Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

KellyHogan · Jun 4, 2002, 03:08 PM

According to the GOP, the US is not a democracy and they introduced a Resolution H. CON. RES. 48 at the 107th session in Congress to prove that.

<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.48:" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.48:</a>

[ 06-04-2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: KellyHogan ]

WildZero · Jun 4, 2002, 03:14 PM

The US is a Republic, duh!

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 4, 2002, 03:15 PM

The U.S. is not a democracy. It's a republic. There's a difference.

Next dumb question.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 4, 2002, 03:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
The US is a Republic, duh!

<hr /></blockquote>Great minds . . .

maxelson · Jun 4, 2002, 03:18 PM

Well... I WAS going to say it... looks like it has been said. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />
Although, it seems a bit silly to go through the motions of a resolution just to point out the obvious. What's the ulterior motive?

[ 06-04-2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: maxelson ]

KellyHogan · Jun 4, 2002, 03:19 PM

In a Republic the Senators claim to represent the 'people. In a democracy the 'people' have control of both legislation and the accountability of politicians. SO I would indeed vote 'no', the US is not a democracy. But then a democracy doesn't exist because the Republics don't like the idea of looking second best.

boots · Jun 4, 2002, 03:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
In a Republic the Senators claim to represent the 'people. In a democracy the 'people' have control of both legislation and the accountability of politicians. SO I would indeed vote 'no', the US is not a democracy. But then a democracy doesn't exist because the Republics don't like the idea of looking second best.<hr /></blockquote>There are no politicians, per se, in a true democracy, because every citizen votes on every issue. There are no "true" democracies because of the shear logistics. A republic just works better without compromising (too much) the ideas of representation.

BTW, if you knew this, why did you post a poll? It sounds like you were trying to ridicule the GOP for being correct.

BRussell · Jun 4, 2002, 03:50 PM

By your guys' definition of a democracy, do any exist in the world? Can't democracies be representative democracies?

xi_hyperon · Jun 4, 2002, 03:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
In a Republic the Senators claim to represent the 'people. In a democracy the 'people' have control of both legislation and the accountability of politicians. SO I would indeed vote 'no', the US is not a democracy. But then a democracy doesn't exist because the Republics don't like the idea of looking second best.<hr /></blockquote>The U.S. Senate, as envisioned by the framers, is NOT designed to represent the people. That is the job of the House of Representatives. The Senate was put in place as a protection against "majority rule" (or "mob rule" as some Senators have seen it). This is no secret, Kelly. As George Washington put it- the Senate is the saucer to cool the tea. There are several elements put into place to protect the Senate from being susceptible to the passion of the moment (as the executive branch and the House are). In the past, this has served the constitution well. One example would be the court packing attempt by FDR. In spite of FDR's political will and the support of the people, the attempt to pack the Supreme Court with justices more sympathetic to the New Deal failed. It was the Senate voting their conscience, which stood up against the majority will, and it was precisely for this type of situation that the framers designed the Senate.

KellyHogan · Jun 4, 2002, 03:56 PM

I think local democracy does work via referendums and modern technology. But the powers that be do not seem to think so and prefer the idea of purging blacks from voting registers.

One has to question why the GOP insisted on saying this and passing a resolution in the first place if it is so obvious. Who was their message aimed at? If it was aimed at people who want more democratic accountability then it was very undemocratic to pass the resolution in Congress. But then, as they say, 'We have the Senate, we have the Congress, we have the military, we have the power'.

xi_hyperon · Jun 4, 2002, 04:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
I think local democracy does work via referendums and modern technology. But the powers that be do not seem to think so and prefer the idea of purging blacks from voting registers.

One has to question why the GOP insisted on saying this and passing a resolution in the first place if it is so obvious. Who was their message aimed at? If it was aimed at people who want more democratic accountability then it was very undemocratic to pass the resolution in Congress. But then, as they say, 'We have the Senate, we have the Congress, we have the military, we have the power'.<hr /></blockquote>The question why tis sort of moot, if they are only stating the truth.

ReggieX · Jun 4, 2002, 04:01 PM

Quick! Someone tell the speechwriters so they can stop trumpeting the USA as "the world's greatest democracy!"

boots · Jun 4, 2002, 04:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
By your guys' definition of a democracy, do any exist in the world? Can't democracies be representative democracies?<hr /></blockquote>Definitions get fuzzy there. But I was trying to be specific by stating a "true" democracy, as in the ideal of one person one vote. There may very well be some indigenous tribes somewhere in the world that can operate this way. For any government of scale, it is just too cumbersome.

In true democracies and in representative democracies (that still needs better definition) it is easy to imagine where the will of the majority is incredibly harmfull to the minority. In the Republic model (at least as the US has it) there is a balance to the majority.

I say that representative democracy needs better definition because I would like to know if you mean

a) the people in the rep's area vote and then the rep votes in line with the majority (sort of like vote amplification)

or

b) the people elect a rep with the understanding that he/she will vote with the best interest of the constituents in mind, not necessarily what the majority of constiuents would vote for.

These are two very different models, and they often cause problems because neither one is more valid than the other. We see it quite often in our government.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 4, 2002, 04:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
I think local democracy does work via referendums and modern technology. But the powers that be do not seem to think so and prefer the idea of purging blacks from voting registers.

One has to question why the GOP insisted on saying this and passing a resolution in the first place if it is so obvious. Who was their message aimed at? If it was aimed at people who want more democratic accountability then it was very undemocratic to pass the resolution in Congress. But then, as they say, 'We have the Senate, we have the Congress, we have the military, we have the power'.<hr /></blockquote>LOL! Voting registers are controlled by local government. The Senate has squat to do with it.

For the rest of your ramblings, here's some equally disjointed replies. Maybe you can make sense of it.

1. Referenda can be hijacked in ugly ways - witness a number of referenda that have had to be struck down because they are unconstitutional. For example, the Colorado amendment struck down in Romer v. Evans that tried to write a group of people out of the 14th Amendment. Oh, very democratic!

2. You also might want to ask Socrates about justice in true democracies. Ask him to pass the Hemlock, too.

3. Finally, Senate,House and even joint resolutions have no practical effect. They are for show only. Most of them hail things like "The American Chicken Feed Manufacturers Day" and other such thrilling trivia. Getting upset over them is a bit silly.

KellyHogan · Jun 4, 2002, 04:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ReggieX:
Quick! Someone tell the speechwriters so they can stop trumpeting the USA as "the world's greatest democracy!"<hr /></blockquote>Exactly! if the establishment is going to trumpet that slogan around then they should be clear about it. The US is a Republic and as we know from hsitory, Republics swallow more and more nations and they become larger Republics...sometimes that leads to an Empire!

Is the US in favor of democracy and independence for nations as it typically claims in the media? Or is it in favor of an expanding Republic? Countries like Ecuador and Costa Rica literally use the US Dollar as their currency, as did Cuba at one point. We know the Romans encouraged the use of Roman currencies abroad before absorbing nations into the empire via taxes.

Are we demanding developing nations to change their systems and allow their markets to open up to consumer style western products and 15-minute celebrity culture in order to enforce our currency on them and and destroy their ancient traditions, some of which are the best in the world?

One must also look at the experiment with the Euro as a stepping stone towards a single western currency which will give government, big business and banking tremendous tax breaks and powers.

Therefore demanding democracy is the only way to end this sleepwalk towards an empire.

Sorry, I've just been watching The Great Dictator over and over again and it is not only hilarious but reminds me so much of Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfield and Fleischer. The characters are exactly the same!

boots · Jun 4, 2002, 04:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
By your guys' definition of a democracy, do any exist in the world? Can't democracies be representative democracies?<hr /></blockquote>Definitions get fuzzy there. But I was trying to be specific by stating a "true" democracy, as in the ideal of one person one vote. There may very well be some indigenous tribes somewhere in the world that can operate this way. For any government of scale, it is just too cumbersome.

In true democracies and in representative democracies (that still needs better definition) it is easy to imagine where the will of the majority is incredibly harmfull to the minority. In the Republic model (at least as the US has it) there is a balance to the majority.

I say that representative democracy needs better definition because I would like to know if you mean

a) the people in the rep's area vote and then the rep votes in line with the majority (sort of like vote amplification)

or

b) the people elect a rep with the understanding that he/she will vote with the best interest of the constituents in mind, not necessarily what the majority of constiuents would vote for.

These are two very different models, and they often cause problems because neither one is more valid than the other. We see it quite often in our government.

xi_hyperon · Jun 4, 2002, 04:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ReggieX:
Quick! Someone tell the speechwriters so they can stop trumpeting the USA as "the world's greatest democracy!"<hr /></blockquote>Exactly! if the establishment is going to trumpet that slogan around then they should be clear about it. The US is a Republic and as we know from hsitory, Republics swallow more and more nations and they become larger Republics...sometimes that leads to an Empire!

Is the US in favor of democracy and independence for nations as it typically claims in the media? Or is it in favor of an expanding Republic? Countries like Ecuador and Costa Rica literally use the US Dollar as their currency, as did Cuba at one point. We know the Romans encouraged the use of Roman currencies abroad before absorbing nations into the empire via taxes.

Are we demanding developing nations to change their systems and allow their markets to open up to consumer style western products and 15-minute celebrity culture in order to enforce our currency on them and and destroy their ancient traditions, some of which are the best in the world?

One must also look at the experiment with the Euro as a stepping stone towards a single western currency which will give government, big business and banking tremendous tax breaks and powers.

Therefore demanding democracy is the only way to end this sleepwalk towards an empire.
<hr /></blockquote>Democracy has its own set of drawbacks, hence the compromise the original framers tried to reach using the Senate as a check.

boots · Jun 4, 2002, 05:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 The US is a Republic and as we know from hsitory, Republics swallow more and more nations and they become larger Republics...sometimes that leads to an Empire!
<hr /></blockquote>George Lucas was obsessed with this idea too. Seriously. That's one of the major social themes that star wars was supposed to address/is addressing.

M�lum · Jun 4, 2002, 05:33 PM

Ofcourse the USA is a democracy. It may be far from perfect but it IS a democracy.

But if it is developing as a better democracy is another question.

Take the internet: It was introduced to all of us as this great free tool of free information... It is developing quickly into the biggest controlling device ever created (but visioned by George Orwell 60 years ago)

ReggieX · Jun 4, 2002, 05:53 PM

I still think the 3-way split between the powers is a great way to go, like xi said: Legislative, Executive, Judiciary. A 3 ring circus, just like Schoolhouse Rock told me!

Big Mac · Jun 4, 2002, 06:23 PM

Democracies - rule by mob - are by definition dangerous to individual liberty. The framers gave us a Constitutional Republic, the best system of government on the face of the earth. We have strayed, obviously, from those beginnings, and if we stray too much more we face totalitarian dictatorship. If the American experiment fails, it's not because we're a republic; rather, it's because the American people have failed in the duty to protect the nation. An uniformed, unprincipled and irresponsible citizenry isn't an ingredient conducive to liberty, no matter what form of government we're speaking of.

We are failing to assert control over a government that continuously grows in size, strength and scope. We are failing to elect leaders who abide by the Constitution. We are failing to remember why this country exists in the first place. We truly are failing ourselves, watching our nation transmute slowly but steadily into something very different from what the architects of the nation envisioned.

Hogan says we should demand democracy. To that I say we should demand greater representation. Direct democracy would do us no good whatsoever. But we do need more representation in the House. The Constitution mandates a specific apportionment of representatives per the population size of the represented. Yet, Congress locked representation at a fixed number. We are under-represented, and this under representation allows the legislature to pass many idiotic, unconstitutional laws and spending measures. We should have many more representatives. The greater number of reps would provide the people more of a say, and it would hopefully also serve to deadlock government until the politicians could come to a consensus more favorable to a larger number of people. (Even if they couldn't come to a consensus for awhile, a locked up legislature would be a good thing for state-centered federalism!)

It's interesting to note that this KH thread attempted to troll but ended up being a pretty useful discussion. Few people know the principles behind American government, so it's good to get the issue out there. It's also interesting to note, Hogan, that you base your political opinions on motion pictures. . . But I don't wish to destroy this thread, so I'll leave it there.

[ 06-04-2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

M�lum · Jun 4, 2002, 06:29 PM

Democracies - rule by mob - are by definition dangerous to individual liberty .......................

and again ......................

WildZero · Jun 4, 2002, 07:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Big Mac:
We are failing to assert control over a government that continuously grows in size, strength and scope. We are failing to elect leaders who abide by the Constitution. We are failing to remember why this country exists in the first place. We truly are failing ourselves, watching our nation transmute slowly but steadily into something very different from what the architects of the nation envisioned.<hr /></blockquote>Nice post. I wish to add that "We" are not failing to assert control, rather the approx. 50% of the US population that can vote but chooses not to is failing.
Our elected leaders often result from the votes of 25% to 30% of our adult population. How different would the political landscape be if everyone who complained about the system did something to change it instead by voting? And why do the people deserve better if they are too lazy to participate in the one small activity that truly makes them free?

zigzag · Jun 4, 2002, 11:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Big Mac:
We are failing to assert control over a government that continuously grows in size, strength and scope. We are failing to elect leaders who abide by the Constitution. We are failing to remember why this country exists in the first place. We truly are failing ourselves, watching our nation transmute slowly but steadily into something very different from what the architects of the nation envisioned.<hr /></blockquote>Nice post. I wish to add that "We" are not failing to assert control, rather the approx. 50% of the US population that can vote but chooses not to is failing.
Our elected leaders often result from the votes of 25% to 30% of our adult population. How different would the political landscape be if everyone who complained about the system did something to change it instead by voting? And why do the people deserve better if they are too lazy to participate in the one small activity that truly makes them free?<hr /></blockquote>Respectfully, I don't see any particular reason to think that if all those apathetic people voted, the results would be significantly different. Apparently, they're more or less satisfied with the status quo.

zigzag · Jun 5, 2002, 12:04 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
According to the GOP, the US is not a democracy and they introduced a Resolution H. CON. RES. 48 at the 107th session in Congress to prove that.

<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.48:" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.CON.RES.48:</a><hr /></blockquote>This resolution, which is strictly symbolic, was introduced by Ron Paul, a notorious right-wing nut. Who really cares? It says nothing that we didn't already know. It was probably a symbolic response to calls for doing away with the electoral college. Where did you come up with this, and why would you bother?

"Democracy" is just a generalized term for a system in which all adult citizens are entitled by law to a secret, uncoerced ballot, whether it's for a representative or a referendum. Call it a democracy or a republic or yo mama, everyone understands that it generally operates by representation. England has a parliamentarian system, and the U.S. doesn't, but in general terms they're both still democracies. The fact that one or another candidate or party cheats on occasion doesn't change the system's basic nature.

I happen to be in favor of eliminating (or at least reforming) the electoral system, but I'm not particularly worried about it.

Mastrap · Jun 5, 2002, 01:23 AM

I don't particulary want to live in a true democracy. There is a very real danger that the lowest common denominator, the man in the pub, will highjack decisions that are far too complex to be left to the electorate as a group. To suggest that a country run by all of its citizens woulod be a better place to live is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst. One of the main reasons that we elect politicians is that we trust them to do the job of running the country better then we ould be able to. One of the reasons we've got the House of Lords in the UK and the "Bundesrat" in Germany is to temper the rule of the majority by people who take in a bigger picture and who's career is not in the hands of the electorate. That is a very good thing.

They don't direct videos, I don't try and run the country. That way we both stay within our competences.

Big Mac · Jun 5, 2002, 01:39 AM

Thank you for the compliment, WildZero. I too think voter turn-out should be higher, but, then again, high voter turn-out is only a good thing when the citizenry has the knowledge to vote properly.

zigzag originally posted:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />This resolution, which is strictly symbolic, was introduced by Ron Paul, a notorious right-wing nut. Who really cares? It says nothing that we didn't already know. It was probably a symbolic response to calls for doing away with the electoral college. Where did you come up with this, and why would you bother? <hr /></blockquote>Ron Paul is a principled, libertarian-minded statesman. This is the first time I've heard someone characterize him as "a notorious right-wing nut." At least you're not shy about expressing your true political leanings, zigzag. I always like to know where people are coming from ideologically.

zigzag also states:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I happen to be in favor of eliminating (or at least reforming) the electoral system, but I'm not particularly worried about it.<hr /></blockquote>No big surprise there, considering your previous statements.

I'm not speaking specifically to zigzag but to all here: Anyone advocating the further erosion of the US Constitution should at least first attempt to understand the philosophies behind its various features.

[ 06-05-2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

Spheric Harlot · Jun 5, 2002, 06:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
I don't particulary want to live in a true democracy. There is a very real danger that the lowest common denominator, the man in the pub, will highjack decisions that are far too complex to be left to the electorate as a group. To suggest that a country run by all of its citizens woulod be a better place to live is naive at best and downright dangerous at worst. One of the main reasons that we elect politicians is that we trust them to do the job of running the country better then we ould be able to. <hr /></blockquote>And this, of course, is the problem with voting a "regular guy" into office on the basis of "he's-one-of-us"-popularity.
I expect a politician to have a general tendency towards issues, but not necessarily to decide exactly as I would. It is his job to be *better*-informed than Average Joe and to thus make decisions that the Average Joe wouldn't be as capable of making.

I don't want a regular guy like me to run the country, any more than I expect an outstanding politician to play a mean solo on my Hammond organ.

The real problems are that
a) there is a real shortage of outstanding politicians who are actually *good* at their job (which, contrary to popular belief, is *not* primarily to look good on TV - the actual job begins *after* election), and
b) most people would never be able to recognize an outstanding politician as such.

-spheric*

tinrib · Jun 5, 2002, 07:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 The US is a Republic and as we know from hsitory, Republics swallow more and more nations and they become larger Republics...sometimes that leads to an Empire!
<hr /></blockquote>George Lucas was obsessed with this idea too. Seriously. That's one of the major social themes that star wars was supposed to address/is addressing.<hr /></blockquote>I thought it was pretty obvious that Kelly was hinting towards Star Wars here...

undotwa · Jun 5, 2002, 08:21 AM

America is not a democracy. Technically, no nation is a democracy. America is an oligarchy. Well, kinda.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 5, 2002, 08:29 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by undotwa:
America is not a democracy. Technically, no nation is a democracy. America is an oligarchy. Well, kinda.<hr /></blockquote>Well kinda not, actually.

Lerkfish · Jun 5, 2002, 09:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tinrib:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 The US is a Republic and as we know from hsitory, Republics swallow more and more nations and they become larger Republics...sometimes that leads to an Empire!
<hr /></blockquote>George Lucas was obsessed with this idea too. Seriously. That's one of the major social themes that star wars was supposed to address/is addressing.<hr /></blockquote>I thought it was pretty obvious that Kelly was hinting towards Star Wars here...<hr /></blockquote>yes...he's done that...over and over and over and over again. and over again, just in case we missed it.

this is what divides expressing your opinion from propaganda.

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 09:47 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tinrib:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 The US is a Republic and as we know from hsitory, Republics swallow more and more nations and they become larger Republics...sometimes that leads to an Empire!
<hr /></blockquote>George Lucas was obsessed with this idea too. Seriously. That's one of the major social themes that star wars was supposed to address/is addressing.<hr /></blockquote>I thought it was pretty obvious that Kelly was hinting towards Star Wars here...<hr /></blockquote>Eh. I've been gone for a while, and I guess I wiped KH's "hints" from my mind. Sorry for the restatement of the obvious. After a couple of days, its all starting to come back....

zigzag · Jun 5, 2002, 11:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Big Mac:
Ron Paul is a principled, libertarian-minded statesman. This is the first time I've heard someone characterize him as "a notorious right-wing nut." At least you're not shy about expressing your true political leanings, zigzag. I always like to know where people are coming from ideologically.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I'm not the first person to suggest that he's a right-wing nut. From one of his own writings (in connection with the Waco incident):

"For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and- of course- the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?)."

Having said that, I admit that I was too quuick to characterize Rep. Paul as a "right-wing nut." I was operating from faint memory and spoke too soon. In order to refresh my memory, I visited his website and, while I disagree with a number of his positions, he is a refreshing departure from the average mealy-mouthed politician. Indeed, as someone who has voted Libertarian on occasion, I should've known better.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />zigzag also states:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I happen to be in favor of eliminating (or at least reforming) the electoral system, but I'm not particularly worried about it.<hr /></blockquote>No big surprise there, considering your previous statements.

I'm not speaking specifically to zigzag but to all here: Anyone advocating the further erosion of the US Constitution should at least first attempt to understand the philosophies behind its various features.<hr /></blockquote>Well, if it's underlying philosophies that you're concerned with, I think it's quite arguable that the original underlying philosophies behind the electoral college have been thwarted, and that therefore it should be eliminated or reformed. The real "erosion", if you want to use that term, may be in how the electoral system is now implemented.

The Constitution provides for amendment. The Bill of Rights was a series of amendments. I don't think that advocating elimination or reform of the electoral system is automatically tantamount to an "erosion" of the Constitution. Where the electoral system is concerned, the "erosion" may have already occurred.

The reason I said that I wasn't particularly worried about it is that I'm a flexible-minded person and I understand the pro- arguments as well as the con- arguments. I don't think that the survival of the Republic turns on the retention or elimination of the electoral system as it now stands.

Mind you, I'm not one who bemoans the electoral system just because Bush prevailed in the last election - I advocated a change before that, and I've never complained about the fact that Bush prevailed (I think that both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts used faulty reasoning in the case, but that's another matter and doesn't turn on whether I wanted Bush or Gore to prevail).

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 12:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
 (I think that both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts used faulty reasoning in the case, but that's another matter and doesn't turn on whether I wanted Bush or Gore to prevail).<hr /></blockquote>Not to hijack the thread, but I find this interesting, becuase the US supreme court found the FL supreme court reasoning faulty. People either don't realize or forget the fact that the Supreme Court actually made two decisions that were decided by different margins. The question of the recount standards (remember, this was the main issue with the FL supreme court) was actually decided by a 7-2 margin in favor of Bush et al.: The standards that were being applied were too vague. This is not a "party-line" decision. The party-line decision was the subsequent decision that involved how to handle it. The 5-4 decision said that there wasn't enough time to remand the issue (recount standards) back to the state without compromising the ability of the state to submit their certified election results to the electoral college before the electoral college meeting. (In essense, this stopped the recount, but the issue that Bush et al were moaning about was the issue of varying standards in the recount.)

Anyway, just thought it was interesting that you didn't clarify which part of the US supreme court decisions you thought were faulty since they also agree that the FL court used faulty reasoning.

zigzag · Jun 5, 2002, 01:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
Anyway, just thought it was interesting that you didn't clarify which part of the US supreme court decisions you thought were faulty since they also agree that the FL court used faulty reasoning.<hr /></blockquote>I'm too far away from it to discuss it with any clarity (I probably couldn't state the Rule Against Perpetuities right now either

). All I can say is that after reading some of the post-fiasco analysis (Posner, Toobin, etc.) I came to the conclusion that it was pretty screwy all around. That the Florida court used faulty reasoning doesn't mean that the U.S. court didn't also use faulty reasoning, at least in part (which is why we have dissents). I think the Supreme Court's result was probably appropriate even if I didn't entirely agree with the reasoning behind it.

I only brought it up because I wanted to make it clear that, unlike some people, my objections to the way the electoral college is presently implemented don't stem from the mere fact that Bush prevailed in the last election. I would feel the same way regardless of who prevailed.

MacGorilla · Jun 5, 2002, 01:29 PM

My professor in Consitutional law called the US a Democratic Republic, which I think it's about as close as you can get to a definition for our government. A true Republic is something like the Romans had, where the legislative branch holds the majority of the power, which was true until the Caesars came along. Before the caesars, the Roman Senate elected a "Counsel" to act as an executive for one year and there were usually two of them.

My teenage daughter complains that she has no say in household affairs and we tell her that the house is a Roman Republic and she is a mere pleeb

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 02:44 PM

Star Wars? So George Lucas invented the idea that corrupted Republics can lead to empires or did history demonstrate that several times?

boots · Jun 5, 2002, 03:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
Star Wars? So George Lucas invented the idea that corrupted Republics can lead to empires or did history demonstrate that several times?<hr /></blockquote>Yes, Star Wars. And no, he didn't invent it, he's just the latest to play with it in a mass distributed media. There is no law against not being the originator of a base concept. If so, the original conspiricy theorist would have a pretty good case against you.

Have you watched the movies? Episode II pretty much brings just this transformation into focus. You, of all people, would really like the social implications brought up in Star Wars.

KellyHogan · Jun 5, 2002, 03:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KellyHogan:
[qb]
Have you watched the movies? Episode II pretty much brings just this transformation into focus. You, of all people, would really like the social implications brought up in Star Wars.<hr /></blockquote>There was probably too much emphasis on special effects ans short quick sequences for the general audience to notice the political stuff.

In a sense, I have seen the GOP and the Bush family as a kind of Borgia dynasty and the Church during the time of the Renaissance. America is very much like Renaissance Italy, a clash between Republicanism, Humanism and the Arts, and Macchiavellian Republicanism/Dictatorship. Even Bush's biatch daughter reminds me of Lucrezia.

Lerkfish · Jun 5, 2002, 03:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by boots:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KellyHogan:
[qb]
Have you watched the movies? Episode II pretty much brings just this transformation into focus. You, of all people, would really like the social implications brought up in Star Wars.<hr /></blockquote>There was probably too much emphasis on special effects ans short quick sequences for the general audience to notice the political stuff.

In a sense, I have seen the GOP and the Bush family as a kind of Borgia dynasty and the Church during the time of the Renaissance. America is very much like Renaissance Italy, a clash between Republicanism, Humanism and the Arts, and Macchiavellian Republicanism/Dictatorship. Even Bush's biatch daughter reminds me of Lucrezia.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not at all surprised you'd think that.

MikeM32 · Jun 5, 2002, 03:45 PM

re�pub�lic ��Pronunciation Key��(r-pblk)
n.
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.

2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.

3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

__________________________________________________ ____________

de�moc�ra�cy ��Pronunciation Key��(d-mkr-s)
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.

Maybe this is why we have Republicans and Democrats in the first place

I do see a slight difference.

A Republic seems to be upheld and defined by it's leading representatives, this "suggests" in many ways that the every-day man/woman does not "count". According to definition alone a Republican should then be completely behind the ideas and concepts of those he/she elected to lead them. This suggests that a true Republican would never oppose the choices of those they elected to office after the fact.

Whereas a Democracy is "by the people". This opens-up opportunity to oppose those they elect to power whenever that person makes a choice the people do not agree with. Just because the people elected them during a campaign and agreed with all thier views then does not mean they all still agreed with everything they've done since they were elected.

I'm probably way wrong here, but by definition that seems like the way "it is". This almost suggests that a Republic has a closer "potential" for becoming a monarchy/empire due to the amount of trust given to those elected in power after the fact. I guess it's really a question of whethere we choose to scrutinize those in power or not. Do we question authority or not?

Mike

MikeM32 · Jun 5, 2002, 04:15 PM

The Star Wars analogy presented above isn't a bad one actually. The "glory days" were during the old republic (or what we see in Episodes 1 and 2 as "the Republic"). What's interresting is we only see a group of elected officials ruling on decisions to effect the future of the galaxy rather than say the everyday "joe schmoe". In episodes 1 and 2 we see "chrome" coverred starships and fighters, which have obviously been meticulously crafted, versus the TIE (Twin Ion Engine) fighters of the Empire and the stripped-to-the-bones X and Y wing class fighters of the Rebellion in episodes 4-6.

The outlying systems like Tatooine and it's residents become the victems of this eventual monarchy/empire due to thier lack of interrest in political events. We barely even catch much of a glimpse of the citizens of Coruscant (an entire planet coverred by one huge city, with a population that must rival 10 earths). The population seems to not give a rats @$$ what's going on. So the rule is left to the elected officials (from those that actually did excercise thier right to vote). Everyone seems to bask in the technology of the day. Only the Jedi Council and a few others really show concern as to current events.

There's an allegory here that applies to reality. If we do not choose to vote nor question those in power then we give up our rights altogether. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

In Episodes 4-6 we see these "rogue" characters like Han Solo making a living behind the back of the empire. Nevermind the whole rebellion movement (people, and other species, that actually do care what happens politically).

So basically what we choose to say "I don't care to" today can truly affect our futures.

I think that's the point Lucas is trying to make in Episodes 1-3 (he did say they would deal much more with "politics" as a whole).

Mike

zigzag · Jun 5, 2002, 07:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
Originally posted by KellyHogIn a sense, I have seen the GOP and the Bush family as a kind of Borgia dynasty and the Church during the time of the Renaissance. America is very much like Renaissance Italy, a clash between Republicanism, Humanism and the Arts, and Macchiavellian Republicanism/Dictatorship. Even Bush's biatch daughter reminds me of Lucrezia.<hr /></blockquote>Me too, except for the parts about "the Bush family as a kind of Borgia dynasty and the Church during the time of the Renaissance", and America being "very much like Renaissance Italy, the clash between Republicanism, Humanism and the Arts, and Machiavellian Republicanism/Dictatorship." Other than that, I think you've nailed it.

Actually, I see the Bush family as more like "Petticoat Junction", with Dick Cheney as Uncle Joe. Anyone else?

Lerkfish · Jun 5, 2002, 07:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, I see the Bush family as more like "Petticoat Junction", with Dick Cheney as Uncle Joe. Anyone else?<hr /></blockquote>well, actually I was thinking more along the lines of Dukes of Hazard, with Dubya as the deputy (what was his name?) and his pappy as boss hogg. But maybe that's just me.

KellyHogan · Jun 6, 2002, 03:03 AM

Yeah, and another analogy the famous Death Star with the even more infamous Republican dream project...Star Wars.

Darth Bush 'Once we have Star Wars up and running nobody will dare challenge us, Commander Sato.'

boots · Jun 6, 2002, 08:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, I see the Bush family as more like "Petticoat Junction", with Dick Cheney as Uncle Joe. Anyone else?<hr /></blockquote>well, actually I was thinking more along the lines of Dukes of Hazard, with Dubya as the deputy (what was his name?) and his pappy as boss hogg. But maybe that's just me.

<hr /></blockquote>Were you referring to "Rosco P. Coletrain" or Enis.

I wouldn't exactly compare Jenna to Daisy, but....

And who's Flash? Jenna's sister? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

(Ok, that was unwarrented...)

zigzag · Jun 6, 2002, 10:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, I see the Bush family as more like "Petticoat Junction", with Dick Cheney as Uncle Joe. Anyone else?<hr /></blockquote>well, actually I was thinking more along the lines of Dukes of Hazard, with Dubya as the deputy (what was his name?) and his pappy as boss hogg. But maybe that's just me.

<hr /></blockquote>I suppose this would make The Clinton Dynasty like "Leave it to Beaver", with Monica Lewinsky as "The Beav"?

Lerkfish · Jun 6, 2002, 10:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, I see the Bush family as more like "Petticoat Junction", with Dick Cheney as Uncle Joe. Anyone else?<hr /></blockquote>well, actually I was thinking more along the lines of Dukes of Hazard, with Dubya as the deputy (what was his name?) and his pappy as boss hogg. But maybe that's just me.

<hr /></blockquote>I suppose this would make The Clinton Dynasty like "Leave it to Beaver", with Monica Lewinsky as "The Beav"?<hr /></blockquote>or, if happy days monica could be "ralph the mouth"