American democracy is broken

Literally every time a bill has been passed from 1789 to May 18 2019.

 

The only form of fair governance IS democracy. Go take a course in Civics!

Putrid blah-blah-blah ...

 

We are not a democracy and never have been we are a republic.

Making people vote as is idiotic and wrong as forbidding people from voting'

The source for your op is stupid uneducated and wrong and luckily it will never happen

 

Can I suggest in the context of this thread a reading of Pete Buttigieg’s recent policy statement containing comments on the US electoral college, voter disenfranchisement etc is worth a read?

 

Kinda-sorta stoopid remark. Go here: A Republic or a Democracy — Let’s Get This Straight - excerpt:

If you are capable of reading carefully you will note that whilst denoting the same essence, the definitions are vaguely different. But that does not mean that they are incompatibly opposites.

That supposed difference people like you pontificate as a "dire threat to our Republican values". Which they aren't for as long as the ballot-box decides FAIRLY between what the American people want and do not want. That decision is often a rocky-road swaying to-and-fro, which is why the intelligence brought by education is a key quality/virtue of any nation ...

 

3 Can't work with 1.

 

Yes it started with Obama. And continues with the Congressional Democrats holding the Democracy hostage!

 

Thank you for argumenting how fair it is.

 

The blindness of so many Americans on both the left and right ( if such terms are still meaningful) to the extensive powers of the executive branch negating anything like a true democracy astonishes many of us living outside the land of the brave and supposedly free. And now we have Putin playing cat and mouse with both sides and you can’t even see you’re being made fools of.

 

You've warped the definition of "democracy" to suit your own political deviance. And you expect ME to put up with it?

No way, José ...

 

The Dems are holding democracy as a hostage?

We've just come out of a political instance when ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF GOVERNANCE (namely the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial) were owned and run by the Replicant Party. (If you are aware of that political instance here on earth!)

And you blame that the Congressional Democrats are holding democracy as a hostage?

What planet do you live on ... ?

 

Same simplistic BS keeps popping-up from dunderheads.

The two are one in the same. Go get a dictionary and look up the definitions! I tire of repeating them to dunderheads on this forum.

Moreover, read the definitions! Then come back and tell me how they are fundamentally different notions of governance - when in fact they are complementary!

From here:

 

They are very different and it is not just a subtle difference.

You are still wrong and we are a republic we have never been a democracy so your entire effort is a wasted failure and your source is not a valid one nor an authority'
\
Learn a few things kiddoe and you wont have such easily debunked and ruined threads

 

They are not the same

Only uneducated knuckleheads call them the same

You keep getting proven wrong on this forum because everyone is smarter and better educated and know that they are not the same

One is mob rule the other is rule of law


Now try doing some research and come back when you have lifted yourself up to the level others are operating at

You are out of your league junior

 

I'm not spanish.
And what's my political deviance ?

 

And they say the right doesn't have comedians...

 

Nope, we "knuckleheads" call it the dictionary-definition. Ever consult a dictionary before putzing in a blog?

Apparently not ...

 

The dictionary proves you wrong

They are not the same

 

Blah, blah, blah and more BLAH ... !

You go on IGNORE

 

And still correct

You have been schooled.

 

Funny how the losers think American democracy is broken.

Honestly, I think far fewer people should vote. About half the population votes now, and of those, about half don't know squat about what or who they are voting for. I think there ought to be some kind of test before voting, something like, "A) Name the two most significant candidates up for election. B) Name which party each belongs to." If you can't do at least that much, you shouldn't be voting in that election.

The American polity is broken. You have half the population accusing the other half of the population of being racist, sexist, homophobes (not a word), while simultaneously insisting that men can be women, borders don't matter, and race doesn't exist. In a sane world, this kind of cognitive dissonance would be classified as a mental disorder. But in America today, it's considered a perfectly normal progressive platform. America is coming apart at the seams, and it's the left that is doing the tearing.

 

American democracy can’t be broken. It was never a true democracy and Trump, with a few pointers from Moscow, soon learnt the executive powers he has can overide anything like democratic process. Then we have the Electoral College, the disenfranchisement of a large portion of potential voters etc. the list could go on. Let’s all stop pretending the US is a full democracy just because almost every previous occupant of the Whitehouse acted as if it was.

 

No it is not funny, if you have the intelligence to see the reasoning and respond in kind. Rather than sarcasm, which is inappropriate in a Debate Forum!

That's like saying far fewer children should be born, so hospitals have the right to do away with any children in a family of more than four members!

Stoopid is as stoopid does ...

Well, you've finally got SOMETHING right!

Uncle Sam's electoral system has been broken for a great long time. In fact, since the inception of both the Electoral College on the Executive Level and Gerrymandering on the Legislative Level! And that was back in the beginning of the 19th century, when America was just a fledgling nation!

Americans, however, cannot understand how the voting-system - a fundamental component of any Real Democracy - is broken on both the state and Federal levels of voting. Here is why:
*As mentioned above the Electoral College negates popular-votes, which should be illegal. Since it denies us the personal expression of our selection of our representative political candidate, which is the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF ANY TRUE DEMOCRACY!
*Meaning that on the state level, no arbitrary geographic division of voters should occur to favor either one of a two-party system! Meaning that Gerrymandering must be outlawed because its purpose is to increase illegitimately a majority representation in either state or national congress!
*No one-person's vote is better than another. None! Only the majority of the total vote counted matters. The total number of EC-votes per state has been devised according to a decennial population-estimate of each state and accorded as such.
*Meaning that the Fundamental Error in the EC we must recognize is the fact that the tabulation of votes for the presidency is "Winner takes all" on the state level.
* How more dishonest can a system of voting get?

Now, pray tell, if you had voted for a candidate of the minority-vote, how would you feel if your vote for the presidency had been transferred from "YOUR PREFERENCIAL CANDIDATE TO THAT OF THE MAJORITY VOTE"? Perhaps an individual you despise!

Well, like it or not, that is what happens ... !

 

Sarcasm is always appropriate except when consoling someone over the loss of a loved one.

If you can't distinguish between disfranchisement and murder, I can't help you.

Or in this case, as stupid thinks.

As I and numerous others have pointed out on here before, this is not a democracy. This is a republic, and ignoring the "popular vote" was built into the system on purpose. The Founding Fathers feared the tyranny of the majority and deliberately avoided any attempt at a direct democracy. The system worked exactly as intended, making the small states equal in power to the large states and the rural voters equal in power to the city voters. That you as a large state, city voter don't like it doesn't mean the system isn't working.

I would like to see gerrymandering reduced myself, but since it's politicians who draw up the boundaries, I don't see that there's much hope for it. The courts weighed in on gerrymandering back in the Civil Rights days to stop white politicians from arranging political districts to make blacks a minority in every voting district, so then they started gerrymandering to make black only districts to reduce their power in the other districts. Then Democrats starting gerrymandering to make Democrat-majority districts and Republicans used the racial boundary rules to stop the Democrats from doing that. Now Republicans are the ruling party in most states and probably still will be come the 2020 census results, so how they will gerrymander remains to be seen.

Yeeeeaaaahhhh, I can't really get behind that claim. Some people's votes are much better than others'. An informed voter's vote is much better than an uninformed voter's vote. A citizen's vote is much better than an illegal alien's vote. Someone who has to live with the consequences of his/her vote is a better vote than someone who doesn't. A net tax-paying citizen's vote is better than a net welfare-receiving citizen's vote. If 51% of the population voted to enslave the other 49%, you'd have direct democracy in action, but it wouldn't be a good vote.

(I had to take out your highlighting to get it to stop breaking up your post into three different sections.) No, that's what's happening now, with states vowing to switch their vote to the winner of the popular vote nationwide rather than abide by the winner of the popular vote in their state. As for the rest of your post, I have voted for the loser in every election from 1992, when Pat Buchanan ran against George H.W. Bush, to 2016, when I voted for Ted Cruz. Someone I despise has won every election since Reagan. So there hasn't been any real change in the system in the last 27 years.

Something I've pointed out to every other person railing about the Electoral College and that I'll now point out to you is that you're making an unwarranted assumption about the elections of 2000 and 2016. You're assuming that the popular vote would have turned out the same way if the rules had been different, but you really don't know that. Taking Trump as an example, he spent most of his time in Florida and Pennsylvania to win the EC, but if the EC hadn't existed, he probably would have spent far more time in New York and California. But since the EC did exist, he essentially ignored New York and California since he knew he wasn't going to win either state. So it's entirely possible that both Bush and Trump would have won the popular vote if that's what they needed to do to win the election. Since that's not what they needed to do to win the election, they ignored the popular vote and concentrated their attention on the states they needed to win the Electoral College. Flipping the script, Hillary spent a lot of time in states she really didn't need to and essentially ignored the states she needed to win, mainly Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. The EC is not why Hillary lost, Hillary is why Hillary lost. She was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign and managed to lose an election that the media, the DNC, Obama, the FBI, and god only knows who else rigged in her favor. Instead of bitching about the rules, how about coming up with a decent candidate?

 

But that's "Democracy".

Democracy is, " a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting".

So those who voted for that idiot Obama or Clinton or Trump are just exercising their democratic right.

Getting back to the thread, I haven't a clue what party funding has to do democracy. As long as you can vote and elect the person/party of your choice, that's democracy.