This is not about the flawed electoral college that saw Bush get in.

This is not about America trying to impose it's ideal of democracy on other sovreign nations.

This is not about the West trying to impose it's ideal of democracy on other sovreign nations.

This about the grassroots concept of democracy and how, especially in the West, it has become the mantra for all that is supposedly good.

Members here, and people I know, have in the past expressed their frustration with voting....no matter what country they are in. It seems they have lost faith.

Populations vote in a leader, and one or two terms later they vote the leader out. The government is a slave to popularity, not to common sense or educated wisdom.

This, I suggest, is the biggest problem with democracy.

I see a typical nuclear family as a microcosm of what a good government should be: there is a ruling party (Mum and Dad), who use their respective skills to budget, feed, protect, and care for the family as a whole. Sometimes the children want something, and sometimes Mum will relent to it, sometimes, in her wisdom, she says "no". To get the best out of children, a firm but loving hand is so much better than spoiling them.

(The qualifier here is that Mum and Dad truly love their children.)

If a nuclear family was a democracy, Mum and Dad would be out-voted sometimes and the family would eat icecream and Oreos for breakfast every day. It is a silly propostion to suggest that a family should be run as a democracy....yet the way a loving couple of parents run a family is a model for society as a whole.

Sometimes, often even, the unwashed masses DO need a firm hand, and do need to be told "No, you can't have that."

However, in reality, in a democracy, the masses then become petulant if they are told "no", and since they have the power....the leader that said "no" is out the door.

What's the answer?

One idea is to make terms longer so that long term results can be seen. Of course that carries a very obvious downside....but may be worth considering if there are protections in place.

Change the voting system? What systems are there?

Thoughts? ( I have my own tentative ideas, but would love to see (and learn from) others).

One idea is to make terms longer so that long term results can be seen. Of course that carries a very obvious downside....but may be worth considering if there are protections in place.

Change the voting system? What systems are there?

Democracy is a nice ideal...Unfortunately the reality is not

Someone once said if you like politics/laws or sausage then never watch either being made.

I was thinking the opposite of your election term in office recently.....

Meaning shorter times between elections..... but higher or unlimited in amount of terms of re-election possible.

The voting system... as I said before a start would be none of the above added to the ballot.

If all else fails....Anarchy & we can vote from the rooftops...short term solution...I know...But it is getting there

PS" I know you said it is not about a flawed electoral college but it is flawed way beyond the GWB stories.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Since when?

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Since when?

I guess you could list them for us.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Guess you'll have to brush up on your history a wee bit.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Guess you'll have to brush up on your history a wee bit.

OK, list them.

Interesting concept, this Democracy illusion. For every sorted type of democratic form, there is a different model of practice.

Here's an interesting link;

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another...or Do They?

by Matthew White

I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:

1. Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.
   
   
2. Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies.
   
   
3. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.
   
   
4. Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.
   
   
5. The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.
   
   

In any case, here is the traditional list of wars which may or may not have been fought between democracies:

[blah, blah, blah. click on the link to read the list of 24.]

Basically It Depends on the Definition

"Democracy"

If you define

democracy as a system of government in which policy is set by unpunished, unrestricted debate among the citizens of a nation and put into action by their elected representatives, then all of the above nations are democratic. On the other hand, if you start narrowing the definitions, then obviously you'll get fewer democracies to work with, so

of course

you're going to have fewer wars between democracies.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Guess you'll have to brush up on your history a wee bit.

OK, list them.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm ......this listing is just a spoiler. Deeper research provides a wealth of results.

Democracy? There is no such thing in real life. It is an illusion and only a paper theory. The only true theory is Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in a position of authority ALWAYS abuse their authority. The evidence is evident throughout the world... and always has been.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Guess you'll have to brush up on your history a wee bit.

OK, list them.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm ......this listing is just a spoiler. Deeper research provides a wealth of results.

Beat you to it.

Democracy? There is no such thing in real life. It is an illusion and only a paper theory. The only true theory is Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in a position of authority ALWAYS abuse their authority. The evidence is evident throughout the world... and always has been.

Kudos, Ian!!

Basically It Depends on the Definition

"Democracy"

If you define democracy as a system of government in which policy is set by unpunished, unrestricted debate among the citizens of a nation and put into action by their elected representatives, then all of the above nations are democratic. On the other hand, if you start narrowing the definitions, then obviously you'll get fewer democracies to work with, so of course you're going to have fewer wars between democracies.

& There You Have It ....perhaps there are no wars between democracies because there are no real democracies At least by definition

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Since when?

I guess you could list them for us.

As you pointed out after this quoted post, it depends on what you define as a democracy.

So, to avoid the "officially-democratic-though-technically non-democratic" countries...I'll start with Argentina and England over the Falklands.

At least Democracies don't go to war with each other. I guess that's something.

Since when?

I guess you could list them for us.

As you pointed out after this quoted post, it depends on what you define as a democracy.

So, to avoid the "officially-democratic-though-technically non-democratic" countries...I'll start with Argentina and England over the Falklands.

That war doesn't even show up on the list of 24 wars in that link I provided (zzaa also). What I just read in a book on my desk is that Argentina returned to democratic rule in 1983, the year after the Falklands War.

From my novel

“Two kinds of human institutions,” said Martin Miller in 2000, “usually become morally corrupt, and stay that way: governments and organized religions.”

Usually, the government IS the enemy.

From my novel

"Two kinds of human institutions," said Martin Miller in 2000, "usually become morally corrupt, and stay that way: governments and organized religions."

Usually, the government IS the enemy.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Oh, and you can add labor unions to Miller's list.

Mr. Harcourt:

Why would you say this in your opening post?

_________________________________________

"This is not about the flawed electoral college that saw Bush get in."

_________________________________________

If it isn't about his election, why mention it at all?

You might explain why, if you disagree with the Electoral College process, you only mentioned the first GWB election as being flawed. Why were the others not flawed as well?

Mr. Harcourt:

Why would you say this in your opening post?

_________________________________________

"This is not about the flawed electoral college that saw Bush get in."

_________________________________________

If it isn't about his election, why mention it at all?

.........

I mentioned it because I am sensitive to the over-sensitivities of some America-bashing-sensitive members here.

As to why mention Dubbya in that context?....because he was the obvious example.

From my novel

"Two kinds of human institutions," said Martin Miller in 2000, "usually become morally corrupt, and stay that way: governments and organized religions."

Usually, the government IS the enemy.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Oh, and you can add labor unions to Miller's list.

Yes, add labour unions. Sad but true.....about all 3 institutions.

As to why mention Dubbya in that context?....because he was the obvious example.

Can you cite any other elections as being flawed? Since you claim he was the "obvious example" then, by your own words, there must be others.

Please explain.

As to why mention Dubbya in that context?....because he was the obvious example.

Can you cite any other elections as being flawed? Since you claim he was the "obvious example" then, by your own words, there must be others.

Please explain.

"Obvious example" does not mean there are others. Nevermind...

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I (as with a majority of "the rest of the world") do not familiarise myself with American politics. As much as you would like to think that the rest of the world is interested in domestic American matters, we aren't, so I can not cite any other examples. There may not be any! Dubbya's election was enough to show the flaw.

It's good to see that you concede that his election was based on a flawed system though.

As to why mention Dubbya in that context?....because he was the obvious example.

Can you cite any other elections as being flawed? Since you claim he was the "obvious example" then, by your own words, there must be others.

Please explain.

"Obvious example" does not mean there are others. Nevermind...

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I (as with a majority of "the rest of the world") do not familiarise myself with American politics. As much as you would like to think that the rest of the world is interested in domestic American matters, we aren't, so I can not cite any other examples. There may not be any! Dubbya's election was enough to show the flaw.

It's good to see that you concede that his election was based on a flawed system though.

i think JFK came to power in the same manner.

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I (as with a majority of "the rest of the world") do not familiarise myself with American politics. As much as you would like to think that the rest of the world is interested in domestic American matters, we aren't, so I can not cite any other examples. There may not be any! Dubbya's election was enough to show the flaw.

It's good to see that you concede that his election was based on a flawed system though.

So this would make your opinion uninformed?

Can you cite any other elections as being flawed? Since you claim he was the "obvious example" then, by your own words, there must be others.

Please explain.

"Obvious example" does not mean there are others. Nevermind...

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I (as with a majority of "the rest of the world") do not familiarise myself with American politics. As much as you would like to think that the rest of the world is interested in domestic American matters, we aren't, so I can not cite any other examples. There may not be any! Dubbya's election was enough to show the flaw.

It's good to see that you concede that his election was based on a flawed system though.

I conceded no such thing. Would you care to point out where I conceded the Electoral College system is flawed?

Since you claim unfamiliarity with American politics, why do you keep trying to appear you really know something about the subject? How can you claim a system is flawed if you don't understand it to begin with?

Mr. Harcourt, you seem to have a classic case of...open mouth, insert foot.

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I (as with a majority of "the rest of the world") do not familiarise myself with American politics.

Well you sure go on and on about them anyway.

I'm amazed how often people from other countries always refer to it as "America and 'the rest of the world'". As if the other 190+ countries don't have separate identities. That they all believe and think the same. Why do these people believe that they can speak for the "rest of the world"? Is it to validate their opinions? It's almost as if they are saying, "I'm from a small country and my opinion is meaningless unless I can say I represent 6.4 billion other people". It's not just Harcourt either so please don't think I'm picking on you in this case Mr. H.. Someone else here claimed to speak for the entire British Commonwealth or something like that.

I'm amazed how often people from other countries always refer to it as "America and 'the rest of the world'". As if the other 190+ countries don't have separate identities. That they all believe and think the same. Why do these people believe that they can speak for the "rest of the world"? Is it to validate their opinions? It's almost as if they are saying, "I'm from a small country and my opinion is meaningless unless I can say I represent 6.4 billion other people". It's not just Harcourt either so please don't think I'm picking on you in this case Mr. H.. Someone else here claimed to speak for the entire British Commonwealth or something like that.

Not that I need to apply an apologists approach, but I might believe it to be that most take an instinctive culturally-centric reasoning to most everything. Our character and thought processes tend to reflect certain indoctrinated models of conditioning.