politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This depend very much on how you define "fair," and how it is used in context.
So, I would say a system that only let's white male landowners vote is not "fair" because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is "fair," and it's a democracy.
On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably "fair." But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not "fair," and you don't have a democracy.
To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.
One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer. There are all sorts of ways to fudge that figure via how districts are drawn and delegates are awarded. But straight up disenfranchising whole ethnic and gender groups is as explicitly "unfair" from any but the most revanchist perspective.
What you're describing is Republicanism, in so far as decision making power is devolved to a base constituency and managed via a legal doctrine rather than the whims of a dictator. But the fundamental problem with describing democracy in this manner is that you can make the voting pool arbitrarily small without violating the constraints. Why stop at "White Male Landowners", after all? You can shrink it to Firstborn Sons or military officers or immediate family of the preceding executive. Taken to its absurdist conclusion, it's a single person issuing a single vote on all issues. But hey, it's "fair" by the letter of the law, so ignore the rest of the disenfranchised population.
Not unfair to say "Democracies exist on a spectrum". But at some point, you're so far off the ideal that the term becomes farcical.
Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn't guarantee fair.
To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)
But you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I'm arguing that it's still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I'm arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn't be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that "democracy" means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.
A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.
And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.
Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There's no fuzzy area to debate the point.
For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.
That stayed airborn for 12 seconds.
I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?
So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?
You're doing exactly what I'm arguing against. You're attributing a bunch of other qualities to "democracy," and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.
I think we are done here. You're arguing against things I'm not writing.