Not a surprise, but interesting none the less.
In an ideal world, elections should be two things: free and fair. Every adult, with a few sensible exceptions, should be able to vote for a candidate of their choice, and each single vote should be worth the same.
Ensuring a free vote is a matter for the law. Making elections fair is more a matter for mathematicians. They have been studying voting systems for hundreds of years, looking for sources of bias that distort the value of individual votes, and ways to avoid them. Along the way, they have turned up many paradoxes and surprises. What they have not done is come up with the answer. With good reason: it probably doesn’t exist.
The many democratic electoral systems in use around the world attempt to strike a balance between mathematical fairness and political considerations such as accountability and the need for strong, stable government. Take first-past-the-post or “plurality” voting, which used for national elections in the US, Canada, India – and the UK, which goes to the polls next week. Its principle is simple: each electoral division elects one representative, the candidate who gained the most votes.
This system scores well on stability and accountability, but in terms of mathematical fairness it is a dud.
The sad part is that we vote for people who promise and say the things we want to hear. To reality is those people are not really the best. If Government was run more like a business America would be unhappy with Government. But Government would be in better shape financially. Most of us complain about spending. But when it comes right down to it. We don’t want services cut.
Democracy has always been the gentler form of mob rule which is why I’m glad we live in a democratic republic. The public is easily swayed which is how Hitler was democratically elected.
It’s a good thing the US was set up as a Republic, huh?
Although considering how badly we have skewed things by not staying within the rules of the constitution and allowing each branch to try to become each of the other branches, who knows what we really are now!
…I was hoping to get in before the “US is a republic, not a democracy” nonsense started, but #3 shows I’m already too late.
The two are not mutually exclusive – in fact, they have nothing to do with each other. It’s very much akin to saying “Oranges are pimply, not nuclear-powered”, i.e. completely nonsensical.
The words do not hold the same meaning today as they did colloquially centuries (or millenia) ago, and today, the US is a democracy just as much as it is a republic.
@#4 We’re a democratic republic, not an outright democracy. There is a difference.
#4 Tippis #2 had it right the us is a democratic republic not just a republic. When it was first set up it was fine when only land owner could vote. They cared how the government spent their money.
Now you have people who don’t even pay income tax voting and wanting more services.
#5 Not really.
There is no such thing as an “outright democracy” (or, rather, it’s a completely unobtainable ideal type), so not being one makes no difference. You’re a democracy. While I’ll admit that you might not get as far up the “democracy index scale” as one might wish, that’s a secondary concern.
#2 nailed it
We elect Representatives to make the laws for us. We have a representative democracy. If we had a direct democracy we would all be voting for every law.
We are also a Federalist Republic. We have local, state, and Federal governments which ideally give the Federal government innumerated powers over certain things and leave the rest of the governance to the state and local governments.
Alexander Tytler said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” This is what is happening in this country. People voted for Obama and the Democrats in Congress who gave us health care.
@#9 Spot on, that’s what I was trying to say. Thanks.
I find it fascinating that those associated with Republicans want it to be a republic, and those associated with the Democratic party want it to be a democracy first.
In the end, it’s a lot of meaningless words.
I think it has been adequately stated that America is a republic; however, how many time do we hear republic come from the mouths of politicians and pundits? It’s sad that our government is being moved so far from the system that was put in place.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote” – Ben Franklin
#-Benjamin — “vote themselves largess out of the public treasury” — This is correct but since you just focused on Obama, you have left out all the other presidential and congress candidates that promised tax rebates or tax breaks.
Nothing like the idea of free money to encourage people to vote.
Eric, check your quote against this under Misattributions.
When all candidates are first vetted by moneyed interests able to finance their ridiculously expensive campaigns, it doesn’t matter one iota whether you have a “democracy” or not. What you will NEVER have is _representative_ democracy.
I am not suprised by all this, the govt is bloated and just plain messed up.
Our founding fathers established the American form of federal government with safeguards against factions gaining control for their own benefit rather than the benefit of everyone. The trouble is that evil factions might also be the majority vote, rather that a lunatic fringe minority. That’s why a pure democracy is doomed; and, why a republic, with checks and balances, while not perfect, is more likely to succeed in the long run.
#13 “This is correct but since you just focused on Obama, you have left out all the other presidential and congress candidates that promised tax rebates or tax breaks. ”
No, tax cuts are not largess from the government. It is keeping more of your own money. Just the opposite: voting for largess increases the taxes that we need to pay to pay for these programs.
@Ol Baggins, Ben Franklin was referring to direct democracy.
Eric, the problem is that your quotation doesn’t come from Benjamin Franklin.
Our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they crafted did not take into account the corrosive anti-government effect of a Two Party System or the rise of Corporations both leading to a government bought and paid for by money not ideas.
We are at the beginning upward curve of the DIRECT influence of corporations on our daily affairs. Our society is asleep at the switch as the “bubble” of Corporate Control is starting to build.
Hold onto your socks.
@#11 Olo Baggins — well said.
One one hand, I agree with the notion that a large part (potentially the majority) of people are just too stupid, so I understand the notion of having a separation between the governing bodies and the people — thus a republic.
On the other hand, no one group ever has a sustainable monopoly on good principles and intentions (things change, and power corrupts). So I understand the need for “we the people” to have power — thus a democracy.
So while I currently support the Democratic party (even if aware of their shortcomings) I would support Republicans (or some specific candidates) if they weren’t so fake and disingenuous.
The Republicans of today don’t believe in Democracy but say it’s important to bring Democracy to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan? Please. They want small government? Then they should say they want to curb all spending, including military, social security and Medicare. They say they support federalism? Then how can their representatives be the “party of no” and vote as one block with one opinion, all the time, when conditions are different across states. Bah-humbug!
Part of the problem is reality is different than fiction. There’s no black and white in reality, only shades of gray, but complicated arguments and explanations are hard to sell to the masses, so politicians oversimplify and essentially lie. Well, wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t have to lie to get the votes? Well, take that one step further, if you think the country should be left unchecked to a small group of well-meaning individuals, go live in a dictatorship… Cuba is not too far away, I hear they have good cigars. Oh, you’re a libertarian that prays to Saint Ayn Rand (especially since the FICTION she wrote proves she was right — along with her spawn Alan Greenspan who is in big part to blame for putting our economy in this mess), you can go live somewhere with no taxes and no pesky laws — how about Somalia? What’s that? You believe in family values and religious morals? I guess you should go live in a country that completely abides by that kind of thing, how about Iran?
Arpie–what fiction did Ayn Rand write that proved she was right? My partial reading of most of her books showed her heroes were all criminals. What did I miss?
Bah,
Everyone’s got it wrong. The Foundation of our government right now is Oligarchy. The Democratic Republic is little more than window dressing not the window itself.
@#23 bobbo — I was being sarcastic, as in a work of pure fiction can’t prove anything in reality. (Arguably her “greed is good” theme has actually been proven false, given our current recession, no?) I’m still waiting for someone to tell me who cleaned the bathrooms in Galt’s Gulch…
Have you considered becoming a constitutional monarchy?
You get all the fun and fraud of elections but you also get a leader that is the idiot son of a previous leader.
#-Benjamin — The quote from Alexander Tytler that you brought up states “largess out of the public treasury.” Largess meaning money or gifts. The public votes on candidates that promise money or gifts. So if a candidate promises the public a tax rebate or cut, then he/she is offering money from the public treasury (tax pool).
A good example was during the last administration.
Bush Jr. ran for office promising tax cuts. The people voted him into office. He then provided rebate checks to the public. The rebate money came out of the public treasury.
Uncle Dave’s photo comment: “Democracy: A form of government where the leader is chosen by a popularity contest rather than ability to run the country.”
What an absolutely perfect description of Obama, but as we all know, Uncle Dave would never put Obama in a negative light. So he latches on to an obscure April 2010 article that never even mentions Obama.
Another example of classic politically-correct Uncle Dave reporting once again.
#27–bac==you make a common liberal error==thinking that the Fed/State gov money is somehow “theirs” or a “pool” and doesn’t come from the taxed people/wage slaves.
A better formulation of the largess of the BushCo Criminal Conspiracy for the Rich is: a tax cut with no reduction in services provided, or by the continued non-enforcement of criminal capitalist business activities, tax cut with decreased regulation.
#28–jb==I thought Obama showed a nice combo of both attributes. After McCain showed his “bad for America, do anything to get elected” unbridled personal ambition by selecting BarbieDoll, AND his statement that the economy was basically sound (trying to keep the sheep asleep) I thought Obama was clearly the better leader for America. We are only lucky that he won the popularity contest as well.
I disagree with all that is said. I think Democracy works great, especially when you have the backing of such powerful lobbyist around can has your hands tied. There’s nothing like being in a position where you can make a difference and yet are bound by the very things you would like to change.
Love this country, love the rich, love the fanatics.