Is America a democracy?

[Panzerjaeger]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

You need rich backing though. There's no way anyone could stand for office, so the choice of who you want to represent you is limited.

Yes but that is necessary for most governments to be quite honest. It is hard to ignore a group of people who have a large sway over Industry and Media unless you plan on seizing their assets and killing them if they don't cooperate.

[L3 Communications]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

You need rich backing though. There's no way anyone could stand for office, so the choice of who you want to represent you is limited.

Well, of course you do, for ad campaigns and such. Yes, you need money, no you do not have to be rich.

[Demented Tigers]

Two words:

Corporate donations.

Here's a good definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery

[Caninope]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

You guys crack me up! The majority of donations come from individuals. Especially when the candidates are running for office. Then consider the limits on donations (SCOTUS only struck down limits on WHEN the groups can spend the money). Then also consider in that you have unions spending money, and interest groups spending money. Finally there is little conclusive evidence that money from any one group can buy votes, although it might by some time talking with a Congressman.

Once again I stress the fact that the majority of donations come from individuals.

[The ivain isles]

No America is an Oligarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

[Thatius]

X

[Othyl]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

[Panzerjaeger]

No America is an Oligarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

You got ninja'd at like the beginning of the thread.

[Demented Tigers]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

You need rich backing though. There's no way anyone could stand for office, so the choice of who you want to represent you is limited.

Well, of course you do, for ad campaigns and such. Yes, you need money, no you do not have to be rich.

Nope, but you would have to be reasonably wealthy to meet and mix with the kind of people who would back you.

[Lackadaisical2]

What the hell? 75% of people say no? It's a democratic republic! It might not be 100% democratic in all ways, but that doesn't mean it's not a frigging democracy. The government still answers to the general population.

This is why the American Electorate should no longer have a voice.

I'm starting to think you're right....

luckily NSG doesn't represent the USA very well...

[The ivain isles]

No America is an Oligarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

You got ninja'd at like the beginning of the thread.

What???

[Panzerjaeger]

What the hell? 75% of people say no? It's a democratic republic! It might not be 100% democratic in all ways, but that doesn't mean it's not a frigging democracy. The government still answers to the general population.

This is why the American Electorate should no longer have a voice.

I'm starting to think you're right....

luckily NSG doesn't represent the USA very well...

Yes but when you start looking at the audiences of the GOP Talking Heads it begins to reaffirm what we are seeing here by a handful of posters.

[Othyl]

What the hell? 75% of people say no? It's a democratic republic! It might not be 100% democratic in all ways, but that doesn't mean it's not a frigging democracy. The government still answers to the general population.

This is why the American Electorate should no longer have a voice.

I'm starting to think you're right....

luckily NSG doesn't represent the USA very well...

Well, for the ones that say no on the reasoning that it's a plutocracy or some sort of corporate oilgarchy, I'd agree with you. However, I said no for perfectly valid reasons I've outlined.

[Demented Tigers]

Lol if any Europeans/Canadians/any other foreigners are voting.

America is a democracy, we get to vote. Sadly, our votes aren't enough. Democracy is when the people choose who represents them. We chose them, we voted Barack. But the choices they make for us are sometimes for the bad. Congress is corrupt. Obama is insane.

I'm European, but I didn't vote on this.

[Lackadaisical2]

What the hell? 75% of people say no? It's a democratic republic! It might not be 100% democratic in all ways, but that doesn't mean it's not a frigging democracy. The government still answers to the general population.

This is why the American Electorate should no longer have a voice.

I'm starting to think you're right....

luckily NSG doesn't represent the USA very well...

Yes but when you start looking at the audiences of the GOP Talking Heads it begins to reaffirm what we are seeing here by a handful of posters.

still, most people think we're a democracy. The audience of Beck isn't that big (and hes the worst, by far).

What the hell? 75% of people say no? It's a democratic republic! It might not be 100% democratic in all ways, but that doesn't mean it's not a frigging democracy. The government still answers to the general population.

This is why the American Electorate should no longer have a voice.

I'm starting to think you're right....

luckily NSG doesn't represent the USA very well...

Well, for the ones that say no on the reasoning that it's a plutocracy or some sort of corporate oilgarchy, I'd agree with you. However, I said no for perfectly valid reasons I've outlined.

Its not a democracy just because you don't agree with the results.

[Maurepas]

Lol if any Europeans/Canadians/any other foreigners are voting.

America is a democracy, we get to vote. Sadly, our votes aren't enough. Democracy is when the people choose who represents them. We chose them, we voted Barack. But the choices they make for us are sometimes for the bad. Congress is corrupt. Obama is insane.

I'm European, but I didn't vote on this.

I think alot of the ones voting are doing so on the basis of whether they feel it is "Democratic Enough", rather than on whether it is a Democracy...

[The Rich Port]

Further proof that democracies are shit.

Not like that, either. It's not like non-democratic systems of government have had a fault-less run, either.

[Demented Tigers]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

I'm not sure that Lobbyists 'educate' Congressmen... There wouldn't be so many of them if it didn't pay very, very well.

[Xin Han]

It is a federal constitutional presidential republic that tends to lean towards an oligarchy.

[The ivain isles]

What the hell? 75% of people say no? It's a democratic republic! It might not be 100% democratic in all ways, but that doesn't mean it's not a frigging democracy. The government still answers to the general population.

This is why the American Electorate should no longer have a voice.

I'm starting to think you're right....

luckily NSG doesn't represent the USA very well...

Well, for the ones that say no on the reasoning that it's a plutocracy or some sort of corporate oilgarchy, I'd agree with you. However, I said no for perfectly valid reasons I've outlined.

A Democracy is when the political leaders are picked by the people out of the people. Not when you have someone who volunteers and then you pick, but an individual straight from the general population and s/he is forced to serve.

An oligarchy is when a Privliged group of people are only allowed to rule.

[Caninope]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

I'm not sure that Lobbyists 'educate' Congressmen... There wouldn't be so many of them if it didn't pay very, very well.

What's your problem with lobbyists? Seriously! Are you for banning the lobbyists of unions, the ACLU, NAACP too? A lot of time lobbyists give knowledge to a legislator on a topic, even if it is aimed for one side. You can't expect a Congressman to know everything.

[Natapoc]

Lol if any Europeans/Canadians/any other foreigners are voting.

America is a democracy, we get to vote. Sadly, our votes aren't enough. Democracy is when the people choose who represents them. We chose them, we voted Barack. But the choices they make for us are sometimes for the bad. Congress is corrupt. Obama is insane.

I'm European, but I didn't vote on this.

I think alot of the ones voting are doing so on the basis of whether they feel it is "Democratic Enough", rather than on whether it is a Democracy...

That is how I voted. I don't think the idea of calling anything that contains some democracy democratic is a useful way to understand the actual situation of a nation. In the case of the US I feel that the influence of the rich is so strong that it is closer to a oligarchy of the rich then it is to a democracy.

By saying no I doubt that most are trying to say that the united states does not contain elements of a democracy: Just that it does not contain enough of these elements to be considered a democracy from their point of view.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

I'm not sure that Lobbyists 'educate' Congressmen... There wouldn't be so many of them if it didn't pay very, very well.

What's your problem with lobbyists? Seriously! Are you for banning the lobbyists of unions, the ACLU, NAACP too? A lot of time lobbyists give knowledge to a legislator on a topic, even if it is aimed for one side. You can't expect a Congressman to know everything.

I have to agree. Amicus Curae briefs essential serve the same purpose. No one complains about them.

[Othyl]

Its not a democracy just because you don't agree with the results.

Did you read my post? I said America is a representative democracy. I voted no for this poll because the vast majority of people assume that democracy and direct democracy are both the latter. Republic, or representative democracy, is a more accurate term for the national government and lacks the general misconceptions of simply saying democracy.

However, I could argue that it's not a substantive democracy if I don't like the results, since that's what substantive is. But we're not getting into that.

I have to agree. Amicus Curae briefs essential serve the same purpose. No one complains about them.

No one complains because most people don't know what an Amicus Curae brief is, and they've yet to be villainized by some media outlet with their sights set on the political ballgame.

[Orlkjestad]

The US is a representative democracy. I distinctly remember this from a California middle school history textbook.