I shall quote you them "Tyranny of the majority is a nonsensical idea. If it's what the majority wants, by definition isn't tyranny. Tyranny is to opress the people. If the people are in a majority agreement it isn't tyranny. It's a ridiculous concept." Now tell me that isn't what you said.... and the concept is the same, if the majority have agreed for you it isn't tyranny.

I know what a democracy is. USA doesn't say it is a democracy, I have already told you that. They are a constitutional republic.

Funny that you was the one throwing personnal attacks and now pretend to be attacked.

There are several forms of democracy, but certainly USA doesn't call itself a democracy even when saying they are the biggest one.  They are a federation based on constitutional republic.

And it's funny you complaining about democracy in USA coming from the country of Dictator Franco.

If you're refuting the idea of tyranny of the majority through pedantic semantics, then you don't have an argument to begin with. Okay, so what if I change it to the technically correct term, ochlocracy of the majority? How about you use that semantics argument again and see what happens.

50.1% is technically a majority and what the 50.1% wants may not be best for the other 49.9%. In fact, the majority may work to harm the minority which would lead to an unstable society and government. This is especially true if the majority shifts frequently. In addition, arguments against an outright democracy are valid as there are concerns of people voting along collectivist lines. The reason why voters from rural states have a higher proportion of "voting power" is because it prevents urban voters from smothering them via large numbers. A democracy also allows the majority ethnic group to throw its weight around minority ethnic groups whereas it is more difficult in a republic system. In addition, democracy only considers the equality of voice into consideration, but not the collective intelligence of mass into consideration. The disregard of the collective intelligence can lead to detrimental effects such as the religious fundamentalism in Pakistan or the sterilization of women with so-called 'mental defects' or of 'mixed race' in Sweden during the 1900s. I mean, feel free to repeat that slogan, but if you think that's viable substitute for a valid argument, meh.

All I am seeing from your arguments is you explain why you personally prefer democracy. However, you have not adequately explained why democracy is a better system than a republic. For example, I already explained why rural states in the US have proportionally higher voting power, but from you, it's just "No, it's bad! It's corrupt! It's not democracy, therefore it's bad!"

Yes, talking about electing the world representitive. Can only be one person buddy. You can't keep up with the conversation.

I have no idea what you are talking about over there.

The USA does tout itself as the worlds leading democracy when it isn't one. I called that out. You see to have issue with it. Not my problem. I will say the truth no matter who decides to take offense by it.

That may be because they are the most powerful, developed and successful country that have somewhat of a democratic system? You get to vote for your DA, Judges, Police Chief and other important positions in your country? I have no issue with you saying USA isn't a democracy, but the way you put isn't saying they are a republic instead of democracy, was to sling dirty at their voting system.

Here is the proof:

You started it, and that was your final strike. You're out.

Are they wrong though?

Just do what they do in Australia force everyone to vote lol.

Then you end up with minor governments that barely hold each other together and the opposition always reject the governments policy proposals.  Then people say these asses aren't doing shit so they vote for the other part next election and they barely win and then they get all their policies rejected.

A never ending circle of swapping and changing and not much getting done because the other party who didn't win feels they have to block almost everything.

State governments are even worst here, one will approve a 2billion budget and get contracts signed a month later the new government will cancel the project and pay out the contracts to honour them lol. And all this because 20 people complain about it lol.

Absolutely this.

I am an outsider to American politics, but I am beginning to understand more and more why Trump won. Had I been American I would have certainly not voted for Trump in 2016, had the election been today, I might have, not sure. His views (lies) about global warming and his promises about putting Clinton in jail would probably still be a turn-off for me - at least the latter turned out to just be a 'sick joke'.

The main reason Trump won and the reason he will win in 2020 is that the democrats allow less and less room for nuances in thinking. The radical left has a lot of power over the whole left in American politics. Any deviation from their mindset and you will be called all different kinds of things and will not be welcome in hollywood or a lot of other places, and a lot of 'reliable' media will quickly label you alt-right or something worse.

Also the whole victimization of black people (this includes black lives matter) and women that the radical left is practicing, along with the collective guilt put on white people (especially men) is extremely dangerous to the society.

If the moderate left in the US does not wake up and seperate itself from the political correct fanatics of the radical left, they will not stand a chance against republicans.

Some of the same issues are also seen in other western countries. One of the worst examples is Canada, which passed the Bill C-16, the most radical restriction on freedom of speech we have seen in any western country since WW2. Also UK suffers from left wing fanatism, especially in the media. Other western countries are doing better, but the problems are still deeply present.

Man, my family is very liberal and socialist. And I spend a lot of time debating on npr with similar. These guys are so unbelievably ignorant and uneducated (like whining about a SCOTUS seat being stolen which is so moronic). I know the extreme right have their own but I feel like the left are just so smug and self righteous. It just pushes me further right out of spite. 

Would it be fair if Ginsburg dies in 2020, and the Democrats have taken the Senate, they block any Trump nominee? What about 2019? No president's SC choice had been universally blocked before the GOP did so with Obama.

Man, my family is very liberal and socialist. And I spend a lot of time debating on npr with similar. These guys are so unbelievably ignorant and uneducated (like whining about a SCOTUS seat being stolen which is so moronic). I know the extreme right have their own but I feel like the left are just so smug and self righteous. It just pushes me further right out of spite. 

The point of the majority is for a decision to be made. There's no tyranny if it's the popular vote. How more legitimate can it be? If the majority can't decide without being called tyrants, who can make decisions? A council whose election is subject to all kinds of backdoor deals? The will of the people (when not falsified) is the legitimate decision.

Afraid of what the people say? Then you don't defend democracy. Don't defend that some people's vote should be worth more than others. THAT is tyranny.

Honestly, if you don't defend equality and freedom, you don't defend democracy.

If you are talking about representation, the presidential election is not where that happens, nor needs to be. You got representatives on your senate.