Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Are conservatives entitled to their opinion that the USA isn't a democracy and doesn't have to be one?

What about my human rights?, the Fifteenth Amendment?, the and the universal declaration of human rights?
Can conservatives have their own reality, where my rights don't exist?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
Well, democracy is one of those generic, all encompassing, one size-fits-all, term that embraces a fairly wide range of different governments and societies. There is no precise definition of what a "democracy" must have to be one. So in that sense, yes they can say we are not whatever definition of a democracy they are using and truthfully say the Constitution never precisely says we are or have to be a democracy. But they cannot ignore the 15th Amendment (and all the rest of your Constitutional rights) nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since not only did the U.S. sign it, it largely wrote it.
thisgenericnamehere · 36-40, M
@dancingtongue
There is no precise definition of what a "democracy" must have to be one.

There absolutely is and the US doesn't have one.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@thisgenericnamehere Please enlighten me then. What are the precise requirements that a democracy must have.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@thisgenericnamehere Wikipedia: Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy"). Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country's inhabitants have generally been included. Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assembly, association and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. The original form of democracy was a direct democracy. The most common form of democracy today is a representative democracy, where the people elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.[2]

Prevalent day-to-day decision making of democracies is the majority rule,[3][4] though other decision making approaches like supermajority and consensus have also been integral to democracies. They serve the crucial purpose of inclusiveness and broader legitimacy on sensitive issues—counterbalancing majoritarianism—and therefore mostly take precedence on a constitutional level. In the common variant of liberal democracy, the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority—usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech or freedom of association.[5][6]

The term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite".[7] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in antiquity, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as those in Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in autocratic systems like absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy—oppositions inherited from ancient Greek philosophy.[8] Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[9]
thisgenericnamehere · 36-40, M
@dancingtongue Of course, I enjoy educating.


The term “democracy”, as we will use it in this entry, refers very generally to a method of collective decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the decision-making process


1)
First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which we mean decisions that are made for groups and are meant to be binding on all the members of the group.

2)
We intend for this definition to cover many different kinds of groups and decision-making procedures that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations.

3)
The definition is not intended to carry any normative weight. It is compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context.


4)
The equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to a parliament where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including substantive equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building leading up to the vote.


That last one almost fits but because so so so many are disenfranchised we don't have a one person one vote system in truth. Also the senate not being based on population means that representation is skewed ie. Someone in Wyoming has far far more representation than someone from California breaking that piece of democracy for the US.
thisgenericnamehere · 36-40, M
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#DemoDefi
thisgenericnamehere · 36-40, M
@dancingtongue Yes. I'm familiar with the concept. I think you'll find my source more relevant than Wikipedia. Still based on your source the US definitely doesn't fit a classical democracy and arguably doesn't fit a representative democracy even though it may purport to.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@thisgenericnamehere So basically you are saying the same thing that Wikipedia has said: democracy is a general concept that is interpreted by different societies and different governments differently. No, we do not have a direct democracy (everyone has a vote), and our campaign financing laws and gerrymandering by political parties certainly screw up the whole concept of a representative democracy (where people have any real control over who represents them). Yet compared to any of the Peoples Democratic Republics, we are closer to democracy than they are yet they define themselves as democratic as well. As for the Senate inequality, that was intentional by the Founders in an effort to counter the unfair advantage larger states with bigger populations would have -- which could be argued as an effort to build a true democracy rather than a mobocracy. That balancing act lost a lot when we moved from State Legislatures picking their State's Senators for clearly defined reasons and made them elected by the same general voters influenced by the same big money special interests. Yeah, California has a distinct disadvantage -- try selling that argument to any Conservatives -- by having only 2 Senators, which is another reason why there have been ongoing efforts for decades to split the state into 3 to 5 states to gain adequate representation.