Is true democracy in the US is dead?

Must See Hilarious George Bush Bloopers! - YouTube (http://youtu.be/DEbZqvMu2cQ)

no one can top this buffoon. and we have evolved into a 2 party system. no one outside of this system stands a chance

Must See Hilarious George Bush Bloopers! - YouTube (http://youtu.be/DEbZqvMu2cQ)

no one can top this buffoon. and we have evolved into a 2 party system. no one outside of this system stands a chance

You ciould have done better then that clip. That one show he has a sense of humor and is human. A buffoon thinks he has been to 57 states and has one more to visit.

You sure Obama didn't just make a mistake? Also, you really think Bush is intellectually superior vs. Obama, haha?

Bush had his strengths, but intelligence wasn't one of them. That's why there are tons of websites, posters, etc. that have "Bush-isms". This is actually one of the few klutzy mistakes Obama has made, in terms of speeches.

If you want to criticize Obama, focus on your issues with his policies.

The people as a whole still have freedom and the right to exercise their will but a true democracy can not be had without the absence of money bearing external forces, presence of a leveled playing field and low barrier to entry for candidate and informed citizenry.

This country and its people lack sufficient altruism required for a true democracy.

Forefathers rolling in their graves....way too much special interest and corporate money in politics....our political system is a damn embarrassment imo...

The people as a whole still have freedom and the right to exercise their will but a true democracy can not be had without the absence of money bearing external forces, presence of a leveled playing field and low barrier to entry for candidate and informed citizenry.

This country and its people lack sufficient altruism required for a true democracy.

True democracy is just as dangerous, and stupid of a style of govt as any other out there. Because 50.1% of a given population support an idea, doesn't mean that idea is a good one, only that 50.1% of the population agree to do something.

The US's strength, for whatever it's worth, wasn't ever in the democratic aspect, but in the multilayered check's and balances that were put in place to prevent harm and provide a government that was: stable enough to withstand foreign influences on domestic affairs, limited in scope and power enough to allow individual freedoms, secure enough to take on debt and repay debt to enable foreign trade. As the US marches toward truer and truer democracy (defined as one person one vote on every issue) we lose many of the less obvious checks and balances the founders put there.

My personal belief is that the moving of Senate seats from state decision to democratic forces is one of the most undermining of all the constitutional amendments. I actually understand at the time it was necessary but it seems like States need to reclaim that privilege and bring back a form of State assignment of Senate seats. My rationale in a simplistic statement is this: the big money contributors that currently fund national campaigns would be forced to bring campaigns back to individual state situations. It really would be best if there could be a 2 step process of State appointment followed by voter approval, that would work to reduce backroom politics and encourage Senators who are working for their State and not for the vested national lobbiests.

Forefathers rolling in their graves....way too much special interest and corporate money in politics....our political system is a damn embarrassment imo...
To whom is our political system an embarrassment?

We have a stable government that has seen power taken from the richest and over the course of 200+ years incorporated more and more people into the system. At the same time the system has allowed for an economy that thru ups and downs does not bring great instability into the political system, i.e. governments are overthrown or recalled every time the economy tanks, and no single ruler is given vast over-reaching authority when the economy booms.

Again, no government or political system is going to be ideal, and all are run by people which brings fluctuations and abuse, BUT, it is neglectful in my opinion, to be embarrassed by a system that has produced a stability of life while not creating a chaotic or dictatorial regime for 222 years.

True democracy is just as dangerous, and stupid of a style of govt as any other out there. Because 50.1% of a given population support an idea, doesn't mean that idea is a good one, only that 50.1% of the population agree to do something.

The US's strength, for whatever it's worth, wasn't ever in the democratic aspect, but in the multilayered check's and balances that were put in place to prevent harm and provide a government that was: stable enough to withstand foreign influences on domestic affairs, limited in scope and power enough to allow individual freedoms, secure enough to take on debt and repay debt to enable foreign trade. As the US marches toward truer and truer democracy (defined as one person one vote on every issue) we lose many of the less obvious checks and balances the founders put there.

My personal belief is that the moving of Senate seats from state decision to democratic forces is one of the most undermining of all the constitutional amendments. I actually understand at the time it was necessary but it seems like States need to reclaim that privilege and bring back a form of State assignment of Senate seats. My rationale in a simplistic statement is this: the big money contributors that currently fund national campaigns would be forced to bring campaigns back to individual state situations. It really would be best if there could be a 2 step process of State appointment followed by voter approval, that would work to reduce backroom politics and encourage Senators who are working for their State and not for the vested national lobbiests.

50% + 1 is not a true democracy, it is tyranny of the majority the founders wished to avoid. A true democracy IMO is a deliberative democracy in which given multiple options the people will always choose the best option because it is the most logical and natural option. Obviously for this to work a lot of responsibility falls on the citizenry.

You sure Obama didn't just make a mistake? Also, you really think Bush is intellectually superior vs. Obama, haha?

Bush had his strengths, but intelligence wasn't one of them. That's why there are tons of websites, posters, etc. that have "Bush-isms". This is actually one of the few klutzy mistakes Obama has made, in terms of speeches.

If you want to criticize Obama, focus on your issues with his policies.


I have.

50% + 1 is not a true democracy, it is tyranny of the majority the founders wished to avoid. A true democracy IMO is a deliberative democracy in which given multiple options the people will always choose the best option because it is the most logical and natural option. Obviously for this to work a lot of responsibility falls on the citizenry.
So in your situation where a population deliberates the multiple options and come to the point of choosing an option, how would the vote be conducted and what would be the requirement an option being selected?