Have you ever arrived somewhere and wondered how you got there? Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found the answer, with research that shows that humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals.
Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it.
“There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect,” says Professor Jens Krause of the University’s Faculty of Biological Sciences. “At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organising pedestrian flow in busy areas.”
Or we can just continue to use it to shape elections.
So if 5% jumped off a cliff…
Baaa
Old news concerning the Sheeple of the US…about to get flocked by a wolf in Obama clothing.
Weaaaapons of Maaaaas destruction…
The fear mongers figured this out years ago. I won’t name names.
Moo!
All you have to do is watch a High school fire drill. I remember people only using e door of a double door to exit causing jams in the hallways. Of course actually being aware of the situation, I would move to the other door and start flow in that door. The scary part was that I was invariably the one to do that.
Sinn Fein, it is funny that you didn’t call him by his proper right-wing talk radio name. You know, Barack Hussein Obama. From what I understand (rumors), the heavily medicated and former racist radio talk show host Bill Cunningham has been ranting like a former alcoholic or drug user without a fix about Hussein Obama trying to entice the poor whites folks with his liberal ways.
Thus, the reason we have the electoral college and a republic instead of a democracy.
Pay, pray and OBEY!!!!
SUCKERS!
You might want to go lookup what it means to be a democracy again. I am pretty sure every country believes it is a democracy (former USSR, China). Democracy, is simply a set of ideals. The only true democracy is a direct democracy (one person, one vote).
The principle of liberal democracy is the institutional system we adhere to. The very same democratic peace theory that was used as an underlining basis for the invasion of Iraq by GWB.
Second, we are not a republic. Rather we are a constitutional republic based on the principles of federalism (vertical check), which relies on the presidential system as a horizontal check and balance.
So, in the end we are a constitutional republic and a liberal, contemporary representative democracy. If you don’t believe me, look up international and foreign case law.
Finally, delegates usually vote for the candidate that their constituents select. It is based on the weight of the state and that is a very democratic principle (though not always proportional)
hmmmm I hope this tidbit inspires some more mayhem with the folks over at Improv Everywhere.
#10
One of the most confusing posts I have read. You jumped between talking about general political philosophy (“Democracy is simply a set of ideals”) to talking about systems of government (“The only true democracy is a direct democracy.”) In addition, saying, “Second, we are not a republic. We are a constitutional republic” is to simply refine your first premise. That is like saying, “That is not a dog. It is a pit bull.”
If we are, as a friend of mine once said, getting into Talmudic discourse, we can state the following:
1. Almost no system of government is of a “pure” form.
2. The US Federal system of government is not a democracy since the people cannot vote on policy directly. Some States however, contain elements of democracies in that the people *can* vote on law directly (e.g. CA’s propositions).
3. The US Federal system of government is a federation of republics (of a variety of forms) in that groups (i.e. States) have representation and power.
4. The US Federal government as well as the State governments are bound by a constitution.
However, even with all that, the more succinct version, “We are a republic, not a democracy.” is still quite valid even if not 100% precise.
It is true that America is a republic… that has a Constitution and lesser constitutions, believes in the principle of federalism (when convenient) and is led by the executive in matters of foreign policy.
My basic point was that the term republic was a bit vague and that a constitutional republic or a representative democracy was a better word choice.
1). True
2). Contemporary representative democracies rely on election bodies… it might be unfair to not call them a democracy if they follow the general principles of a democracy. If one were to follow the classical definition of a democracy, than we are not one. It is important to remember that not only were the Founders concerned about the tyranny of the masses, but
implementing a one person-one vote system was not possible given the technology until at least the industrial revolution.
3). True (vertical check and balance)
4). They are bound by the Constitution though the Supremacy Clause. Even with a weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause under the Rehnquist Court the fact has changed little that the Tenth Amendment is very limited in application (when it matters).
I think the real miscommunication seems to be in what the definition of a democracy is. You hold a hard line perspective that it is only when the power is placed directly in the hands of the people (direct democracy) and I do not. I am willing to believe that casting your vote to individuals who of their own goodwill vote for the candidate you selected (hopefully) is still a democratic process, because it involves the people directly in the decision process even if they do not cast the final “ballot.”
This thread is about sheep? I recall that most people will try to go out of a burning building the same way they came in? Always good to look around once you get seated and have a plan.
Why can’t we say “nothing is pure” and that any evaluation finding same is a measurement of the evaluation tool, not the thing being measured?
CONGRESS is in charge of foreign policy, absent its voluntary default, in which case international corporations carry out that function.
No, according to the Court the president has the authority in the arena of international affairs because the reigns were passed down to him/her when we broke away from England.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
The Bricker amendments would have placed limits on his/her authority when they were purposed in the late 50s, they never passed… falling by essentially a single vote in the Senate.
The reason for the Bricker amendment was:
Missouri v. Holland (1920), this case essentially allowed the federal government to amend the Constitution and lock states out of issues by creating treaties with foreign countries.
Funny that the topic is about how a small percent of a group can influence the direction of that group.
And with one post the thread went from sheep to politics.
5 Percenters for Ron Paul!
#15–Jeff==no.
#16–Man==didn’t read the last sentence of the OP?
#bobbo==yes.
#19–Jeff==no. Been a lot of news about that just last week that Bushieboy was off the tracks again trying to usurpt Congressional authority. Did you work for Gonzales?
From the cited case: “We deem it unnecessary to consider, seriatim, the several clauses which are said to evidence the unconstitutionality of the Joint Resolution as involving an unlawful delegation of legislative power. It is enough to summarize by saying that, both upon principle and in accordance with precedent, we conclude there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the re-establishment of peace in the affected countries; whether he shall make proclamation to bring the resolution into operation; whether and when the resolution shall cease to operate and to make proclamation accordingly; and to prescribe limitations and exceptions to which the enforcement of the resolution shall be subject.”
The president can act within the authority granted by Congress but cannot make treaties and such by himself. Pretend ambiguities will not ocassion an expansion of presidential powers==unless no one objects. Might be a close call?
Meet the Flockers.
A 5% catalyst isn’t just a political phenomenon. In an article about technology in emerging economies, the Feb 9th Economist states that in 23 of 28 cases examined by the World Bank, a technology that reached 5% “of the market in rich countries” — whatever that means — went on to achieve over 50%.
Only in emerging markets it doesn’t work: only 6 of 67 examples of technology reaching 5% “of the market” went to 50%. No, the reason was not that people are less like sheep in those countries — only that the infrastructure was not there for wider expansion.
Look, I am no Bush supporter. Further, I don’t agree with the ruling. The trouble is it is simply wrong to believe it did not take place or that it has been overruled.
I will not speak to the powers of the ability of the president to make treaties because that is an entirely different line of cases. I will only say that it is not that simple. The president can not make a treaty without Congress (true) because he needs the Senate to approve it, but he can come to an executive agreement, which is just as binding as a treaty.
This is pretty basic stuff (like first year of law school).
You are not actually reading from the case (but the ruling from a lower court within the text of the case). You really don’t have to read the whole case, but instead just read the summary page on the case notes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0299_0304_ZS.html
Here are some example quotations:
(3) “The broad statement that the Federal Government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the Federal Government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the States. Id.”
>The Court determines law (Congress can only determine what the Court can review) and the power invested to declare powers beyond what is laid out in the Constitution.
(5) “As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the Colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the Colonies severally, but to the Colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Id.”
>President got his power from the crown of Great Britain when dealing in international matters (since the president is the acting authority of the US).
(9) “In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.”
>The president is the only political figure that can legally meet and discus US policy without executive approval (because he gives it). This is his function as the senior executive statesman of the country. All visits are conducted through the DOS, which he controls.
(10) “In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.”
>This is due to how much knowledge the president has over Congress (maybe not in this case). In general, however, the president has a number of cabinets that benefit him in his decision making
(11) “The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.”
>The arena of foreign affairs and domestic affairs are not the same. Building of from President Nixon’s arguments the president can gain even more authority by claiming that foreign affair issues overlap with domestic.
(12) “Unbroken legislative practice from the inception almost of the national government supports the conclusion that the Joint Resolution, supra, is not an unconstitutional delegation of power. P. 322.”
>Key word is almost from the inception of the national government.
The Court could at some point overturn this case and subsequent rulings that followed, but given the current Justices I really don’t see that happening. No real challenge to the power of the executive branch in the matter of communicating as the “sol organ of foreign policy” has been brought before the Court since the administration of Truman. There have been a number of minor cases at the lower courts and a few cases with some vague wording but nothing nearly as definitive as this case.
THEY WERE TOLD TO ACT LIKE SHEEP!
“Participants were not allowed to communicate with one another but had to stay within arms length of another person.”
…What a surprise when they acted like sheep. This is bull.
When we were kids, it was a favorite prank of ours : when at a theme park we’d get the crowd to stroll into a dead end.
OK, you had to be there, but as 12 year olds, we thought it was hilarious.