US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy?

[Baneblade]

Only in modern society could someone be labeled anarchist for hating the concept of money.

[Saifoda]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Only in modern society could someone be labeled anarchist for hating the concept of money.

Anarchy is predicated upon the existence of society, and societies beyond small paleolithic tribes have only ever existed by the use and understanding of money. Money is not the paper and coins you have in your wallet, nor is it the digits "in" your bank account; that is currency. Money is the agreement between two or more parties that a given asset, tangible or otherwise, has value. And value is the assignment by individuals of said assets (and I use that term loosely) as something to be desired.



EDIT: So when you say "modern" society, yes I agree with you, but I think in a different understanding than most would assume; modern, in this particular case and in my opinion, is from about 10,000 ish years ago when flint knives were first used as a medium of exchange for goods and services between mostly nomadic tribes and some established "societies" (i.e. egypt).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Saifoda

what do you mean "atheist?" as in you don't want to use money or you don't think money should exist? (i.e. anarchist) or you don't "believe" in money? I'm just kinda confused.

He's prolly a Federationist.



You dirty Ferengi moneyworshipper you.

[MightyMan]

Just about all you need to know.

[Figment]

But Malorn likes 200+ year old rules dagnabbit!

[Baneblade]

Don't kill that mother fucker... unless he needs killin*.

That there is a 10000 year old rule.

*With the Texas Clause.

[XxAxMayxX]

you can be an indipendant but to run u have to have a crap load of money and for some reason people with lots of money either horde it (republicans) or give it away (democrats)
nothing really imbetween.

Also corperations often pay of canidates that have a predictable mind set.

[Ait'al]

It's a republic. We are by law not a democracy in any way. Thepoint of our system was to avoid democracy like the **** avoided bleeding pmsy woman in the bible that had to have their periods outside the city walls in ancient jewish times!!!

what happened to my all caps. 8(...

[Figment]

Been thinking about the see-saw politics a bit more, particularly the consequences of the past four years and the next elections for your future.

According to this set of articles related to the decline of Romney's popularity (and there being a really big gap with Obama now), we'll probably be seeing another Obama term if this campaign continues as it does.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/new-poll...-deep-trouble/

http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-romn...-falling-fast/

Considering Romney is one of the few moderate conservatives in the Republican party, I'm wondering what will happen to the Republican Party if he loses? Will they become even more desparate and radical for the next elections? Is it even possible to find moderate candidates anymore since pretty much all of the GOP candidates last election were... rather... excentric?

If this was a normal democracy that relied on coalitions and not a first "past the post" system, I would personally expect the party, already being at breaking point with all the extremist candidates to literally explode and fragment into at least 3 parties (and some tiny splintergroups of nutcase options).

I would expect there to be a moderate group that would continue calling themselves Republican, basically conservative liberals, then of course the Tea Party and one group that would probably call themselves something along the lines of a more introvert nationalist / patriot, probably libertarian party without the overt religious tendencies but more focused on taxes and immigration issues.

However, since it's a first past the post system, all potential voters of these groups would (like they do now) feel they couldn't support each party separately and would vote for the next best thing. Hence why the Tea Party hasn't already split since the Republicans need to form one united block. The alternative to Romney not winning, could be further radicalisation and polarisation within the Republican party and national politics, a trend that has been going on for quite some time.

However, if that happens, I'd expect they make it even easier for liberal (perhaps even social) democrats to win, since for many of the moderate conservatives the Tea Party type leaders aren't a realistic option either (probably just as much a nightmare to them as to any other sane person). I'd say that was clear from the previous presidential elections and the following elections. People like Palin drive the moderates away during presidential elections, Romney is probably making that same mistake with his running-mate.

Basically, I foresee it becoming easier and easier for the Democrats to win the next elections unless something SO drastic happens that the Dems have no viable candidates either. Then it would be a toss up for who controls the moderates. This is probably also why the Dems have been moving slightly more to the right as well: they get the left groups anyway (no incredibly serious or major party splintering or internal clashes occuring as far as I can tell), they can afford to move slightly to the right (not even much needed) in presidential elections to ensure wins.

I would however expect the other elections to be slightly more problematic, because presidential candidates are less important where it comes to pure party preference elections. Hence I expect the Reps to do better in Congress and the Senate than in the Electoral College. The consequence of that would however be more of the same of the last four years: an unworkable situation because the Reps would simply obstruct consistent and efficient policy making out of spite and because they can. Due to that and the negativity reigning in these campaigns due to that entire situation (caused by bitter rivaly, lack of education and class on the far right Republican's side and general lack of respect for someone with another opinion), I'd expect the US to go from one political crisis to the next for at least the coming two decades.


Without an electoral system change (for both parties and presidents) that makes party splintering not only realistic over the entire political spectrum, but feasible without losing the actual elections, which isn't in the personal interest of any of the big parties, I honestly don't see anything that can normalise and defuse that situation. Maybe a permanent oil crisis could shake things up? Or instead make things even worse? Maybe your 12th amendment needs an overhaul or follow up as well?

So basically... Got enough pop corn for the coming 20 years?

[Baneblade]

My Gadsden Flag flies above my other flags.

[Figment]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...y-change-rules

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...n_2501887.html

Interesting, GOP trying to cash in on previous (2010) gerrymandering by changing the election rules for states with a popular democrat vote to their advantage out of fear of pro-Democrat demographic changes.

Can't win in the already rigged system? Rig the system more, but only there where you legitimately would have lost anyway and rig it such that you get the most districts with less votes, so your party wins anyway!


Just forget the whole states election thing and simply do a popular vote already...

At least then you can create alternatives to penalize parties that abuse power.

[Ait'al]

Didn't read because it's already starting out on something I just don't feel like reading atm...

But, we are not a Democracy. We are a Rebpulic. Having voting is not the definition of a democracy and does not indicate what it is compared to other systems.

Why do you think we are a democracy. Or even a democratic/republic.

Define them all, without being simple and presumptuous, those and see which ones it fits... Or is by law... A definition should also totally give how it is separate from everything else or is unique from the others. Even if they share some parts...

Starting out on a false statement like that, Even if it seems small to the point, is still going to have a problem in the end with the conclusion. And it can be a big one in end. fix the little things then see what the answer is. Doing that enough may lead to the answer itself.

Reason does define itself!