By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Democratic Party files lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks

o_O.Q said:
deskpro2k3 said:


okay grab a chair, I'm about to hit you with some knowledge.

[PDF] Democracy in the United States - Homepage | USCIS

"The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy."


The American Heritage Dictionary

Republic: "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them" - we are that. A common definition of "democracy" is, "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" - we are that, too.

my point is that you are not distinguishing between democracy and representative democracy

when the difference in this case is vast

when you replied you replied to me previously you said that its pretty much a democracy and it appears to me that you are now acknowledging that you were wrong to say so

 When I replied I said the constitution has democratic ideals and techniques.

Anyways, I gave you proof directly from the government website. So there is that.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 24 April 2018

Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
Shadow1980 said:

Not necessarily. There are, arguably, several nations with a federal system that do not have representative democracy, at least not in any meaningful way, with elections that are neither free nor fair and leadership that is often authoritarian.

That could be said of representative democracy or democracy in general. 

Democracy might not guarantee freedom in and of itself, and maintaining a free society requires that the people are vigilant, that they hold their government accountable (through both the ballot box and through speech and protest), hold their elected officials to high standards, demand transparency, and call foul when people's rights are trampled upon. But a hallmark of a free society is free and fair elections for the peoples' representatives in government. We have never seen a truly free society where the right of all citizens to vote was not respected. In other words, democracy may not guarantee freedom, but it is a prerequisite for freedom.

Meanwhile, "federal" is simply a term describing the relationship between a nation's central government and its sub-national units. It says nothing about whether the right to vote, or any other freedom for that matter, is respected. It merely says that the states/provinces share power with the central government and have a wide degree of autonomy that, at least in principle, cannot be unilaterally rescinded by the central government. This is opposed to a unitary state where the sub-national units only have whatever powers and autonomy, if any, the central government chooses to delegate to them. Typically, federations are either very large in terms of area (e.g., Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Russia), or were formed when multiple independent entities unified into a single larger nation-state (e.g., Germany, Switzerland, Malaysia), or both in the case of the U.S.

Essentially, federalism almost always seems to be a practical consideration for a nation that's geographically large, or was a consequence of the nation's formation and/or other events in its history. There is nothing about federalism in and of itself that makes it a system desirable for a free, democratic nation. It's neither good nor bad.


In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

Guys, this is merely an insurance policy against the possible firing of the special prosecutor. It is smart.

      There are no true democracies on the planet at the moment. Switzerland probably comes the closest with its fairly heavy use of direct democracy but I don't think it goes quite far enough to qualify. Most nations that call themselves "democracies" would actually be more accurately described as "elective oligarchies" who like to market themselves as democracies.

      The issue is that the general public has been brainwashed into thinking that elections are a form of democracy, they are not, they are inherently undemocratic and in fact a tool of oligarchy as in practise the only people who have any realistic chance of being elected are those who are a) wealthy, b) famous, c) well connected with those who are already in power, usually a combination of all three. Over time this results in a highly insular class of people who hold most of the power. All western nations claim to be ruled by the people but I think everyone knows that's not true and that our countries are dominated by a small group of "elites" who look after their own interests before that of the public.

Last edited by MrMacrocosm - on 24 April 2018