The meaning of democracy

The meaning of democracy [+ favourites]

What is a true democracy?
Is it a system of government where each person has equal representation within the government?
Very few countries have ever fallen under this category strictly speaking, so, what do we mean by "true democracy"?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

What strikes nerves with the word democracy is the concept of an elected government, for the people, by the people.

I believe capitalism has tainted this equality as in large countries the most likely way to get votes is to buy tv spots, radio spots, and these things cost money.

Therefore, because of the need for money to win an election, candidates must sacrifice personal morals in order to beat out the other guy. Corporations sponsor elections as a result (since they have the most money) and in essence influence who will win the election.

Therefore, it becomes an impure democracy because corporations actually decide who wins an election or not, not the people. This means the top 10-20 percent of the population is deciding who will rule 100% of the people.

A possible solution to this is to limit the publicity of candidates (at least using modern media methods). Do not permit tv commercials or radio commercials. Do not permit signs on the street or buttons, or anything that would require economic investment. Simply have specific tv shows/debates showing the different candidates so that they are all represented equally, and moreso based on their performance in person than in a commercial.

Democracy means the people decide, and have access to all the correct information to decide. With capitalistic elections, that is simply not a possibility. As with the war we have seen that tainted democracy can result in devastatingly bad results... and almost worst because the president or candidates have the guise of democracy to hide under. "Well, you elected me so you have to agree with what I say!"

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

American democracy is a work in progress. Number One Rule: Define the rights of the minority in your Constitution.
Eldred

jake, I certainly wonder about that at times? Are we becoming more or less of a democracy? To begin with the slavery in our early history shows that we began with something less than democracy? As the Rights to vote was extend only to those who owned property (material wealth) was the basic for this right (EXCLUDING WOMEN, even though they could own property).
Decius, the pior threads on government never produced the idea that the primary purpose of our government system was to serve the people. As put forth in our constitution, bill of rights, etc. we tend see as being democratic but does democracy by itself imply these rights?
Democracy doesn't mean that separation of powers such as we have are necessary to be a democracy. One of the reasons I wonder about other nations' form of democracy. Does Canada use similar form?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

I agree with what you say Decius. And I do hope America will severely limit campaign advertisement and the need for the endorsement of corporations.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to say the top 10% dominate politics. The people still hold the vote.

"Simply have specific tv shows/debates showing the different candidates so that they are all represented equally, and moreso based on their performance in person than in a commercial."
Absolutely.

" To begin with the slavery in our early history shows that we began with something less than democracy?"
That depends on your definition of a man. Back then it was far more ambiguous then it is today, and there were people who simply believed wrongfully that blacks were little more then animals.
So long as all the beings within your nation that you believe are men influence politics then you are a democracy (if an *incorrect* democracy).

Other forms of democracy? I don't know about Canada. But in France the main differences I know of are :
- a presidential candidate does not "win" a state's votes. Each person has 1 vote the person with the most wins.
- there are 2 rounds to the presidential elections, the 2 candidates with the most votes of the first round participate in the second. It makes the odds of an extremist party of having a president virtually null.
- there is no minority region/state protecting body like the US's Senate.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"
[  Edited by Angelfire at   ]

Thank you for your response Teen, but I would point out that if the US Pacific coast did drop off into the ocean then the resulting electorial votes could result in the people in the western states not even having to vote, the election would have been decided with the closing of the eastern polls. Oh, well.
But I would like to ask about France governmental organization,like the comments in another string by a Canadian about their medical system (deem by some American as pinko socialist)?
In recent history of this nation has been toward 'government supplying the needs of the people is contrary to free-enterprise. We are seeing an effort toward minimal support from government. Medical, transportation, telephone, etc has been transfered to private sector, hmm . . may be we should hire out military and police functions as well? This would certainly lower budget deficencies by lowering our cost.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Oh my God I lost a massive post. K I'm really pissed so I'll keep it brief.
A country's economic policies whether free-market competitive or centralized welfare state do not affect whether or not it is democratic.

In the short run, socialist policies tend to be relieving to those in need or incredibly irritating overkill and in the long run tend to be counter-productive, uneconomic and lower the wealth of the people. I'm being very general here, and that is only my personal belief on most socialist policies. Gov controlled medicals is a notable exception.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Ya I know what you mean, but if we form (empower) the government to serve the people then we would need to define what serves should be provided?
In our modern society, local government supplies the needs of the residents by suppling water, sewer, electric and natural gas (cities) which is probably a good thing otherwise pollution would be far worse than it is now. Even though these are provided for in highly populated urban areas, private utilities (gas), water coexist. Generally rural areas must provide these services for themselves. So why if we pay taxes and are billed for these services to individual (corporate) when the government is as much a corporation as individual enterprise? Generally the system works that cost is extended to the consumers (those served by), I guess you could say I feel that a relative few big business making large profits to serve the needs of the people doesn't fulfill governments contractual agreement with the people in a democracy, anymore than it does in any other form of government. This seems to lead the way into cruption of government by the self serving at all levels of government.

quote:

---

In the short run, socialist policies tend to be counter-productive, uneconomic and lower the wealth of the people.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

"Well on at least one point I would tend to disagree. I don't see spreading wealth among the people as opposed to an (corporate) individual as lowering the wealth."
In the long run, it lowers the wealth of the people. Look at France, they pay the jobless far more then the US, and so people will often not try hard to find a job or do get black market jobs (this sounds big, but it can be as simple as undeclared masonry or cleaning lady) so as to get payed by the gov AND for their jobs. This example in the long run increases unemployment and is unfair in my personal opinion.

However, not all policies are bad, and I'lll stress that I do agree with medical payments completely by the gov so long as it is not the patient's fault.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

OK I can acccept that but on the other hand look at the US in comparison. We have social security !
Not the citizens worked hard to earn a living from this local, state and federal income tax is deducted. On top of this S.S. is deducted according to the amount they are paid. Which would have been good if we maintained a natural growth rate matching the growth in population but because we didn't we have inflated rate of growth. Higher wages form a cycle blouting the economy, now those deductions don't have nearly the buying power in today's economy so the blue collar worker in his youth & inexperience get seniority & advances their postion and wages but as they advance in years they top out. By the time they get to the age to retire and draw upon these benefits, they find that they barely can survive on them. Age increases health need and limits their moblity and activeness. So the government set the standards so you have elderly people working part time jobs (bag boy,etc.) in order to survive? We have young couples working two jobs (or more) in order to live from paycheck to paycheck.
The 50's, era of gas guzzling hot rods then compare to today's automobile performance, price then life of related vehicle, we see better performance but higher cost & shorter useful life. Peta used to talk of his generation as generation X, I called it the disposable generation.
Oh by the way we are somewhat out of this string & into another string in these topics. Just to mention the other string on economics . . .

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Well in the hope of actually staying on topic for once , how do you think democracy should work in for example the EU?
Should it simply be 1 man = 1 vote?
Considering that the EU is composed of many different nations, of different sizes, is this a wise idea?
Or should it be more American? That is, that there should be power also held by an undemocratic senate?
This question also applies to Black African countries with no sense of nation (Somalia, Botswana)) or some European ones (ex-Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

quote:

---

how do you think democracy should work in for example the EU?

---

quote:

---

This question also applies to Black African countries with no sense of nation (Somalia, Botswana)) or some European ones (ex-Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

"Ah . . . if each country has one vote then do they not form a governing body like the U.S. Senate, where each state has two senators?"
That's the current system. Which doesn't work well because ALL members need to agree to get something done. The system needs changing, ideally a democratic system would be best. But that would mean France, Britain and Germany would dominate EU politics.

"Nationalism is a unifying trait giving a sense identity which has certain positve aspects but the negative aspects leads to some real nasty attributes. (War, etc)"
Extreme forms of nationalism can lead to attrocious wars. But the lack of it has lead to numerous failures of democracy as well as the vast majority of wars in Black Africa. The tribal warfare in Africa seems to have a very medieval flavour to it.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"
[  Edited by Angelfire at   ]

A government by the people for the people. (very broad)

But we don't have that. We have a government by the Capitalist for the Capitalist. It has to change.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Nonesense citykid, YOU are the one voting. Granted money has a very large influence a bad thing by any measure, but its not as bad as you make out.
For Europe we need a government by the peopleS for the peopleS which is why I think its going to be messy

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"