USA a false democracy?

Show me where the Constitution says we are a Democratic Republic? You can't it establishes and guaranties to the state we will be a FEDERAL Republic. PERIOD. Why are you so intent on the Neanderthal campagin to falsely claim we are a Democracy and not a FEDERAL REPUBLIC. You guys have yet to show where we vote on any NATIONAL, FEDERAL issue.

It is a matter of CIVICS 101 and the facts about our government.

 

What part of "Never said the US was a Democracy" was not clear earlier ?

 

Irrelevant.

 

Not for you in the FEDERAL government. Democracies are NOT the type of government we want, they are doomed to fail as past history shows, whenever everything is left to a vote of all the people things don't tend to work out well.

You have some in your State, you have more in your county and city. But not on the FEDERAL level as a country we are not a Democracy and have no democratic processes for the citizens in the federal system. So when people, not saying you, say things like "We must protect this great DEMOCRACY of ours" they are speaking in error the should properly be saying "We must protect this great REPUBLIC of ours". That is what we should be teaching in our schools and teaching why the Founding Fathers and the States were so concerned about democracy they guarantied in the Constitution we would be federal republic.

 

OP: "The US is a false democracy".

Your response: The US is a republic.

My observation: the US system is based on a "sovereignty of the individual" ideology, delusional in a world with more than one individual, IF anarchy is to be avoided...recognizing the reality of the effect of unconscious survival-of-the- individual instincts on thought and behavior.

Now of course you won't face reality, BECAUSE you are committed to the delusion that individual sovereignty is compatible with ANY form of government other than anarchy.

 

Note my underlined: I'm not claiming one way or the other.

I've been at pains to show that the US constitution - and any other system of government that seeks to put the actions of individuals above the common welfare - regardless of outcome - is based on a delusion of individual sovereignty.

You can reject my observation of course, but you will be rejecting the reality of the force of instinct on human behavior. .

 

This discussion is about what form of government we have.

 

...And whether it is a false form of government. Your attempt to sidestep that question by claiming the US is a republic begs the next question: is the US a republic.......

I have explained why it is.

 

Any Government exclusively for the common good eventually leads to socialism and communism. Over time elected officials that have control over the people for the common good, decide they don't want to give up that power. You are committed to the delusion that a small group of individuals with power over the people are compatible with ANY form of government other than totalitarianism.

 

Democracy IS a form of government, a bad one. The US is not a false democracy how many times does that have to be explained. Go read the CONSTITUTION. What form of government does it GUARANTY.

 

The USA no longer exists... it has now been effectively broken down into these four factions:

Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California (SOTC)
Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of New York (SOTNY)
Socialist Oligarchy of the District of Columbia (SODC)
States of America (SOA)

The first three factions no longer recognize ANY state or federal constitution. They believe that they rule over their respective citizenry (the SODC believes that it rules over the SOA as well).

The SOA, as they are no longer united under a federal constitution, need to individually decide whether they will ally with the SODC or whether they will declare independence and remain a free people (governed by rule of law) rather than slaves to an 'elitist' oligarchy.

 

But I have proved the US republican form of government is ALSO is also a "bad" form of government.

To summarize: the sovereign state must be sovereign over the sovereign individual if anarchy is to be avoided, given the reality of self-interested instincts in individuals.

That's the real issue......

 

I agree, a Constitutional amendment isn't about to happen, ever. The Constitution gives the states the power to award their electoral votes as their legislature deems fit. However, I would make if I could a change to the electoral college. I don't mind winner take all states. My change would be for the winner of a winner take all state that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes in that state. Other words, 50% plus one vote. I no candidate receives the 50% plus one vote, then that state would go to the congressional district method, like Maine and Nebraska with the 2 remaining electoral votes being awarded to the plurality winner of the state.

The states have the power to enact this on their own without a constitutional amendment. Pennsylvania around 10 years ago debated going to the congressional district method, but decided against it as Pennsylvania thought that would weaken their political power to decide elections.

 

Which begs the question: why have people continually sought and experimented with "socialist" forms of government, after the advent of the industrial revolution, in an attempt to achieve 'the common good'?
Obviously "invisible hand" private sector markets ALONE continually disappoint.....

In any case, the misleading word in your opening paragraph is "exclusively"; government ought to be able to ensure above poverty participation for all citizens, given there is no shortage of resources or productive capacity which would prevent the attainment of this goal, while ALSO ensuring reward commensurate with individual effort and enterprise.

Your error here is that elected officials aren't elected to "have control over the people for the common good", though in the US, elected officials ARE often the pawns of private vested interests (via the corrupt 'money for elections' system).

If we accept an economic system which has as its goal the common welfare (or "an economy that works for all": Sanders), elected officials should be mere stewards of that system, who can be turfed out at any election; the people themselves should decide how the "common good' is to be manifested, under government of the people; by the people, ie their elected reps; for the people, ie, the entire community).

Addressed above. In the US - an adversarial two-party system - elected reps are often beholden to vested interests rather than the common good; and combined with an economic system that doesn't guarantee above-poverty participation, entrenched poverty is the logical outcome .

"You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken..." DJ Trump.

Whereas an authoritarian one-party meritocracy CAN indeed be dedicated to, and achieve, the common good**.

So you still have to face up to your delusion that the sovereign individual is compatible with any form of government, if anarchy is to be avoided.

**Interestingly, China sorted the issue of citizens' sovereignty in 1989, while the US - which experienced the storming of the Capitol as recently as 2021 - is still grappling with this issue...

And while mainland Chinese citizens' satisfaction with their government is growing inexorably, as livings standards for all citizens continually rise, via "socialism with Chinese characteristics", poverty in the US remains entrenched 50 years after MLK's exhortations for an economy that works for all.

You need to sort your priorities in the US, urgently....

 

Note: ANY form of government is "socialist", in the sense that government necessarily imposes some degree of sovereignty over "free" individuals - who are naturally directed by their own self-interested instincts - in order to avoid anarchy.

 

No you are just trying to change the subject now. Still waiting where does the Constitution establish the United States as a democracy.

 

Where does the constitution establish the United States as a republic?

Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Which by the way could just as well be the Constitution of China, if you are prepared to see past the
'sovereignty of the individual' delusion of classical liberalism......the moment you agree to ANY government (of the people), "in Order to form a more perfect union", then at that moment you are relinquishing any pretense of 'sovereignty of the individual', obviously - no ifs or buts.

 

but this is not how the US system works ?

 

It is OK for a Frenchman to fail to understand the value of the electoral college.

 

The preamble to the US Constitution should give us an idea of how the US system is SUPPOSED to work:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note: this could also serve as the Chinese Constitution...an agreement to accept government, "in Order to form a more perfect union (of the nation's people, not just the states....you don't "secure blessings of liberty" for states alone, you secure them for the people ie "WE the people of the United States.

["Socialism with Chinese characteristics" has exactly the same goals....and in a direct comparison of the degree of social cohesion in the two societies, China would appear to be way out in front on the "more perfect union" front, given Chinese satisfaction with their government is demonstrably higher than in the hyperpartisan division in the US; see the Harvard research article on the matter].

So your question is intended to shed.....exactly what light on the matter I raised?, namely the effect of delusional 'sovereignty of the individual" ideology, on the interpretation of the Constitution.

But I'm still waiting for someone to point to where the constitution says the US is a republican form of government, whatever the significance of that word is...

 

You are kidding right, you're here arguing this and you haven't even read the Constitution?

Are you a US citizen?

 

Are you denying it doesn't?

Go read the Constitution and get back to us...................

 

So you can't even point to where the constitution says the US is a republic?

Unbelievable, not to say pathetic. I rest my case.

Apart from the fact it doesn't matter anyway, since government by 'sovereignty of the individual' is delusional, if freedom from powerful self-interested individuals is to be implemented "for a more perfect union" and "the common welfare" of citizens.

 

You rest your case, your case being that the Constitution does not say the United States will be a Republic?

Correct?

You didn't answer are you a citizen of the United States you know and took civics classes about the Constitution and government?

 

Unbelievable, not to say pathetic. I rest my case.

Apart from the fact it doesn't matter anyway, since government by 'sovereignty of the individual' is delusional, if freedom from powerful self-interested individuals is to be implemented "for a more perfect union" and "the common welfare" of citizens. See how ideology determines interpretation of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note my bolded.

Quite 'socialist', actually...