Friendly reminder: The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, NOT a direct democracy

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Liquesence

Show me specifically where any theory about democracy it states exactly what you've stated from a source other than you.

Look it up.

Start with the standard definitions of a republic and a true democracy.

14th Amendment might be the most relevant, as there isn't much int he way of ensuring a right to vote prior to that:

"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Here, its only guranteeing the right to vote to people who are:

- male
- over 21
- a US citizen
- have no history of treasonous/rebellious activity, or other criminal behavior

What it does not do:

- guarantee the right to vote of non citizens
- guarantee the right to vote to women
- give the states the right to extend voting privileges to someone 18-20 years of age

In fact, until 1820 it was common for regular old white men to not have a voting right due to not having enough net worth. Voting rights were not guaranteed until rather recently for a majority of the nation. Native Americans, of all people, were denied a right to vote until the mid 20th century. Same with black people. Women...early 20th century.

In a democrazy we all have a right to vote. This was a weakness in the minds of our founders, and they sought to work against it as much as possible.

Now think about this: if you think you are of at least average intelligence, that would mean that at least half our nation is dumber than you. With most of them being far, far dumber. Do you really want a democracy?

a reply to: Liquesence

Why would I look up the standards of true democracy when I'm referencing representative democracy

Why don't you guys start a thread about who doesn't have the RIGHT to vote instead of trying to prove that it's not a right when the language in the amendments itself states that it's a right.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Liquesence

Why would I look up the standards of true democracy when I'm referencing representative democracy

Then what's the issue?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Now think about this: if you think you are of at least average intelligence, that would mean that at least half our nation is dumber than you. With most of them being far, far dumber. Do you really want a democracy?

My only problem with this is what if I am or believe myself to be of below average intelligence, but I still exist in the society and probably work/pay taxes. Shouldn't I still have some say in how the system is run?

The above is completely opposite to the point I was arguing earlier, but it's one I also think about. What's the balance between running things optimally, having leaders who make the best decisions, and having a system where people who exist in the system have some say over how it's run? Someone may not be the smartest person around, or even equal to the average but is that a reason to automatically dismiss their concerns?

a reply to: Liquesence

I never claimed it was a true democracy in fact right in the thread title you can clearly see that I said it is not.

But ok.... let's keep repeating ourselves until it becomes true

a reply to: onequestion

The issue of voting rights in the United States has been fought for throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is established both in the US Constitution and its amendments, and by state law. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as at-large or single member district elections for county councils or school boards.

Note the use of the word "eligibility"

That means not everyone has the right. As others have pointed out, it wasn't until the late 19th century that people of color were eligible, and not until the 20th century that women were eligible.


Ultimately the question at hand...

Do you feel represented by our current legislative or executive branches??

a reply to: kalisdad

Irrelevant.

It's 2016.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: kalisdad

Irrelevant.

It's 2016.

Do you feel represented by our current legislative or executive branches?

a reply to: kalisdad

What's your point

a reply to: onequestion

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regardless of your thread title, we are nowhere near a democracy in the 2016 century. It's all an illusion of divide and conquer

a reply to: kalisdad

We are not allowed to freely choose. We are force fed the chosen few by a group of private citizens.

Case in point, our national presidential debates.

Commission on Presidential Debates

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD. In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as Americans tune into the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

*Emphasis mine
en.wikipedia.org...


DNC Superdelegates

In American politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote.

en.wikipedia.org...

A handful of people(719 if I'm correct) determine 15% of the DNC nomination for president. That is huge compared to the 319 million US citizens and is forcing their choice upon us

Do I need to give more examples of why we are falling away from the representative republic that our country was founded on?

a reply to: Aazadan

Is it just? Nope. But it is the way our framers thought. Given what has befallen prior democracies, i cant really fault them.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Is it just? Nope. But it is the way our framers thought. Given what has befallen prior democracies, i cant really fault them.

I'm not so sure they were wrong, I'm just not convinced they were right either. My general philosophy towards life is to take moderate positions on just about everything, so perhaps I'm looking into it more than was there, but our entire system of government was an attempt to meet people in the middle. People vs State representation, king vs parliament rule, and so on. I very much like the system they came up with, the only thing is that it's pretty far in the extreme as to who can vote.

I think my personal preference would be to let anyone vote but to limit voting on any subject to those who understand it. The only problem with that is that I can't come up with any way to make a corruption free poll test and what we have now is likely better than an even more corrupt system.

Perhaps those who designed our system felt the same way.

a reply to: Aazadan

The issue with the US voting system is that it is fundamentally flawed.

It's true, the founders thought that most people simply didn't have the time or ability to understand all the complexities of government.

And yet despite this, today everyone's a expert and has a doctorate in political science.

Gotta love how everyone's an expert these days.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Thing about that though, is it's not that complicated if we were actually informed. As in a year or two of civics classes in high school. The problem is that the people running the local, state, and federal government don't want the common man to understand how it all actually works. They'd rather rile us up with race baiting conflicts, get us into endless 2nd amendment debates, or have us up in arms over bedroom/bathroom politics.

If the majority knew how the electoral system worked, and didn't just spout off "We're a Democracy" we might actually start electing representatives that truly represent the people

ETA

Although 39 states require at least one course in American government or civics, only eight states administer statewide, standardized tests specifically in civics/American government: California, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. Of those, Ohio and Virginia are the only ones that require students to pass said test in order to graduate from high school.

“Social studies courses such as history, civics, and economics provide students with the necessary civic skills and knowledge to be effective 21st century citizens,” the report concludes. “However, since the passage of No Child Left Behind, many states have shifted focus away from social studies and have dramatically reduced the number of social studies assessments.” According to a poll conducted from June 22-July 2, 2012 by CIRCLE for the Youth Education Fund, 80 percent of the young voters surveyed were either unable to answer or were incorrect about their state’s early registration rules — suggesting a lack of emphasis given to current events and voting in state civics requirements.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's true, the founders thought that most people simply didn't have the time or ability to understand all the complexities of government.

There was apparently quite a debate over that. Some thought that only landholders should vote. Apparently a lot thought women shouldn't, cuz they couldn't for a very long time.