'Democracy is more than polls'

[meltingpot2015]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

Very well said, there were mechanisms for retiring the Chinawat clan without bloodshed. There are no peaceful mechanisms for removing a dictator.

Unless the dictator holds elections, then you could defeat him at the polls if that was the peoples will.

You could not defeat him:

a) if he passes a law that states "any candidate must receive over 100% to become president/prime minister".

b.) he uses intimidation tactics.

Edited May 20, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[lostoday]

The point of democracy (one person one vote) is not to produce good governments or even non-corrupt governments. All governments are rubbish because they are run by humans with the interests of their own group in mind - that's expected.

The point of democracy is to control governments - specifically to prevent the truly evil type of fascistic government that gets a hierarchical grip on society through various levels of people in uniform and never lets go, with the inevitable spiralling of political persecution and closing down of society. That will happen if you let it; the evidence is in many countries, past and present. The current fascists in Thailand are pitching the country headlong into that truly dangerous situation. That's the only argument needed against it.

Very well said, there were mechanisms for retiring the Chinawat clan without bloodshed. There are no peaceful mechanisms for removing a dictator.

Unless the dictator holds elections, then you could defeat him at the polls if that was the peoples will.

You could not defeat him:

a) if he passes a law that states "any candidate must receive over 100% to become president/prime minister".

b.) he uses intimidation tactics.

Who did that?

[lostoday]

Melting pot your style of posting precludes a linked answer so here it is.

I didn't say all democracies are good or just or anything positive about democracies. All democracy means is that the leaders are chosen by free elections.

What you think is free and fair I'm sure I would not agree with. So if you tell me what you consider is free and fair I could answer your question.

My point was that elections can elect fascists or communists or liberal democrats. Democracy is not good or bad it is a system of choosing leaders.

Mostly totalitarian dictators are not chosen by democratic means but that's not to say it could not happen.

[meltingpot2015]

Melting pot your style of posting precludes a linked answer so here it is.

I didn't say all democracies are good or just or anything positive about democracies. All democracy means is that the leaders are chosen by free elections.

What you think is free and fair I'm sure I would not agree with. So if you tell me what you consider is free and fair I could answer your question.

My point was that elections can elect fascists or communists or liberal democrats. Democracy is not good or bad it is a system of choosing leaders.

Mostly totalitarian dictators are not chosen by democratic means but that's not to say it could not happen.

Here's a quote from post #174

Democracy is studied in the 6th grade in the West

This is where you get this idea about democracy being all about elections. Through your schooling. Also, in the west, from a young age, your family and friends would have taken part in many elections, elections are very common in the U.S.

You have TV advertising near elections in the U.S, so you (as a kid) would be exposed to this. So it kinda makes it seem Democracy is all to do with elections.

You posted a Video clip on a previous post about a candidate offering prizes on a facebook page, for anyone going and voting. And what happened, someone reported her to the Election Commisioner, Fox news Found out, they both contacted her, facebook page got taken down immediately.

That would have happened because you and everyone who has had a western upbriging, (because of the way you've had your schooling etc) would know its not right for someone to offer prizes for votes. So, you would immediately take action. Report it to the election commissioner, report it online, report it to Fox news.

You would do everything according to a set of rules, right?. For example, you did not see one of the other candidates in that election (in Chicago, if I remember correctly) threaten or make a visit to the candidate that was offering prizes to challenge them for a "fist-fight"? Do you see where I am going with this??

If you make it all about elections, you risk making the system so competitive. Which is fine for U.S. You have a stable democracy, you know how to accept defeat, because you know you will get a chance somewhere down the line. In Thailand democracy is just taking root (its just a sapling). So it needs to be protected from the rain, wind etc.

Which is how come, I cannot agree with your idea of using dictionary definitions for democracy. What does that dictionary definition tell us?. That you can apply a dictionary definition of democracy to any country (part of the world). I don't think so. If you have used an online translator you would recognize this instantly. If you can speak/write Thai (or any other language), type in a English Sentence in to Google Translale and Translate, more often than not the sentence will be translated in to incomprehensible mish-mash. All the words will be translated but most of the time (not always, but most of the time) what we see is some gobbledygook.

So that's the problem I have with using dictionary definitions of democracy, they are not easily translatable to a local culture. This is how come many countries have written constitutions. I incorrectly stated in a previous thread that Thailand may need some foreign assistance drafting the constitution, but now realize why it is important for the drafters to be persons who are familiar with Thai Culture and History.

The constitutions of Japan, Germany, India were written with a lot of outside help, and this was the reason for me saying Thailand should take the same approach, but those constitutions were written in a completely different context.

The Elections are in my opinion the roof of a house. First, you need the foundation, which is the constitution.

The rooms, kitchen, living room - Parts of the system of government. e.g. Congress, Senate, Judiciary (these do not directly translate to the examples given before, i.e. I do not mean to say that the living room = Judiciary).

Have already said what kind of election is not-free and unfair in post #180, but to answer your question about what I accept as free and fair elections (notice election as opposed to electoral system). please see:

http://kofiannanfoundation.org/our-work/global-commission-elections-democracy-security

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-emerson/2015-general-election-in-britain-free-and-fair

You asked me in a previous post what electoral system is a fair one:

The fairest of them all is a Borda Count system. Modified Borda Count encourages participation and compromise.

Edited May 20, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[lostoday]

Melting pot your style of posting precludes a linked answer so here it is.

I didn't say all democracies are good or just or anything positive about democracies. All democracy means is that the leaders are chosen by free elections.

What you think is free and fair I'm sure I would not agree with. So if you tell me what you consider is free and fair I could answer your question.

My point was that elections can elect fascists or communists or liberal democrats. Democracy is not good or bad it is a system of choosing leaders.

Mostly totalitarian dictators are not chosen by democratic means but that's not to say it could not happen.

Here's a quote from post #174

Democracy is studied in the 6th grade in the West

This is where you get this idea about democracy being all about elections. Through your schooling. Also, in the west, from a young age, your family and friends would have taken part in many elections, elections are very common in the U.S.

You have TV advertising near elections in the U.S, so you (as a kid) would be exposed to this. So it kinda makes it seem Democracy is all to do with elections.

You posted a Video clip on a previous post about a candidate offering prizes on a facebook page, for anyone going and voting. And what happened, someone reported her to the Election Commisioner, Fox news Found out, they both contacted her, facebook page got taken down immediately.

That would have happened because you and everyone who has had a western upbriging, (because of the way you've had your schooling etc) would know its not right for someone to offer prizes for votes. So, you would immediately take action. Report it to the election commissioner, report it online, report it to Fox news.

You would do everything according to a set of rules, right?. For example, you did not see one of the other candidates in that election (in Chicago, if I remember correctly) threaten or make a visit to the candidate that was offering prizes to challenge them for a "fist-fight"? Do you see where I am going with this??

If you make it all about elections, you risk making the system so competitive. Which is fine for U.S. You have a stable democracy, you know how to accept defeat, because you know you will get a chance somewhere down the line. In Thailand democracy is just taking root (its just a sapling). So it needs to be protected from the rain, wind etc.

Which is how come, I cannot agree with your idea of using dictionary definitions for democracy. What does that dictionary definition tell us?. That you can apply a dictionary definition of democracy to any country (part of the world). I don't think so. If you have used an online translator you would recognize this instantly. If you can speak/write Thai (or any other language), type in a English Sentence in to Google Translale and Translate, more often than not the sentence will be translated in to incomprehensible mish-mash. All the words will be translated but most of the time (not always, but most of the time) what we see is some gobbledygook.

So that's the problem I have with using dictionary definitions of democracy, they are not easily translatable to a local culture. This is how come many countries have written constitutions. I incorrectly stated in a previous thread that Thailand may need some foreign assistance drafting the constitution, but now realize why it is important for the drafters to be persons who are familiar with Thai Culture and History.

The constitutions of Japan, Germany, India were written with a lot of outside help, and this was the reason for me saying Thailand should take the same approach, but those constitutions were written in a completely different context.

The Elections are in my opinion the roof of a house. First, you need the foundation, which is the constitution.

The rooms, kitchen, living room - Parts of the system of government. e.g. Congress, Senate, Judiciary (these do not directly translate to the examples given before, i.e. I do not mean to say that the living room = Judiciary).

Have already said what kind of election is not-free and unfair in post #180, but to answer your question about what I accept as free and fair elections (notice election as opposed to electoral system). please see:

http://kofiannanfoundation.org/our-work/global-commission-elections-democracy-security

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-emerson/2015-general-election-in-britain-free-and-fair

You asked me in a previous post what electoral system is a fair one:

The fairest of them all is a Borda Count system. Modified Borda Count encourages participation and compromise.

You wrote, "I cannot agree with your idea of using dictionary definitions for democracy"

We have to stop there. That is absurd. We are writing in English. An English dictionary is what we use to understand each other's use of words. You can not disagree with an accepted definition and substitute your own.

I cannot discuss anything with a person who chooses to ignore the meaning of words and thinks his definition is superior to accepted meanings as defined by dictionaries.

This thread is about democracy and elections. This thread is about democracy and voting.

You are not the keeper of truth and meaning and don't get to make up new meanings for words.

How Democratic is the American Constitution? (2001, ISBN 0-300-09218-0, among others) is a book by political scientist Robert A. Dahl that discusses seven "undemocratic" elements of the United States Constitution.

The book defines "democratic" as alignment with the principle of one person, one vote, also known as majority rule.

One person one vote. That is the definition of democratic. No vote no democracy.

[meltingpot2015]

@lostoday:

It is clear from this thread, that you are not inclined to hear other peoples opinions, sometimes not even following what YOU have said yourself before (see post #182). Therefore, I will not be participating in any kind of perceptual narrowing of this nature.

The majority rule you cite is only relevant for a handful of countries, the U.S, is one of them (surprisingly where YOU were raised, the examples you give in post #185 are ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF USA). Countries such as Slovenia do not practice majority rule.

Elections are one of the elements in a democracy but does not define a democracy by itself, especially when an election can be nullified by a constitutional court.

As I said, I will not be partaking in a discussion about imposition of a dictionary definition of democracy.

Edited May 26, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[lostoday]

@lostoday:

It is clear from this thread, that you are not inclined to hear other peoples opinions, sometimes not even following what YOU have said yourself before (see post #182). Therefore, I will not be participating in any kind of perceptual narrowing of this nature.

The majority rule you cite is only relevant for a handful of countries, the U.S, is one of them (surprisingly where YOU were raised, the examples you give in post #185 are ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF USA). Countries such as Slovenia do not practice majority rule.

Elections are one of the elements in a democracy but does not define a democracy by itself, especially when an election can be nullified by a constitutional court.

As I said, I will not be partaking in a discussion about imposition of a dictionary definition of democracy.

How else do you define a word? That is what dictionaries are for. Education is learning what words mean as defined in a dictionary.

Daytime is roughly the period on any given point of the planet's surface during which it experiences natural illumination from indirect or (especially) directsunlight.

Night time is the time between evening and morning; the time of darkness.

Democracy definition. A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.

Sorry fella that is the definition of democracy. If you want to make a different one write your own dictionary.

All words in The English language are defined in a dictionary.

You, by the way, are not arguing with me. You are arguing with civilization.

I think a discussion of Slovenia's failed democracy would be an interesting discussion why don't you try and start a topic about it.

[saharmohamedali]

Democracy is more than polls

[scorecard]

Democracy is more than polls

Said with emphasis, well said!