posted
Okay so I hard a statistic before about how only 20% of the population vote.
So thats 50,000,000 People out of 250,000,000 People who vote.
So, if such a minority of people in the end contribute to who through executive power runs the contry and who through legistlative powers make the laws then isnt it in a way a minority goverment where onyl a minority of the population who detemrine what is best for the majority?
And if so is this truly democratic? Or is it more democratic to say in Austrialia where you are legally binded TO vote, everyone then votes but is that more or less democratic then allowing the epople the liberty to make sure of ther democratic rights or not to use them?
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the fact that people choose not to vote makes a country not a democracy. They still have the option to vote, it's not the US' fault that they don't. That's just my opinion though, I'm not sure if there's a some official standards for a country to be a democracy or something like that.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what is being voted for. Smaller votes (local races in particular) tend to be closer to the 20% figure. The percentage goes up the larger the vote. 51% of the country voted in 2000. 60% of eligible voters voted in 2004. I would personally like to see some kind of changes enacted to increase voter turnout (particularly on local issues, since I never know when we're supposed to vote for those). I personally think the presidential vote day should be a national holiday, though that may cause fewer people to vote ("Woohoo! Vacation time! Let's hit the beach!") I'm not a huge fan of the voting system that's currently in place. I think America is probably more of a republic than a democracy. Strictly speaking.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Consider, just for a moment, the idea that those who do not go to the polls are still voting...they just aren't casting a ballot. I know for a fact that some people who are eligible and registered do not cast a ballot in elections because they are so disgusted with the choices...or lack of them...that they don't see any good reason to vote.
This is not to say that I agree with their choice. And I think one can make an argument that, at least in local elections, if they don't like the alternatives they should run themselves. Still, I do understand that they are voting, nonetheless.
More of them might come to the polls if there were a "None of the above" choice for each office, and if the consequence for that choice getting the most votes were a new election, with none of the candidates turned down allowed to run in the new election.
And, finally, to answer your question, I don't think it makes America less of a democracy that some folks don't vote.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - littlemissattitude - that 'None of the above' thing is a great idea!! Someone get me a pen... I've got to write a letter to Washington... (not being sarcastic)
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it is! A Democracy is a country that is run by the people. We as the people choose to vote or not. Those who do want say in the government can get it. Those who don't, don't.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many cases in which an individual's vote doesn't matter. If your district leans strongly one way or the other, then the vote of those in favor of the minority view is often meaningless.
If you're in a strongly red or blue state, and you support the other candidate, your vote is meaningless.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, really, it doesn't matter after a certain percentage of people vote. In polls where they interview a thousand people, it may sound weird, but as the number of people polled go up, the results don't generally change. 1000 random people can give you the result of a nationwide election. Weird, but true. And no, to answer you're question. Check AOL polls for this... pretty cool.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some of the people in the US population are minors. Did you also want to include a discussion of voting rights for people under 18?
btw, your population numbers are incorrect.
The July 2005 estimated population of the US was just over 296 Million. The population 18 years of age or older was about 223 million at that time.
(Note, currently the US population is inching toward 300 million:
quote: According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 09/04/06 at 02:54 GMT (EST+5) is 299,642,900 COMPONENT SETTINGS FOR SEPTEMBER 2006
One birth every 7 seconds One death every 13 seconds One international migrant (net) every 30 seconds Net gain of one person every 10 seconds
I'm not in favor of compulsory voting.
I'm not in favor of voting for minors.
I am in favor of voiding an election if less than a certain percentage of eligible voters casts a ballot. We could set that percentage low, but I think we should have it in our "by-laws" that an election is simply void if not enough people vote.
Unfortunately, that might paralyze our government on occassion (e.g., when someone's term is up, and the new election is ruled invalid). I think we'd survive it though. If we had to do without a representative or a Governor for a month or so while we re-ran the election, I think people might start taking it more seriously.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Okay so I hard a statistic before about how only 20% of the population vote.
So thats 50,000,000 People out of 250,000,000 People who vote.
So, if such a minority of people in the end contribute to who through executive power runs the contry and who through legistlative powers make the laws then isnt it in a way a minority goverment where onyl a minority of the population who detemrine what is best for the majority?
And if so is this truly democratic? Or is it more democratic to say in Austrialia where you are legally binded TO vote, everyone then votes but is that more or less democratic then allowing the epople the liberty to make sure of ther democratic rights or not to use them?
"Binded"?
So forcing people to do something is, somehow, more "democratic" in your way of looking at things?
A choice not to vote is still a choice, Blayne. This is about people having a choice. Something they don't have in your beloved Red China.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I skimmed over the responses so far and didn't notice anyone bring up the point that America is, in fact, a republic. Nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence is the word "democracy" used. So no, we are not a democracy.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used democracy in terms of how it is commonly used not its exact greco theotecal meaning and Star, where did I say I am in favor of forcing people to vote? I simply gace Austrialia an example of a nation where its a jailiable offence NOT to vote.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, it wouldn't be a democracy if part of the citizenry were disenfranchised. None of them are, which means there IS a forum for them to discuss their problems, and there is a mechanism for them to effect change. If they choose not to use that mechanism, then they are in fact making a democratic choice.
I think the question you SHOULD be asking is "Why the hell are Americans such lazy citizens?" And really, it's a good question. America workers work crazy hours, with less vacation time than any other country in the western world, yet won't take a lunch hour to go vote.
It was already brought up that some people don't vote because if their district leans heavily one way or the other, they feel like there isn't any point, and many times there ISN'T a point to it. The solution to that is simple, get rid of the electoral college. That way, everyone who votes actually matters, and the majority will always win, as it should be. I honestly think there would be an increase in voter turnout. I think Presidents won't visit Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania all the time, they'll hit the big cities once and move on, cover all the states. Even if they only hit the big cities, it makes sure they address everyone's concerns, or at least more than they do now.
Compulsory voting is wrong. Forcing people to vote isn't going to ensure that the decision they end up making is reflective of what they really want. It won't ensure that we're better represented. It won't improve our democracy.
I just have to say though, that Blayne of all people questioning America's democracy is an ironysplosion.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in terms of Athens = Democracy, Rome (in the Republic years, obviously) = Republic. We are much much much (notice my expert use of repitition for emphasis ) closer to Rome than to Athens, thereofre I call us a Republic.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Dr. S.: that distinction seems specious.
Lisa beat me to it.
But it is not. Democracy is more of a mob rule. Officially, we are a constitutional republic.
In a pure democracy, it is to easy for the majority to take everything from the minority. There is a chance of that in a republic since those elected represent those who voted for them, but you have a bit more of a buffer.
The nature of the republic protects the minority from the majority, and the constitution protects the majority from the elected officials.
Getting a bit more one what Blayne was asking...it would be very bad to force people to vote. Going more towards pure democracy is dangerous. In general much of the public is uneducated about politics. If you forced them to vote, you would get many people who would just randomly put people into office.
Of course, our 2 party system moves us ever farther from a democracy...it makes it impossible for just anyone to be elected, you realistically have to be accepted by one of the 2 parties to have a shot.
I also think the founding fathers would prefer a smaller number of people voting. At times they were a bit elitist. The senate was designed in away to protect it from public with their 6 year terms.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I used democracy in terms of how it is commonly used not its exact greco theotecal meaning and Star, where did I say I am in favor of forcing people to vote? I simply gace Austrialia an example of a nation where its a jailiable offence NOT to vote.
Dammit, Brad, my name is Lisa.
Sorry, I mean Blaine.
And what on Earth is "greco theotecal"? I pride myself on being able to interpret your wild misspellings, but this one is beyond me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Democracy?" is "Yes."
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Republic?" is "Yes."
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Democratic Republic?" is "Yes."
If you say that America is not a democracy because it's a republic, or that it's not a democracy because it's not a 'true' (direct) democracy, this is wrong.
You might as well say that my Chevy Silverado is not a truck, because it is an automobile. Strangely enough, it's both, and you're correct to call it either!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm Australian, and I don't like our compulsory voting system.
Take for instance, a grassroots organisation petitioning to government for some policy change. In a country without compulsary voting, the government will pay more attention to these people (the people who actually care), knowing they're extremely more likely to vote than those who don't contact their representatives.
Then there's Australia's system. We literally have campaign workers visiting old people with alzheimers in nursing homes to convince (trick) them to vote for a particular party.
Let voting be voluntary for anyone over X age. Let it be left to those who care; especially those who have the most to lose if one policy is voted for over another.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually it actually occured to me to say Lisa and not Star or starLisa but for some reaosn I didnt notice myself writing just Star I apologize.
theoretical? Is that how it is spelt?
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm Australian and I love our compulsory voting system.
In response to cheiros de ender...
I haven't heard of people visiting people in nursing homes to convince/trick them of who to vote for - if this is the case it's horrible, and reprehensible.
But I think compulsory voting is great. Why?
Well, it makes most people care. Not everyone, and you still have donkey votes. But I think it still gets more people involved in the political process. Voting here is a big deal - everyone takes time off work to vote, and it's an important day. I like the wide-spread participation in our political process.
Secondly, it ensures that the very groups that *may not* vote, but should (i.e. minorities) do vote.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "None of The Above" option was seriously something I found intriguing. But how long would the new election start? How could candidates get ready in time? Would the current president stay in office until the next election concludes? Couldnt this be used as a means to keep a president in office longer than 8 years? (not neccesarily a bad thing, just a thought).
How would such a system work? I'd love to work out the details with you hatrackers.
Also Blayne: If America does not appear to be a democracy, perhaps you should examine whether or not China is actually Communist. I think you will find America is much closer to what it claims to be.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The United States is ultimately governed, in a regularly occurring and quantifiable way without compulsion, by the people within it who wish to exert power over their government and who meet a few basic prerequisites.
That sure sounds like a democracy to me...even f only five percent of the people end up choosing to vote. The wrongfully disenfranchised among the non-voting population are a tiny, tiny minority.
quote:So, if such a minority of people in the end contribute to who through executive power runs the contry and who through legistlative powers make the laws then isnt it in a way a minority goverment where onyl a minority of the population who detemrine what is best for the majority?
This question's answer is so obvious (to me) that I can't help but wonder if you mean it sincerely, or if it's asked to prove some rhetorical point instead. If you are doing a group project for school with three people, and each person has the opportunity to exert 33% control over the project...in what way does it cease to be a group project if only one person does the work, ending up with 100% of the actual contribition?
It was still a group project, with two slackers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) closer to Rome than to Athens, thereofre I call us a Republic.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
