdam Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Treaty) in 1998, and we rejected the Euro in 2000.

Sorry for the list, I kinda geeked out for a moment after finding that page :D

I didn´t knew that Denmarks citizens also have the possibility
to vote directly concerning important issues. I wish we would
have the same opportunity.

But who descides between parliamentary poll and plebiscite?
The Parlament during a separate poll, right?

[chran]

But who descides between parliamentary poll and plebiscite?
The Parlament during a separate poll, right? If it's constitutional changes, there has to be a referendum (it's in the Constitution :rolleyes: ), also if the law includes loss of sovereignty (for example, certain treaties with the EU where decisions made by The European Parliament would directly effect Denmark) there has to be a referendum.

But everything can be put to a referendum, as far as I know.

[Oliver]

If it's constitutional changes, there has to be a referendum (it's in the Constitution :rolleyes: ), also if the law includes loss of sovereignty (for example, certain treaties with the EU where decisions made by The European Parliament would directly effect Denmark) there has to be a referendum.

But everything can be put to a referendum, as far as I know.

Sounds pretty cool and i would pack my bags immediately
if it wouldn´t be literally so cold up there. :p

So how does the american system sound to you? Conspiracy? :D

[chran]

So how does the american system sound to you? Conspiracy? :D No, just kinda stupid :)

Election in November, and inauguration in January? Definitely designed for a time where communication happened by horse back! And a two-party system sounds limited.

But I don't think it's a conspiracy. Unless, that's what they WANT us to think! :boxedin:

[Oliver]

No, just kinda stupid :)

Election in November, and inauguration in January? Definitely designed for a time where communication happened by horse back! And a two-party system sounds limited.

But I don't think it's a conspiracy. Unless, that's what they WANT us to think! :boxedin:

I´m not sure - i´m still learning. Would you like to
get convinced that it is indeed a conspiracy?

Well, it´s the "sounds limited" part that made me
think about the conspiracy. And of course the circus
performances every 4 years. :D

[JimBenArm]

I´m not sure - i´m still learning. Would you like to
get convinced that it is indeed a conspiracy?

Well, it´s the "sounds limited" part that made me
think about the conspiracy. And of course the circus
performances every 4 years. :D

That's what makes it the bestest! The circus comes every four years, and we get to see all the crazies crawl out from under the rocks!

[Oliver]

That's what makes it the bestest! The circus comes every four years, and we get to see all the crazies crawl out from under the rocks!

But to me it looks like voting for the funniest clown instead voting
for the in intellectual terms smartest and most proper candidate.
And a political genius without money has no chance at all. :boggled:

[Brainster]

No, just kinda stupid :)

Election in November, and inauguration in January? Definitely designed for a time where communication happened by horse back! And a two-party system sounds limited.

Actually it used to be election in November and inauguration on March 4th.

We do not have a two-party system. What we have is an electoral system that has, as a side-effect, made it extremely difficult for third party candidates to succeed. But in effect, we also have an infinite number of parties in that elected officials are much freer to vote their own individual conscience on a bill without deference to the party line. The Democrats could lose a bill or two in this Congress without a vote of no-confidence, unlike most European parliaments. Although to outsiders Republicans and Democrats may seem monolithic, in fact they range quite widely in their opinions on the individual issues--there are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. There are Republicans who want us out of Iraq now and Democrats who support the president on Iraq.

The interesting thing is that because the parties are both fighting over the middle, they must be more moderate than their activists might otherwise prefer. But a vote in the middle is worth two on the wings, because if a rightwinger decides not to vote for the Republican, he's not going to vote for the Democrat, and vice versa for leftwingers who decided not to vote for the Democrat. It is this tendency that causes much of the bitterness in politics, because activists inevitably are disappointed in the relative moderation of their representatives when they are actually elected. Hence the appeal of third parties, but as others have observed, third parties are the pop-off valves in American politics. The Green Party attracted quite a bit of attention in the United States during the 1990s; it was a way for Leftists to blow off a little steam. But the Green Party effectively died in 2000, when people realized that the Green vote in Florida arguably gave the election to Bush. Suddenly Leftists discovered that despite all their claims to the contrary, there was quite a substantial difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

Of course, I fully expect to see a third-party candidacy on the Right this time around, because a bunch of conservatives are saying they can't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain (arguably the frontrunners for their respective party nominations).:D