Yeah - after I wrote my response, I figured that is what you must have meant 
I am an independentā¦ I go with what worksā¦
And the Republican method is not workingā¦
The economy is in a rut, foreign relations are going bad, it seems to me the Republicans donāt want to deal with the environmental problemsā¦(celebrating clean water act [http://www.cwn.org/docs/issues/wqs/adfactsheet.pdf ] , while dismantaling it, calling global warming climate change and withdrawing form Kyoto accordā¦ etcā¦) And the civil liberties problemsā¦ Look up Patriot act I and II
While under Clinton, economy was roaring, we where freinds with N. Korea, they where colaborating with us. The environment was was protected. Even Gore, who I donāt like much wrote a book āearth in the balanceā which was considered by many proffessors one of the best Environmental books.
Phil
Good point, but the horrors of democracy is just what can happend , dosent mean it will. We can imagine alot of thingsā¦but now we have the horror of 49% is not heardā¦ Majority still rules the minority.
[COLOR=red]We live in a Representative Republic, and the differences between a representative republic and a democracy is about the same difference as between night and day;[/COLOR]
just as the USSP was not a purely communist nation, you are right in saying that we are not a purely democratic nationā¦ they call us a democracy just as they called the Soviet union ācommunistā because we are the closest thing to a democracyā¦
people as a whole are stupid, iām pretty glad they dont all voteā¦ weād be screwed
-Derek
Well,ā¦ i live in a pure democratic system, 1 person = 1 vote, and weĀ“re doing ok thanksā¦
I was reading an enterview with Danielle Mitterrand, and i got stunned when she replied the journalist question: How do you see US in a couple of years?, and she answered:
- The USA also have a ppl. And we see that theyĀ“re not violent, neither taken by greedy. They also wanna live normally and respect others. But they donĀ“t have a say in this war coz they donĀ“t vote. Bush was elected by less than 12% of the americans.*
is that true? :q:
For anyone who would like to hear whatās going on in the war i heard that the information gathered by the Russian spyās is the most reliable source. you can find it here http://www.aeronautics.ru
that statement might be true, about the 12% when you look at it like this: (these figures have been made up by me to demonstrate my point) 12% voted for Bush. 13% Voted for Gore. 15% voted for a third party, and 60% did not vote.
I think that is the context that this person wanted their statement examined.
I think.
Mmmmā¦ thatĀ“s a good explanation maj.
can anyone confirm this?
thatās the kind of thing i thought it meant but i canāt be sure
Majeye is right - at least I think so :ub: Many people in the US, such as many other Western/European nations do not vote - the reason is that they are not expected to. In many countries, voting is encouraged by ways of tax breaks, reduced penalties, some benefits, etc. The US does not give incentives for any citizen to vote. Since majority of the people, unless they are offered money or some direct benefit, see no point in voting, the voter turnout in the US is quite low.
So, one should not look at the entire population when comparing voter statistics, but one should look at the percentage of REGISTERED voters who actually went and voted. I think the last time I checked a majority of those registered to vote actually voted, and the interviewee should have been a little more clearer to state that the 12% of Americans is represented by 50% of those who actually care enough to vote (with another 50% percent going to the other Presidential candidates).
From the Voting Age Population information on FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm) the percentage of Americans simply elegible to vote (VAP - Voting Age Population) who voted in the 2000 election is 51%. From the 51% who voted, you have a 50/50 balance between Bush and Gore with Gore getting a few hundred thousand more votes.
If you take a look at the number of people who voted with respect to the entire nation, I am guessing that about 25% voted for both Gore and Bush. About 105 million people out of a population of 300 million cast their votes for the 2000 Presidential election with the votes for Gore and Bush being:
Gore: 50,996,039
Bush: 50,455,739
So, in the context of the entire population, the intervieweeās statement that about 12% voted for Bush is somewhat accurate. What is misleading about that is that many people simply are too apathetic (couldnāt care less, lazy, etc.) to vote, but they may indirectly participate in governement through local, community events, etc.
The percentage that voted in the Presidential election reasonably reflect the views and ideologies of the 100% of the population. After all, thatās what a Representative Democracy is all about =)
NOTE: Most of the information comes from: http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/index.html
Cheers!
Kirupa :cyclops:
Which is why we still have the electoral college. Because, in theory, the delegates have the actual pulse of the people in their district. Still not a perfect system, but it supposedly ensures a fair election as well.
Rev
thanks for the info guys =)
but i still think that 12% is too lowā¦ and this representative democracy thing seems outdated to me :-\
but i donĀ“t dig politics anyway, so my opinion might not be so important. i know my limits 
wow interesting information on the US voting system.
In Australia we are all (over 18) required to vote. Its compulsary. If we dont vote we get:
- $50 dollar Fine (14 days to pay)
- if the fine isnāt paid we get our Drivers License suspended (after waiting for longer than 30 days for payment) until payment is recieved and the fine is increased to $150.00 to cover administration.
Well, Guig0, it is a little bit outdated - almost 200+ years old
But, it is very effective. The national government in the US does not have very many important problems to deal with when one compares the responsibility that governments in other countries have.
All the industries are privately owned. Over the years, the national government has given a lot of power to the states - the voter turnout for state rep/gov. voting is quite high.
The national governmentās primary functions are only defense, healthcare (to a moderate degree), education (primarily controlled by the states), and regulation of economic policies (another thing which states have a lot of power in).
Basically, itās about federalism - a sharing of power between the national and state governments with the national government having the final say should any arguments arise.
Cheers!
Kirupa
kirupa, iĀ“ll take your word on it.
being an american citizen and politic educated as you areā¦ wellā¦ itĀ“s enough for me =)
after all democracy is more than 2000 years oldā¦ that is outdated 
Cheers man, and thanks again for your patience with a silly brazillian boy
Hehe - no problem Besides, this gives me some time to practice the stuff I need to know for a Government exam I will be taking in a month or so hehe.
wow, cynegenica, i find that system pretty interestingā¦ i donāt think that its too fair though, as some people would rather not be involved in anything politicalā¦
