The Libertarian Alternative

Posted by Aioros

[COLOR="Yellow"]Seriously.

It's getting close to election day once again, and voters are deciding on whether to vote Democrat or Republican. I think it's time for the people to get informed on the third alternative, the Libertarian Party, the one party that is truly for the people.

I'm fed up with the way the voting process has evolved into some kind of popular contest to try to get your party in the House or Senate. Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican pretty much no matter what their stance is on anything. The last presidential election was a perfect example of this. When Kerry's and Democrats entire platform they were running was "Anyone but Bush". I can't imagine what Kerry felt knowing that his party wasn't really supporting him but hating on Bush instead. It wasn't even about the candidate with the better ideas and views and stance on different issues, it was about who could put their party in office despite the issues.

What i'm saying is we need a third option. We've seen what the two main parties have had to offer for a long time and it simply isn't good enough. We need to try a new kind of government. A government that will eliminate laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices. From what i've experienced by discussing politics, a big number of people are Libertarians by every stretch of the word but they don't vote Libertarian because they haven't heard of the party, it is unbelievable.

If you're interested about finding out more about the Libertarian Party, check this out.

http://www.lp.org/[/COLOR]

Posted by Lord of Spam

I like the social liberties, but I dont think that the free capitalism stuff is too great.

Posted by mis0

I think we just need something more socialist in general. I mean, with 14 million in poverty, and millions more barely above it, something that would level the playing feild a little bit would be nice.

Posted by Random

See even though I support the Republican party I don't go down the line voting for the person. Theres at least 1 democrat i'll be voting for in this election. But even I can't stand either side too much. The democrats seem to be your abortion baby killing, stem cell (so we live forever), gay marrying party which i'm digusted with.. Meanwhile the Republicans seem to want to take away certain freedoms like gay rights. Now i'm no gay man and I don't exactly think they should be allowed to get married but the Republicans look down upon gays. I have a gay friend named Cody and hes every bit as a friend as any other of my guy friends. Both parties have gone so far opposite that they can't seem to agree upon anything. What if theres things I like about both parties eh? So i'll read your link..

Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

Communitarian all the way

Posted by Boner

Republicans are driving this country and its economy into the ground. Too many jobs are going overseas. Big corporations are getting huge tax breaks. Yada yada yada. It takes some time for the damage they have caused to be realized. If the democrats take control of the house and senate next week, they will be the ones holding the blame for everything wrong by the time the damage the republicans did is seen. Republicans will be all up in arms saying things like, "See? This is what happens when democrats are running the show!". Which is complete crap. Honestly though, both parties are blood sucking, back stabbing, *******s. Personally, I think the government, in general, has far too much power. This country was founded on the idea of people having the power. Over the years, we have given it away. And I don't think we will ever get it back. Libertarian party? Sure, it's worth a try. I'm just tired of seeing republicans running the show. I won't be voting for a single one of them. Democrats? There are a few on my list that will not have my vote. For every democrat I do not vote for, a libertarian will take their place on my ballot.

Posted by Philsdad

Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"] From what i've experienced by discussing politics, a big number of people are Libertarians by every stretch of the word but they don't vote Libertarian because they haven't heard of the party, it is unbelievable.[/COLOR]


And the other problem is that so many people think that voting for 3rd party candidates is just a wasted vote. If I had a dime for every person that has told me "oh, I'd vote for him but my vote won't count" I'd be a very rich man. I hear this so often and it's frustrating because if all those people just sucked it up and voted for that person anyway, then the whole "vote not counting" situation would no longer be an issue.
Posted by Arwon

My biggest beef with the Libertarian Party is that they're run by wacky gold-standard worshipping, age-of-consent opposing, "privatise the sidewalks" kooks. I've known moderate libertarians who don't vote for the party for that reason.

Also, FWIW, California Republicans and Western (Montana, etc) Democrats both seem to be, by and large, reasonable approximations of libertarian ideals.

Also, Philsdad, the problem with third parties in the US isn't cultural, it's structural. First-past-the-post voting systems and district-based legislative house seats by their very nature render the system a two-party system. Sometimes you get a minor party strong enough to gain a couple of seats as a protest vote, but not that often.

Posted by Boner

Quoting Philsdad: And the other problem is that so many people think that voting for 3rd party candidates is just a wasted vote. If I had a dime for every person that has told me "oh, I'd vote for him but my vote won't count" I'd be a very rich man. I hear this so often and it's frustrating because if all those people just sucked it up and voted for that person anyway, then the whole "vote not counting" situation would no longer be an issue.



The only time our vote doesn't count is when we vote durring the presidential election. I view mid-terms as the only time when our vote really makes any difference!
Posted by Fei-on Castor

I won't blame our problems entirely on the Republican Party.

[quote=Boner]The only time our vote doesn't count is when we vote durring the presidential election. I view mid-terms as the only time when our vote really makes any difference!

Well, we have a dated, archaic election system in place and Bush won according to our system. Technically, the voters got exactly what they wanted, since we don't elect the President. We simply choose people to go elect him for us, but if those people change their minds and decide to not cast their vote for who you thought they would, that's totally legal.

It's an inaccurate representation of the American People, but that's just the system.

Philsdad is right. The only reason extreme leftie candidates exist is to take votes away from the moderate leftie who normally would've gotten them if the extreme leftie wasn't running. My understanding is that the Republican Party actually provides funding to candidates like Ralph Nader. And I'm sure the same happens from the other direction, with the Democrats funding some extreme right-winger.

Chances are that the winner will be one of these two people, and which would you rather have? If you say "neither of them", you're wasting your vote because it's going to be one of them, so you may as well decide which is the lesser of two evils and go with him.

But as I recall, Ross Perot won something like 20% of the popular vote in 1992, passing up Teddy Roosevelt's 18% that he got in 1912, when he ran with the "Bull-Moose Party".

Other than that, third parties usually end up with about 1%.

The third options exist, but they need their own money, like Perot had, to make a splash in politics.

I would've liked to see Perot win. I mean, we haven't had a third party President since the Whig Party's Millard Filmore.

Posted by Bebop

BNP FTW

Posted by Arwon

You want more parties?

Two things:

Proportional representation.

End gerrymandering.

Actually the second kind of flows automatically from the first.

Axe or reform the senate while you're at it. And institute a preferential voting system instead of first-past-the-post.

[quote]Philsdad is right. The only reason extreme leftie candidates exist is to take votes away from the moderate leftie who normally would've gotten them if the extreme leftie wasn't running. My understanding is that the Republican Party actually provides funding to candidates like Ralph Nader. And I'm sure the same happens from the other direction, with the Democrats funding some extreme right-winger.

That would be true if everyone voted. You can't claim that in a system which doesn't have compulsory voting, because you cannot show that, for example, people who voted for Nader would've voted Demmycrat instead of just staying home. The idea that the Democrats somehow "owned" the votes Nader "stole" in 2000 is abhorrent.

Posted by Fei-on Castor

But isn't gerrymandering technically a legitimate thing? I mean, those doing the redrawing of lines do have the authority to do so. I think it would take a lot to proove that someone did something like to benefit their political standing, though it happens all the time in all of our 50 states.

I have no problem with a bicameral legislature. In fact, I think it's a good idea to have one house with representation by population, and one with equal representation. I'd explain why I think this, but you've already heard it in your high school civics class.

But I do have issues with political parties. We have two parties, and chances are, one of those two groups is going to be in control of the senate at any given time, and likewise for the house.

Posted by Boner

Quoting Fei-on Castor: Well, we have a dated, archaic election system in place and Bush won according to our system. Technically, the voters got exactly what they wanted, since we don't elect the President. We simply choose people to go elect him for us, but if those people change their minds and decide to not cast their vote for who you thought they would, that's totally legal.



Exactly! Listen to your own words, man. How stupid is that system anyway? The only reason this system exists is because the era in which was created, there were no cars and there were no phones. They didn't have email. All they had was the pony express! It made things way easier back in the day and made perfect sense to have an electoral college. And because it has always been, it has always stayed. Today, there is absolutely no excuse for having it. It should be by popular vote. Now, our votes are based on averages of averages and can be changed at the whim of just a few select people. That's not right, and still we stand for it! This is why I say the presidential vote doesn't mean jack ****. This is why it is so important for us to vote now, in these elections, to try and select the people who won't screw us over in those times. That, and the fact that your local politics will affect you more on many levels (but not all) that national politics.


Anyway, back to the reason I quoted you; You said that Bush won and technically we got exactly what we wanted. You then also go on to say that we select people to vote for us, who can change their minds and vote for whomever they desire at the last minute. That being the case, how can you say that we got exactly what we wanted? Protip: We didn't! We still don't!, And until our voting system is corrected, we never truly will!
Posted by Arwon

Quoting Fei-on Castor: But isn't gerrymandering technically a legitimate thing? I mean, those doing the redrawing of lines do have the authority to do so. I think it would take a lot to proove that someone did something like to benefit their political standing, though it happens all the time in all of our 50 states.

I have no problem with a bicameral legislature. In fact, I think it's a good idea to have one house with representation by population, and one with equal representation. I'd explain why I think this, but you've already heard it in your high school civics class.

But I do have issues with political parties. We have two parties, and chances are, one of those two groups is going to be in control of the senate at any given time, and likewise for the house.


Gerrymandering is not legitimate. Bipartisan gerrymandering is incredibly damaging for a political system. The fact that the politicans get to write the boundaries is dumb and avoidable.

TIME FOR A BRIEF SPIEL ABOUT THE ONE THING AUSTRALIAN POLITICS HAS GOTTEN EXACTLY RIGHT:

We have an Electoral Commission which draws the electoral boundaries for our House of Representatives. They're totally independent (probably even moreso than the Reserve Bank, our equivalent of the Federal Reserve) They are compelled by their internal rules to draw electoral districts:

*To make geographical sense and be contiguous and sensibly shaped. No funny shaped squiggly lines to ensure incumbents have an advantage.
*To all have the same population, within a 3% margin for error.
*To be drawn based on the submissions of all major parties (though in practise they usually ignore what the parties say)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_electorates - see how they're all fairly regularly shaped, as much as keeping it equal by population will allow? Compare it to, say, a map of Californian congressional districts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Congressional_Districts .

In short, they're utterly independent, utterly competent, and utterly beyond reproach. Nobody ever questions their integrity or accuses them of gerrymandering because all the parties get treated by the same population/geography/demographics based distribution. Hell, the PRIME MINISTER had his seat made less safe in the last redistribution of my state's House of Reps electorates.

Oh, they also have a standardised electoral system for every state and territory, which means you always get exact vote counts and you NEVER have mistakes or dodginess in individual districts. Which made the Florida kerfuffle in 2000 look especially Third World to us.

So yeah. With a strong and truly independant federal body (think Federal Reserve type independence) making the rules according to well-defined imperatives, you can avoid gerrymandering and thus avoid the disgustingly high incumbency rate.
Posted by Fei-on Castor

Quoting Boner: Exactly! Listen to your own words, man. How stupid is that system anyway? The only reason this system exists is because the era in which was created, there were no cars and there were no phones. They didn't have email. All they had was the pony express! It made things way easier back in the day and made perfect sense to have an electoral college. And because it has always been, it has always stayed. Today, there is absolutely no excuse for having it. It should be by popular vote. Now, our votes are based on averages of averages and can be changed at the whim of just a few select people. That's not right, and still we stand for it! This is why I say the presidential vote doesn't mean jack ****. This is why it is so important for us to vote now, in these elections, to try and select the people who won't screw us over in those times. That, and the fact that your local politics will affect you more on many levels (but not all) that national politics.


Anyway, back to the reason I quoted you; You said that Bush won and technically we got exactly what we wanted. You then also go on to say that we select people to vote for us, who can change their minds and vote for whomever they desire at the last minute. That being the case, how can you say that we got exactly what we wanted? Protip: We didn't! We still don't!, And until our voting system is corrected, we never truly will!


What I mean is that in 2000 when the people voted "Gore", they got what they wanted. We are not allowed to decide who becomes President. The best we get to do is decide who will decide who becomes President. Look on the ballot when you go to vote. You may notice a few names printed underneath the name of your candidate. That's who you're voting for. Those names, not the candidate himself.

So technically, the people got what the wanted. They sent in the majority of electors whose names were written below Al Gore's name, and that's what they asked for.

Those guys chose to be all lame when they went to cast their vote, and that has nothing to do with the American people, or what they asked for, according to our outdated system. According to a system that worked really well in the 1800's.

I agree with you, man. I think it's time we start to choose the man who leads our country, directly. It's not often that the popular vote and the electoral vote don't agree, but if it happens even once, then the electoral college no longer serves its purpose. Their purpose is to represent the people of America. Their purpose is to go and say what America would say if we were allowed to vote directly for president. That's why they exist.

But honestly, it's not working anymore. Obviously.

And how many third party electors do you suppose actually vote for their candidate, considering that a big chunk of money used to finance the third party campaign came from one of the two main parties.

Not to start a political party debate, but why does the Republican Party call itself the "Grand Old Party"? The Republican Party was foundedi n 1854, by Abraham Lincoln. The first Democratic President was Thomas Jefferson, in 1800. So the Democratic Party has been around longer than the Republican Party. Weird.
Posted by Boner

OK, now I understand what you were saying more clearly. Even if our system, in theory, worked...it sitll wouldn't work. Each state gets X amount of electoral votes based on population. But, populations change all the time. I don't think there is a fair balance or ratio of electoral votes per state. Poeple wouldn't just be looking at Florida to see what their votes are (if they can ever coun't their **** right the first time!) when it's time to select a president. And any "manipulation" of vote counts would disolve. Or, at least, most of the manipulation. It would certainly make it harder to do so anyway.

Posted by Fei-on Castor

Well, with a mess of tens of millions of votes coming in all at once, unless it's a shut out, it's tough to say who wins the popular vote. So obviously, we'd need an organized system where we, the People, cast our votes and then what? Who tallies them up? And how do we know he/she/they tallied them up correctly? Maybe they intentionally missed a few for the guy they don't like. So then what? Machines? Do we keep track of them by computers? Computers are quite easy to manipulate, and I'm sure that if a Presidential candidate wanted a guy who knew how to manipulate computers he could get one.

Essentially, direct democracy is like Communism. It sounds great on paper. The truth is, we don't live in a world where people would "go" for it, if you catch my drift. We need some kind of system, for the sake getting the job done. I don't think that we should vote for people who vote people, but I'm sure there must some real way to organize a more direct election. People have said if we perhaps voted by weight of population, something like we do now. Only, the "electors" wouldn't exist.

Let's say that Bush "wins" in Arizona, so Bush's 8 electors in AZ get to cast their vote for President. In our current system, those 8 people are allowed to cast their vote for the other guy, if they want to, but typically, that doesn't happen. What if we just made it so that if Bush wins in Arizona, he automatically gets our 8 votes, instead of getting 8 guys who he hopes will vote for him. I think a system like that would work just dang fine. [/offtopic]

Apart from that discussion, I agree with Aioros. The only problem is that when you get too many sides to an issue, nothing will get done.

Let's make up and issue and call it "Issue A". Democrats support Issue A, Republicans oppose it. One of the two will emerge triumphant through legislative procedure and Issue A will be legally resolved.

Let's say that Issue A is now being discussed in a governing body with 4 main parties. How do you achieve a majority vote when only 20-30% of the people are going to agree on any facet of the issue?

There is way too much deliberation in the U.S. Congress with only two groups yelling at one another. Add in more groups, and you have even less chance of getting anything done.

However, I do feel that it's lame that we are forced to be on one of two sides of Issue A. We, as individuals, essentially waste our time by disagreeing with both parties. There aren't many Americans whose political agendas line up perfectly with either party platform, but because of our two party system, you have to pick one or the other, if you want to get anything done.

Posted by Aioros

[COLOR="Yellow"]

Quoting Boner: Honestly though, both parties are blood sucking, back stabbing, *******s. Personally, I think the government, in general, has far too much power. This country was founded on the idea of people having the power. Over the years, we have given it away. And I don't think we will ever get it back.

Bingo.

This country was founded with the idea of the people being in control. Our forefathers had a very libertarian mentality and that's the way they wanted the country to be ran. In order to prove my point i'm going to require the help of my friend, the 2nd Amendment. The guys who founded our country gave us the right to have guns so that when the time came for the next revolution we'd be armed and ready. The founding fathers made the right to bare arms the 2nd amendment following free speech for a reason, it's the one that protects all your other freedoms which aren't worth squat if you don't have the means to defend them.

Thomas Jefferson said if we want freedom there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years. He also wrote, "what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance, let them take arms, what signify a few lives lost in a century or two. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriot and tyrants, it is its natural manure". At least Mr. Jefferson would agree with me :D

Even if it seems like a waste of time to vote for a third party because maybe they can't possibly win, i'm still going to do it. I am not going to settle between the lesser of two evils, that's one of the most absurd things anyone can do. Remember, "the lesser of two evils is still evil", and while we're at it "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend".

But if all else fails, and the people can't vote for a third, more reasonable party to be in power, there is a way. . .we need the government to be afraid of us, we want our rulers to think carefully about what they try to take from us. Remember, they can only take from us what we give them. Yeah, that's right, i'm discussing in public the idea of violently overthrowing our country, and it's covered under free speech, how cool is that! And we can't trust the government to be ok with that, we have to trust, well, the Americans all around us. Who's with me!

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have" ~ Gerald Ford[/COLOR]
Posted by Fei-on Castor

Much like the average Iraqi citizen prior to Iraq war, I have no desire to violently overthrow my government.

When this country was founded, they put certain measures into place to aid a new democracy because the people living in it didn't know much about democracy. They had lived their whole lives up until then being subjects of the King. So when it came time to live in a free democratic society, I'm sure there was great concern that the average person wouldn't know the basics of getting along well in such a society. That's where institutions like the Electoral College fit in. We had a group of people that weren't really qualified to evaluate the leadership capabilities of a Presidential Candidate. While I wasn't there when the Constitution was drawn up, I'd imagine there was a lot of fear that people might cast their vote for a poor candidate for foolish reasons. So that's why they set up a body to elect the president for us. A group of people more well informed than the average person.

Take Warren G. Harding for example. I'm not being sexist because this is genuine fact here. Everyone agrees that Harding was the worst President we've ever had. People feverishly debate who our greatest President was, but no one argues about who the worst was. It was Warren G Harding. Interestingly enough, Harding was elected in landslide victory, with 404 of the 531 electoral votes.

Harding was known as publisher more than a politician. He was also (as far as politicians go) a fairly handsome man, much more handsome than his homely opponent James Cox.

So why would we Americans send Harding's electors to cast their vote for him? If I'm not mistaken, the election that put Harding in the White House was also the first Presidential election where American Women had the right to vote. A handsome man gets elected by a landslide the first time women are allowed to vote, and then completely shames the office by being the known worst American President.

This is why organizations like the electoral college exist. To vote for the guy who will do the job well, instead of the handsome guy.

The average American only cares what the Presidential Candidate thinks about about thier personal issues, forgetting that this guy has to be the "manager" of our nation. "Opposes Gay Marriage? Opposes abortion? Supports gun ownership? Then he must be a man of G*d, and he's got my vote." That's how the typical American decides who they'll be voting for. So if most of us are making our decisions with logic like that, do you really want to see the guy in the office that we chose?

Midterm elections are coming up soon, and I can bet that a lot of moderates are going to vote Democratic this time. Not because the Republican Candidate isn't qualified or anything. Mostly for the same reason Lincoln ran as a "Republican" instead of a "Federalist", which was the original other party beside Democrat. The name "Republican" has gotten sullied recently, whether it's a sex scandal, or displeasure with the President, who is essentially the leader of the Republican Party. Running as a Republican this midterm is risky, just by association. It doesn't matter where you stand or what you say if you're republican because so many Americans have made up their minds even before you started speaking.

So instead of getting a government chosen by the people, you end up with a government chosen by a bunch of narrow-minded children who don't concern themselves with the country's direction, but only whether or not their 15 year old daughter will still be able to get that abortion she is scheduled for next month.

The Electoral College is supposed to choose the best person for the job because Americans, in general, are too stupid. Or so thought the framers of the Constitution.

And perhaps the framers of the Constitution were right about the average American. I mean, here we are, allowing our freedoms to compromised in the name of security. You know, guys like Saddam Hussein run pretty secure countries. It's hard to get away with breaking the law when a guy like him is your absolute dictator. Because he took away their freedom. If no one is free, then no one can cause trouble. And that's the mentality we've adopted here with ridiculous measures like the patriot act. Sure, everyone b*tches about it. But they don't even realize that we are slipping into a trend where gradually more and more things are taken from us so that no one will be able to hurt us. They're not prepared to protest, at least not the average American.

So I do often b*tch about entities like the Electoral College, but the more I think I about it, the more I realize I wouldn't want to entrust the leadership of America to Americans anyway. Maybe if all American voteres were required to pass some kind of aptitude test, but they're not. Being born on our soil makes you qualified to put your word in for who rules the country.

So yeah, the Electoral College was put into place because Americans back in the day didn't know much about being part of a successful democracy. You have to ask if the Americans today know so much more that we genuinely don't need anyone making our important decisions for us anymore. I mean, they decided that we all would feel safer if they made me take my shoes off before I board a plane. They decided that we can all sleep easier at night if the FBI is allowed to listen on my phone calls if I appear to be affiliated with terrorists. We've let people besides us make these decisions, why not let them pick the President too?

Posted by Arwon

You could do what we do and trust the "head of state" position to genetics and ***...

Posted by Boner

Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]But if all else fails, and the people can't vote for a third, more reasonable party to be in power, there is a way. . .we need the government to be afraid of us, we want our rulers to think carefully about what they try to take from us. Remember, they can only take from us what we give them. Yeah, that's right, i'm discussing in public the idea of violently overthrowing our country, and it's covered under free speech, how cool is that! And we can't trust the government to be ok with that, we have to trust, well, the Americans all around us. Who's with me!



It's already gone too far for that. We are well past the point of no return. I'm sure our forefathers never envisioned the technological advancements that we have today. More specifically in terms of weapons. Unless we could get our military on our side, we'd be totally screwed. It wouldn't even be close to a fair fight. I remember reading something in the news about Thailand recently. They did something like this. But, their form of government was so corrupt, and their population (more specifically, their military) is so small, it wasn't a hard thing for them to do. In fact, it was their military force that stepped forward to do this. I have not read up on the situation since that has happened, so I don't know anything about the current situation. Anyway, that's the only way something like this would be able to happen. Our actual military itself would have to step in and get the ball rolling. I've only got a few shot guns and a 9mm. I'm **** sure not taking out any tanks or military jets with that, lol.
Posted by Fei-on Castor

Violent revolution is only necessary when enough people are willing to die for it. You need that many people willing to die in order for it to work. If the revolution is only a few people, you've got a couple of problems. First of all, you may not being accurately acting out the desires of all the citizens of your country. And if you overthrow the government, you're overthrowing their government too, and thus, you will be affecting them. You've got to ensure that what you're doing is what most people want.

Another issue with not having enough people is that it's easy to jail a few people. It's easy to engage a few people in combat and kill them on the battlefield. But if 60% of Americans rose up to fight against the U.S. Government, they could not possibly kill/jail all of them. Yes, they do have the capacity to kill them all with weapons of mass destruction, but no one wants to be the ruler of a country full of dead bodies. So if the majority of Americans rose up against the US Government, in a violent sense, they'd probably just try to talk about what they wanted, instead of resorting to civil war.

Aioros is right about the government being afraid of us, though. That's how a good democracy works. You see, who ever rules a country usually does so with fear. Because fear makes a person cooperate. Saddam Hussein used fear by demonstrating that if you oppose him, you and your family will suffer for it. Some leaders, like most old European Monarchs and the present-day Ayatollah in Iran, use the order of G*d as their basis for ruling, and to oppose their rule will evoke the anger of G*d, a situation of which one ought to be fearful.

And in a democracy, the people are supposed to be the rulers. The elected officials are supposed to be afraid that we will take their jobs away, and if they resist, we will take their lives away. We put them in office, and we will take them out if the majority of us think they aren't serving us well. That's what you have to remember. They serve us. The term "public servant" is thrown around a lot, but think of what it entails. Every elected official is a servant of the people, bound to do as the people desire. We are the bosses of them, if you will. We pay their paychecks, and we, as citizens, fund their campaigns, in a roundabout way. In a sense, we own them. They are supposed to do as we wish them to, and when 60 something percent agrees that an elected official is failing to do as we wish, that's majority enough to "fire" him from his service to us.

Posted by CynicalBastard

Quoting Fei-on Castor: They are supposed to do as we wish them to, and when 60 something percent agrees that an elected official is failing to do as we wish, that's majority enough to "fire" him from his service to us.


It's not just about serving the majority of people, though. In America (and I assume we're talking about America) we have a Constitution that lays down basic rules that people cannot violate. Now technically, the Constitution can be changed, and so hypothetically, people could take away your rights anyways by, say, amending the Constitution to annihilate the first amendment. And technically, people could pass laws to violate the Constitution, and if nobody cared, they could get away with it for a while (see: Alien and Sedition Acts). However, a true Democracy is just rule of the majority, and without a Constitution, people could pass any number of laws that the majority of people support, with no thought of the minority of people that it infringes upon (I personally am thankful that amendments to the Constitution require jumping through so many hoops. Just look at the flag burning issue; if it only required a majority rule we probably would not be guarenteed our right to destroy our own property!).

Just wanted to point those few things out, because frankly, it scares me every time someone says that America is supposed to "represent the majority of people" or anything of the like. That was the whole lesson The U.S. founders learned from other Democracies: that people should be guarenteed certain inalienable rights no matter if the majority of people have become corrupt or not. That's the (supposed) safeguard the U.S. has against the masses become a conglomeration of Kings and Queens.

As for your other points, you're completely correct, the government does fear the masses in (just about) any form of government, and you should be cautious when starting a rebellion for exactly the reasons you listed.

Oh, and if I midread you and created a non-issue I apologize (I tend to jump to conclusions when I read certain keywords).
Posted by Arwon

You know a good way to make an aloof and unresponsive government afraid of you? It's much easier and cheaper than revolution. Just shoot a couple of them. Put fear for their personal safety into their minds.

Posted by Boner

I have a better idea. Everybody stop going to work. Try it for a week. The economic impact it could have would be devastating. Don't shop, don't order food, don't go out to do anything. If everyone would do this at the same time for just a week or so rather than go on vacation, the government would have to listen.

Posted by Arwon

Ah, the General Strike. Anarchist equivalent of the Rapture.

Posted by Boner

Yeah, but at least 78.6% of working Americans would have to decide to do it and stick to it in order for it to work. If less than that were to actually take action, we would just end up with about 43.892% of those people getting fired for such a stunt.

Funfact: 64% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

Posted by Arwon

Well, here's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Strike]the history of the idea[/url] for you...

Posted by Boner

I have a union job. I know much of strikes. But, the link was informative nonetheless. Thanks.

Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I think you guys have forgotten that we are a democratic REPUBLIC

Posted by Fei-on Castor

Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: I think you guys have forgotten that we are a democratic REPUBLIC

BJ is totally right.

The people who founded this country did their best to cover all their by addressing many possible scenarios. One of which is that the original inhabitants of America were new to the democracy thing. Would it be wise to leave it in THEIR hands to decide who makes their laws? What if they voted for a complete idiot? Or what if they voted for a power-abusing tyrant?

The average American citizen hasnt changed much in that respect. Most of the people that I talk to don't know junk about politics. Most of the voting-age adults were happy to see George W. Bush make into the White House in 2000, several of them mentioning how he was a "Man of G*d". Those same people are now saying that they can't stand him and that he sucks. So I ask them why is he a bad President? They usually say because of Iraq. Or they say that social programs like Foodstamps and state health-care are messed up. Or they say because gas prices are high. Or because minimum wage is too low.

Things like this are on the average voters mind. They pick one issue that seems to matter to them. Several people, including one very good friend, voted for Bush because he's a conservative guy, and conservatives dont' think gay people should be married. He chose a President based on that information. He wasn't concerned about foreign policy, economic policy, or his stance on virtually any other issue.

Imagine if Americans were allowed to choose who would run the most powerful nation in the world, basing it only on that guy's belief on one particular issue. An issue that when compared in the grand tapistry, seems quite trivial.

Hence the Democratic Republic. We choose people to make that decision for us. We send electors that have a belief structure vaguely similar to ours, and they assess the entire spectrum and make the decision based on that, rather than trivial social issues.

Essentially, the founding fathers knew that most Americans are too stupid to make such an important decision. They set up our government to make sure that decisions like this were left to the qualified electors.
Posted by Arwon

You're a communist!

Posted by Boner

Quoting Fei-on Castor: The people who founded this country did their best to cover all their by addressing many possible scenarios. One of which is that the original inhabitants of America were new to the democracy thing. Would it be wise to leave it in THEIR hands to decide who makes their laws? What if they voted for a complete idiot? Or what if they voted for a power-abusing tyrant?


Power-abusing tyrant? In those days?! Niggah, please! In those days, the powers of the government were much more limited than they are now. A president didn't have the powers then that he would have today. Back then, the government was truely meant to serve the people. Though, they still say that now, it is clearly not the case.



Quoting Fei-on Castor: Essentially, the founding fathers knew that most Americans are too stupid to make such an important decision. They set up our government to make sure that decisions like this were left to the qualified electors.



Incorrect, sir! Our founding fathers did not design our current voting structure based on what you have just stated. The reason the electoral college was created was to make voting for a president just a little bit quicker. In those days they had no internet. They had no phones. No trains, planes, or cars. People had to travel on foot, by horse, or by boat. Such was also the limit of communication. The electoral college in those times was a very handy thing to have. It sped things up a bit. It was not created because the general masses were thought to be incompetent. Men were thought superior to women, and that's why they didn't allow women to vote. Voting was a "man's" right and men were thought to be smarter, rather than equal, to women. In those days the men were "qualified" and the women were not.

Since then we have seen the errors of our ways and allowed women the right to vote. Why can we not see even further and rid ourselves of the electoral college altogeather? It really serves no valid purpose to us now. It's original intent has become null and void. Now it is mere hindrance to our basic right and liberty to select whom we think is best fit to run this chunk of dirt we live on.
Posted by Fei-on Castor

The electoral college doesn't simply the election process. In order for the electors to go cast their votes, they have to win the popular vote. So they still have to count up the popular vote just like they would if it was a straight democracy. The only difference was that instead of applying the popular vote to who would be president next, they'd apply it to chosing those who chose who would be president.

Either way, with an electoral college or not, they're still gonna have to count up all the votes. I'd be willing to bet that the electoral college was included in our system because most people don't know the situation well enough to make such an important decision.

Look at the democracy in "Iraq". Many Iraqis (probably all Sunnis) would like to put Saddam Hussein back into power, and he certainly would qualify as a power abusing tyrant. The electoral college is there to make sure that the best candidate gets elected, as most Americans aren't involved in the political process to know who the best candidate is. So we choose people to make to that important decision on our behalf.