Splitting this off from the "For whom the bell tolls, it does not toll for thee, Tdarcos" thread, I want to respond to the non-sequitur that Billy went off on, about what a democracy is or isn't. Specifically, he pulled out the "the US is a Republic and not a democracy Ugh Ugh" that every high school Freshman trots out when they read about it in Civics 101.
Let me pull up the quote:
RetroCivicsRomper wrote: Lets be clear, [the US] isn't a direct democracy (and besides Switzerland those don't really exist,) but [it's system of Representative Democracy is] accepted as one just as much as say, the Parliamentary system.
Note: The US is actually a form of Mixed Democracy - propositions in many states are voted on directly (which includes tax increases among others) and Governorship / City Councils are a straight popular vote (as opposed to the Presidency which is based on the Electoral College.)
Billy Mays wrote:(as opposed to the Presidency which is based on the Electoral College.)"
You tried to form an argument for your case, but then slipped in this tiny caveat at the end which contradicts everything that you had previously stated.
Billy is (in his own terrible way) pointing out that the Electoral College is a Plurality as opposed to Majority voting system: a candidate that doesn't receive at least 50% + 1 of votes can still win. His question becomes "is a plurality system still democratic?"
The answer appears to be: yes, if you agree with the idea of political parties. Fuck me, but I'm going to quote from Quora:
[qoute="Random Guy from Quora (god I hope he knows what he is talking about)"]If three or more candidates are running, and if two of them appeal to mostly the same voters, they split the vote, creating a disadvantage for both of them. Ralph Nader is well known for this issue, since he was seen as more similar to Gore than to Bush, and was generally seen to be a "spoiler."
But this causes much, much bigger problems than the occasional election where there is a spoiler. Vote splitting results in parties dominating politics. The main purpose of parties is to give a strategic advantage by protecting their candidates against vote splitting. The Democrats didn't put both Hillary Clinton and Obama on the ballot (in 2008), instead they had primaries so only one of them was on the ballot. If they had allowed both to be on the ballot (along with all the other Democrat candidates), they would have lost to the Republicans, which were presumably smart enough to only have one candidate.[/quote]
More nuances work into this especially in the US as the Electoral College is a voting system that accounts for STATES as opposed to the idea of "one man, one vote" and the general idea of Democracy being "majority rule, minority rights."
Does the Electoral College fit the general idea of of a Representative Democracy? Yes, yes it does and it fills the bill for what apparently is the hotly contested idea of a Mixed Democratic institution.
Conclusion? Billy is wrong and by God, if someone is wrong on the internet then another needs to stop up and point it out in a long winded post.
Splitting this off from the "For whom the bell tolls, it does not toll for thee, Tdarcos" thread, I want to respond to the non-sequitur that Billy went off on, about what a democracy is or isn't. Specifically, he pulled out the "the US is a Republic and not a democracy Ugh Ugh" that every high school Freshman trots out when they read about it in Civics 101.
Let me pull up the quote:
[quote="RetroCivicsRomper"] Lets be clear, [the US] isn't a direct democracy (and besides Switzerland those don't really exist,) but [it's system of Representative Democracy is] accepted as one just as much as say, the Parliamentary system.
Note: The US is actually a form of Mixed Democracy - propositions in many states are voted on directly (which includes tax increases among others) and Governorship / City Councils are a straight popular vote (as opposed to the Presidency which is based on the Electoral College.)[/quote][quote="Billy Mays"](as opposed to the Presidency which is based on the Electoral College.)"
You tried to form an argument for your case, but then slipped in this tiny caveat at the end which contradicts everything that you had previously stated.[/quote]
Billy is (in his own terrible way) pointing out that the Electoral College is a Plurality as opposed to Majority voting system: a candidate that doesn't receive at least 50% + 1 of votes can still win. His question becomes "is a plurality system still democratic?"
The answer appears to be: yes, if you agree with the idea of political parties. Fuck me, but I'm going to quote from Quora:
[qoute="Random Guy from Quora (god I hope he knows what he is talking about)"]If three or more candidates are running, and if two of them appeal to mostly the same voters, they split the vote, creating a disadvantage for both of them. Ralph Nader is well known for this issue, since he was seen as more similar to Gore than to Bush, and was generally seen to be a "spoiler."
But this causes much, much bigger problems than the occasional election where there is a spoiler. Vote splitting results in parties dominating politics. The main purpose of parties is to give a strategic advantage by protecting their candidates against vote splitting. The Democrats didn't put both Hillary Clinton and Obama on the ballot (in 2008), instead they had primaries so only one of them was on the ballot. If they had allowed both to be on the ballot (along with all the other Democrat candidates), they would have lost to the Republicans, which were presumably smart enough to only have one candidate.[/quote]
More nuances work into this especially in the US as the Electoral College is a voting system that accounts for STATES as opposed to the idea of "one man, one vote" and the general idea of Democracy being "majority rule, minority rights."
Does the Electoral College fit the general idea of of a Representative Democracy? Yes, yes it does and it fills the bill for what apparently is the hotly contested idea of a Mixed Democratic institution.
Conclusion? Billy is wrong and by God, if someone is wrong on the internet then another needs to stop up and point it out in a long winded post.