sethnintendo said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
Not necessarily. Both systems have their faults. But I'm not talking about better or more fair, I'm talking about democratic. As in, decision my those ruled. The more direct and involved the voting process, the more democratic the process. The US has one of the most - if not most - "democratic" process in the world.
|
I get where you are coming from. I just hate how our system is set up where the losers are pretty much told to pack up and try again next election cycle. I think giving a proportion (most proportional are not true proportional) is more fair than nothing at all. It just kind of sucks being in a state that votes for a party that you don't like. The electoral college basically writes off most states are either red or blue and just focuses on a few states like Ohio or Florida. I am surprised that Texas is now supposedly a tight race but that could be because of the two most disliked candidates in history being the representatives of their parties. Oh and I also don't approve the process of gerrymandering.
That being said isn't the United States a Republic? Technically USA is a Republic first and foremost that democratically elects their representatives. I believe in order to be a democracry the citizens vote directly on laws (which happens for bond issues /state and local issues I suppose).
|
As a Canadian, I actually really like many aspects of the American system. Elected judges, seperate election of the president from Congress, elected senate, staggered election cycles and so forth. So many great checks and balances.
You want to talk about "pack it up and wait for the next election?" In Canada Justin Trudeau was just elected with 38% of the vote but now essentially has supreme power as majority leader of the parliament. He's thowing away all pretence of democracy, but takes great selfies so no one cares.
The biggest flaw in US goverment, to my eyes, is the two-party system, both of which have been "bought off" by large loby groups. Obama blocks pipe lines to because Buffett owns trains. Bush invades Iraq because Haliburton makes bombs. Both parties impose sactions agains Iran but ignore Saudi Arabia because the Saudis fund them. The lack of viable third or fourth alternative parties to disrupt the settled establishment has made the US government largely innefective. One of the biggest "pros" for me in favor of Trump is that at least he was fairly elected. The preferred Democrat candidate was likely vitoed by the party heiracrchy.