Democracy is not a dirty word -

[Krugerrand]

original setup:
electoral college elects president
state legislators elect senators
president selects SC judges

direct election to house of Reps by people (primarily men) who own land.

No land, no vote for anything.

That doesn't sound Democratic to me. It was built that way for a reason ... the majority cannot be trusted.

That said, there was a vehicle for if things get out of control ... but it takes a lot of voting. The branches of government check themselves not the majority.

Individuals all got to own guns. That was their protection from the government. (and it worked)

 

[PaulaGem]

Democracy allowed our nation to be sold out to the highest bidder. Seeing America lose battle after battle as the liberals waged their war for the minds of the masses, and the mainstream media having soldout its journalistic integrity to wage its liberal campaign on the masses to the point of forcing the mainstream towards the sea of socialism, has this guy thinking that democracy has proven what an utter failure of an ideology it has been

For a democracy is only as strong as its people and when you have the masses led astray by propaganda that goes aganst the grain of the heritage in which this country was forged it just proves that democracy is a joke.

In the end it is not about democracy but the ideology of a people. When you have the people buying into an ideology that will permanently remove liberty from them, then no democracy in the world is going to help that people anand when that people is america then no democracy in the world is going to help the world in asuring it of liberty and freedom, because when it dies here, it dies forever for there is no power in the world that can stand to the might of the power developed by freedom to preserve freedom, freedom built it and tyrrrany just hijacked it once and for all.

the ideology of freedom has been sold out by democracy, democracy stinks, to prove it is democracy that allows the majority of independant people to choose to be made dependant on the government, while forcing the rest of the people to be made dependant as well.

Creeping fascism trashed this country. We will never know if the exercise of the process outlined in the Constitiution could have pulled us back from the brink because we haven't had an honest vote or the opportunity to exercise tht process in a very long time.

 

[Theocrat]

What Rules Majority Rule?

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

Is the 51% always right? Better yet, does having a 51% vote come from a decision by a majority vote (think about that question deeply before you answer)?

 

[PaulaGem]

Is the 51% always right? Better yet, does having a 51% vote come from a decision by a majority vote (think about that question deeply before you answer)?

I don't answer silly quibbling questions by people that don't understand what the really important issues are.

 

[FrankRep]

I don't answer silly quibbling questions by people that don't understand what the really important issues are.

It scares me that words are changing meanings... We must protect ourselves from this corruption. The founding fathers opposed the original meaning of "Democracy."

 

[acptulsa]

It scares me that words are changing meanings...

You might as well try to outlaw erosion, though--or evolution. The main thing is, we either need to remember to include proper definitions so we're absolutely clear as we try to reeducate people, or we need to use the language as we find it. What we don't need to do is go off on a temper tantrum when someone uses the word, as this is not what you'd call good salesmanship.

 

[Original_Intent]

original setup:
electoral college elects president
governors select senators <-- I believe it was state legislatures, not governors. Or it may have been up to each state to decide how they picked their senators.
president selects SC judges

direct election to house of Reps by people (primarily men) who own land.

No land, no vote for anything.

That doesn't sound Democratic to me. It was built that way for a reason ... the majority cannot be trusted.

That said, there was a vehicle for if things get out of control ... but it takes a lot of voting. The branches of government check themselves not the majority.

Individuals all got to own guns. That was their protection from the government. (and it worked)

Good post, one possible error

 

[torchbearer]

Good post, one possible error

i think the guy was thinking about governors appointing interim senators if one resigns or dies in office.

 

[acptulsa]

i think the guy was thinking about governors appointing interim senators if one resigns or dies in office.

Nope, he's outlining the Constitutional setup pre-amendments. And, yes, I believe it was state legislatures.

 

[Original_Intent]

i think the guy was thinking about governors appointing interim senators if one resigns or dies in office.

Ah, reading his entire post I took it to mean that he was laying out how different offices were elected originally under the Constitution. I could have misinterpreted though.

 

[Krugerrand]

Nope, he's outlining the Constitutional setup pre-amendments. And, yes, I believe it was state legislatures.

Good catch guys. I did get that one right in spirit ... wrong in detail.

 

[Original_Intent]

Good catch guys. I did get that one right in spirit ... wrong in detail.

Yeah and it was a critical difference in the way things are now. A Senator's MAIN JOB was making sure that no law was passed that infringed on state's rights. This meant the legislature was jealously guarding their turf by electing people as Senator that would defend their sovereign rights. And if a Senator failed to do so he was out.

Making Senators elected by popular vote was a much more significant "nail in the Constitutional coffin" than most poeple realize.

 

[PaulaGem]

You might as well try to outlaw erosion, though--or evolution. The main thing is, we either need to remember to include proper definitions so we're absolutely clear as we try to reeducate people, or we need to use the language as we find it. What we don't need to do is go off on a temper tantrum when someone uses the word, as this is not what you'd call good salesmanship.

OK- from what I've read the founding fathers were afraid of PURE democracy. The system we have was intended to give people a say in government and to that extent it is democratic (literally the people rule) . The constitutional checks and balances were an attempt do devise a system that would protect minority rights but permit democratic decision making - especially at the local level - with a representational system that goes up the chain of command to the presidency.

As we have found out, this is a delicate system that can easily get off balance. When demos no longer has a say, it quits working.

I find it extremely ironic that the "Ron Paul grassroots column" seeks to empower the people but is so afraid of a word that serves to give people a feeling of empowerment.

What is the origin of this prejudice? It is a prejudice, you know. The term representative democracy is used to describe our system of government by both lay people and scholars, but when I use it all sorts of horrible connotations are given to the term that I have never heard outside of the Libertarian movement. What kind of group think do you have going here? Is it doing more harm than good to your cause?

 

[acptulsa]

What kind of group think do you have going here? Is it doing more harm than good to your cause?

Is 'groupthink' the right word, or is it education? There are many comments on how the meaning of the word is eroding, and this is muddying the waters. Yeah, it makes people feel empowered. Thing is, tptb and it's pet dog the media use it to make people feel empowered even when they aren't. And that's what gets blood pressures up.

I think it an important educational point. I just hope more of us have more patient ways to educate people on the difference than we've seen used around here...

 

[Original_Intent]

Paula I think you misunderstand - people and "scholars" have either been programmed or are actively programming everyone to think of the U.S as a democracy or if they start to be called on it they will grumblingly acknowledge "democratic republic".

And of course democracy is not a dirty word to you, you have already said that communism, socialism, etc are also equally acceptable to you. You just want the "workers of the world" to unite and throw off their oppressors, unfortunately, the people on this forum know history too well to fall for your Leninist agitation strategies.

 

[Krugerrand]

OK- from what I've read the founding fathers were afraid of PURE democracy. The system we have was intended to give people a say in government and to that extent it is democratic (literally the people rule) . The constitutional checks and balances were an attempt do devise a system that would protect minority rights but permit democratic decision making - especially at the local level - with a representational system that goes up the chain of command to the presidency.

I would say they feared more than "PURE democracy." First of all, these people never requested a national referendum on whether to separate from England. They imposed their will on a generally agreeable populace.

They put a system in place that was based on universal distrust. They did not trust those governing. They did not trust militaries. They did not trust local officials. They did not trust bankers. They especially did not trust THE VOTERS. The voters had virtually no say on the national level. Protecting individual property rights was a high priority. Non land owners could not vote to discourage a system that would allow people to vote away somebody else property. The last thing they wanted to see was "democratic decision making." The advantage to keeping things at a local level was that it kept responsibility closer to accountability and drastically reduced the impact that government can have in people's lives.

The check and balances were between the brances of government. The ability for voters to function as a "check" was essentially a last ditch avenue as an alternative to violence.

The constitution was not created to protect the minority. It was there to protect everybody's basic rights.

 

[powerofreason]

Democracy allowed Hitler to take power, for one.

Monarchs had much less power than modern democratic leaders. They couldn't tax nearly as much, because their powers were in dispute and not clearly written down on paper. And they didn't involve the average citizen in their military adventures. Civilians were not generally targeted in war, either.

Democracy allowed all the US fascists and tyrants to take power and implement their evil plans. Representative government is a failure for 2 main reasons.

1. A representative can only truly represent himself.
2. Representatives vote to help out those people that contributed the most money to his/her election campaign. If they didn't, they wouldn't get re-elected. This leads to both fascism and socialism.

 

[DAaaMan64]

Imagine the sweet glances you'd get for the T-shirt:


"Patriot against American Democracy"

hahahaha

 

[powerofreason]

Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy/Republicanism (because there's really no such thing as pure democracy)

 

[powerofreason]

More reasons why monarchy is better than democracy:

1. A monarch "owns" his country. He has in interest in not wrecking/looting it. He wants to preserve its value.
2. A democratic leader is a temporary caregiver of a country. He has no real interest in preserving its value long term and may loot it/wreck it at will without consequence.
3. There is a chance with monarchy that the person who inherits the throne will be a benevolent and caring person.
4. A democratic leader is nearly always a lying sociopath thug. One has to be that way to succeed in politics.
5. Democracy gives the illusion of control by the people. This empowers the government to enact extraordinarily tyrannical laws, because there is the illusion that the people have automatically endorsed the actions of the elected official. (Even though all the candidates suck and people are choosing the one that sucks less.)