|
Democracy has Failed! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
You do realize he's being sarcastic right? He's a rabid Bush supporter. Kill him. |
Actually, I'm libertarian, but that's besides the point. I found it "interesting," at least I think that's how I'd put it, to read all of these doomsday posts about how democracy has failed in the US, the world is going to end because Bush has been re-elected and we all deserve what we're "going to get." Well, guess what, we do deserve it, and we all know that! We went out and voted and Bush won. There is nothing un-democratic or wrong about that. In fact that's how a democracy works! If anything, I'm proud that this country decided to make its own decision instead of looking at the wishes of others to order its vote. This was an example of democracy in action, and anyone who says otherwise needs to re-examine their definiton of democracy.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
well, most countries have a much higher turnout every election than you had this election, does that mean we choose much better leaders? |
"Better," is subjective, I'm trying to be objective. The American people went out and chose their leader, regardless of whether you believe him to be better than his challenger. That was the job of the American people, and the fact that they came out in numbers not seen in half a century tells me there is nothing wrong with democracy in the US.
On a side note, there are many factors why voting in Western Europe tends to have a higher percentage of voter turnout. First is the use of proportional sytems instead of plurality/majority systems (although this is not the case for the EU parlimentary elections, but look at their turnout percentage), which tends to draw a higher number of voters. Second are countries such as Belgium that have compulsitory voting. And lastly is the fact that many countries hold their elections on the weekend instead of the weekday. I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| I find it funny that Europeans think that Americans give two s about their views and that their views matter. They don't vote in American Elections because they are not American. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
Arbiter,
I agree with your 4 point analysis but you're missing my point. I absolutely agree that #1 is "a legitimate basis for a decision which affects those who do not consent" when there are objective facts to be arrived at. But what I'm arguing is that there is no concept of objective fact when it comes to certain knowledge that is used in your decision making process. What you're assuming is that there exist objective facts in all areas of knowledge used in decision making for us to arrive to, which is where I disagree (ex. certain ethical principles that one espouses).
To give you a simplified and stupid little example, suppose I decide not to vote for a candidate because at some point during his presidency, he decided to apply a utalitarian type ethic regarding some problem or another and several people died as a result of this. Utalitarian ethics are neither wrong nor right, could be well justified during certain circumstances, but I equally have good justification for not espousing them in this situation for instance. At this point, my decision to not vote for this candidate has nothing to do with objective facts.
The point I'm trying to make is that ad populum fallacies can only be used in the context of issues that clearly have objective facts to be arrived at, which, in my opinion, is not the case with decision making within the context of political systems. |
|
|
| Epicurus |
| quote: | | Actually, I'm libertarian, but that's besides the point. I found it "interesting," at least I think that's how I'd put it, to read all of these doomsday posts about how democracy has failed in the US, the world is going to end because Bush has been re-elected and we all deserve what we're "going to get." Well, guess what, we do deserve it, and we all know that! We went out and voted and Bush won. There is nothing un-democratic or wrong about that. In fact that's how a democracy works! If anything, I'm proud that this country decided to make its own decision instead of looking at the wishes of others to order its vote. This was an example of democracy in action, and anyone who says otherwise needs to re-examine their definiton of democracy. |
I know you're a libertarian and I understood your point perfectly well. I was messing around with my Bush supporter and kill him comments. :D |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
I find it funny that Europeans think that Americans give two s about their views and that their views matter. They don't vote in American Elections because they are not American. |
Considering that they post an endless amount of threads on this *international* forum, rather than in their own local fora, it would seem that some of them actually give a . And why is the supposed belief of Europeans that Americans give a about their opinion any any different than your belief that Europeans give a about your opinion? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Actually, I'm libertarian |
Did you actually vote for libertarians, though? There seems to be a lot of people on the right side of American politics (particularly younger people) who associate themselves with libertarianism or Randian objectivism, but who go out and vote Republican anyway in spite of the fact the the GOP, really, don't stand libertarian ideals at all. So just wondering if you (or any other self-professed libertarians here) actually voted for Badnarik this year? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Did you actually vote for libertarians, though? There seems to be a lot of people on the right side of American politics (particularly younger people) who associate themselves with libertarianism or Randian objectivism, but who go out and vote Republican anyway in spite of the fact the the GOP, really, don't stand libertarian ideals at all. So just wondering if you (or any other self-professed libertarians here) actually voted for Badnarik this year? |
As a big supporter of a lot of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, I can say that the Republican party(at least recently) is much more aligned with my personal philosophy than the Democratic party. If I knew more about Badnarik I would've given more consideration to him as a candidate, but I tend to align myself with Dubya enough that I am more than comfortable having him as my elected leader. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Did you actually vote for libertarians, though? There seems to be a lot of people on the right side of American politics (particularly younger people) who associate themselves with libertarianism or Randian objectivism, but who go out and vote Republican anyway in spite of the fact the the GOP, really, don't stand libertarian ideals at all. So just wondering if you (or any other self-professed libertarians here) actually voted for Badnarik this year? |
No. I'm a registered libertarian but I'm also a realist. In this case, I found that Kerry represented my libertarian ideals far more than Bush, therefore I voted for Kerry. As a matter of fact, I think that even registering as a libertarian is pretty useless. Under the current system, by registering as a libertarian, I am limiting my influence on the elections due to my inability to vote in the primaries for one of the major candidates. I think for the next election I'm going to register as a Republican so I have a voice in the Republican primaries. I think I can do more good there than the democrat primaries. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
well, most countries have a much higher turnout every election than you had this election, does that mean we choose much better leaders? |
I don't think registered people that don't follow politics whatsoever randomly picking a president helps the system just by increasing turnout numbers. Then you get votes based on superficial things such as looks, speech, clothing, etc. If the people that vote are the ones that actually follow the election and the candidates you have a more realistic vote. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
The problem with democracy in America is the same as somewhere like Pakistan...you give the people a say in who governs them and because the majority of them are religious fundamentalists, thats what you get in the government! Do I wanna see democracy in Pakistan?! Do I e!!!
The only way to stop Bush and the fundamentalists is a strong Europe to counter American action. The 70 million evangelicals have stopped me believing this change can come from within the country. Guess its up to Europe to sort out the worlds mess... |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Did you actually vote for libertarians, though? There seems to be a lot of people on the right side of American politics (particularly younger people) who associate themselves with libertarianism or Randian objectivism, but who go out and vote Republican anyway in spite of the fact the the GOP, really, don't stand libertarian ideals at all. So just wondering if you (or any other self-professed libertarians here) actually voted for Badnarik this year? |
I was tempted to, even as I stood in the election booth, but ultimately I did vote republican. One major issue for me in this election was healtcare. I understand that even if Kerry was elected, any type of socialization of healthcare would have had to pass the senate, but the idea of a president that wishes to "fix" healthcare by making it more invasive by the government will not get my vote. Secondly, the idea of a lawyer who made his wealth with medical malpractice suits, among other frivalous litigation in my opinion, as second in command also did not suit my views. I realize my ideas for the future of healthcare in the US is a completely other topic, but it's safe to say Kerry and Edwards preach exactly the opposite of what I believe.
As occrider said, I am also a realist. I realized that a vote for the libertarian candidate, in this election, would be a wasted vote. If the election were not so close, I would have happily voted libertarian, however in this case I had to choose between two candidates that stood a real chance of winning.
As far as the republican party's political and economic views, although I agree they are not libertarian, I do not see the democrats as being any closer. As I have stated before, both parties in the last 20 years have tended to vote very similarly, but the only thing I can hang my hat on it taxes. I see one president who wishes to spend with lower taxes and another who would spend with higher taxes. I am pesimistic that this country will ever repay its debt, so I'd rather have low taxes as we spiral down. On another note, I'd rather have Bush finish what he started in Iraq and the "War on Teror" then Kerry fumble through exit strategies that I did not agree with. With the two candidates being so similar in all reality, I saw no need to "change horses midstream."
I hope this maybe clears up a little bit. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
I don't think registered people that don't follow politics whatsoever randomly picking a president helps the system just by increasing turnout numbers. Then you get votes based on superficial things such as looks, speech, clothing, etc. If the people that vote are the ones that actually follow the election and the candidates you have a more realistic vote. |
i agree with you, that was kinda my point =) i wrote it related to the first post which indicated that people should stop whine about the election, since so many people voted and they voted bush, it cant be wrong... get my point? :p |
|
|
|
|
