Democracy poll

[Captain Obvious]

Has "democracy" in this country succeeded, in other words is it accomplishing exactly what it's designers intended and has created a system of governance and citizenry that can be ranked among history's best or has it failed, and to what degree?

[Adelaide]

Fairly successful when you look at it in comparison to other countries. Does that mean there is a lot of room for improvement and that there are alarming trends in the US? Yes.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Has "democracy" in this country succeeded, in other words is it accomplishing exactly what it's designers intended and has created a system of governance and citizenry that can be ranked among history's best or has it failed, and to what degree? So now you want to beg the question by claiming that we live in a democracy in order to blame our problems on that non-existent state? Shredding this strawman, the truth is that we live under a foster government that calls itself a "republic." In this scheme set up by the Framers, a tiny pre-ordained ruling class should bear sole responsibility for its failures but never has to suffer the consequences.

[The Xl]

It's failed, mostly because we don't have either a democracy or a republic. We're run by wealthy interests who buy politicians for cheap.

[Jets]

It failed mostly because special interest groups are the priority of congressional legislation not the voters. Doesn't matter which party one votes for. We pull the the lever, the SIGS reap all the benefits. "Representative" in name only.

IMHO

[Green Arrow]

We're not really a democracy any more, at this point we're basically a plutocracy.

[Green Arrow]

On edit, as such I voted "failed miserably."

[kilgram]

Has "democracy" in this country succeeded, in other words is it accomplishing exactly what it's designers intended and has created a system of governance and citizenry that can be ranked among history's best or has it failed, and to what degree?
Yes, it is a success. They achieved their objective.

[Peter1469]

The objective was not achieved.

We were to be a federal republic (term of art). States were to have a lot of power. The Federal government limited powers (see Article 1, sec. 8, US Const.) The 17th Amendment and SCOTUS case law post 1937 eviscerated the powers of the States.

[southwest88]

Did the Founders intend this country to be a democracy? Looking @ their writings, I don't think so. So No, if democracy wasn't even their intent, it can't be said to have succeeded.

[Peter1469]

Did the Founders intend this country to be a democracy? Looking @ their writings, I don't think so. So No, if democracy wasn't even their intent, it can't be said to have succeeded.

They despised the concept of a democracy.

That was when the word republic had its own meaning.

[Common Sense]

I think you guys have done alright. I mean it's no Canada, but it ain't half bad.

[Jets]

The objective was not achieved.

We were to be a federal republic (term of art). States were to have a lot of power. The Federal government limited powers (see Article 1, sec. 8, US Const.) The 17th Amendment and SCOTUS case law post 1937 eviscerated the powers of the States.

To go a step further if state appointed Senators had to follow the will of the legislatures that appointed them, federal power may have been more balanced. That was the flaw that needed to be corrected by the framers. Two clauses:

Senators serve at the behest of the state and may removed without cause by the state legislature.

The Governor shall appoint a Senator in the event of a deadlock vote.

[Green Arrow]

I guess it kind of depends on which founder's ideas are considered "success," too. If we follow John Adams, then we're highly successful, as Adams wanted a plutocracy. Jefferson and Washington, on the other hand, didn't.

[AeonPax]

`
When I get a purple thumb by voting, then yes.....we have succeeded.

[donttread]

Has "democracy" in this country succeeded, in other words is it accomplishing exactly what it's designers intended and has created a system of governance and citizenry that can be ranked among history's best or has it failed, and to what degree?

You need a new category "Has the REPUBLIC in America succeeded" as we never were a democracy (mob rule) and we have not been united states in some time due the concentration of power at the federal level

[Dr. Who]

The objective was not achieved.

We were to be a federal republic (term of art). States were to have a lot of power. The Federal government limited powers (see Article 1, sec. 8, US Const.) The 17th Amendment and SCOTUS case law post 1937 eviscerated the powers of the States.
That probably didn't work because a country cannot function well without all of its parts answerable to a central authority. It worked well enough when the population was small and fairly static, but as people and goods moved more and more and corporations dotted the landscape, more central control was really demanded. You can't have one citizenship and inconsistent rules and regulations in disparate parts of the country. Then you get constitutional challenges. Moreover you get business prevailing upon the fed to tie up all of the loose ends. It was destined to have to change unless it never grew. The EU is more like the concept that you want, but the EU is not a country. It is a union of separate countries with separate everything except currency. It is a unified trade zone. It doesn't have a Constitution that usurps the Constitutions of the separate countries. It doesn't create a single citizenship for all.

[kilgram]

It's failed, mostly because we don't have either a democracy or a republic. We're run by wealthy interests who buy politicians for cheap.
Their goal has been accomplished. It has been a success.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

[Peter1469]

I disagree 100%.


That probably didn't work because a country cannot function well without all of its parts answerable to a central authority. It worked well enough when the population was small and fairly static, but as people and goods moved more and more and corporations dotted the landscape, more central control was really demanded. You can't have one citizenship and inconsistent rules and regulations in disparate parts of the country. Then you get constitutional challenges. Moreover you get business prevailing upon the fed to tie up all of the loose ends. It was destined to have to change unless it never grew. The EU is more like the concept that you want, but the EU is not a country. It is a union of separate countries with separate everything except currency. It is a unified trade zone. It doesn't have a Constitution that usurps the Constitutions of the separate countries. It doesn't create a single citizenship for all.

[Dr. Who]

I disagree 100%.
And?

[Peter1469]

And what?

The entire point of the Constitution was to give the federal government limited powers and all other powers retained by the States.

When the term federalism is used today, most think federal power, when that is the opposite.

Public school education I guess.

[del]

lol

[Chris]

Democracy is the worst form of government. It will succeed at destroying itself.

[Green Arrow]

That probably didn't work because a country cannot function well without all of its parts answerable to a central authority. It worked well enough when the population was small and fairly static, but as people and goods moved more and more and corporations dotted the landscape, more central control was really demanded. You can't have one citizenship and inconsistent rules and regulations in disparate parts of the country. Then you get constitutional challenges. Moreover you get business prevailing upon the fed to tie up all of the loose ends. It was destined to have to change unless it never grew. The EU is more like the concept that you want, but the EU is not a country. It is a union of separate countries with separate everything except currency. It is a unified trade zone. It doesn't have a Constitution that usurps the Constitutions of the separate countries. It doesn't create a single citizenship for all.

I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can have a central authority while still maintaining a certain level of state autonomy.

[Dr. Who]

I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can have a central authority while still maintaining a certain level of state autonomy.
A certain level, but probably not more than there currently exists. It took about 200 years to erode much of that autonomy and that happened because the world changed, technology changed and the country became far more populous. America didn't stand still, it changed at the behest of the people and the businesses that benefited the economy at large. For good or bad and in spite of corruption, it's still better than many other parts of the world, but I think the world is on a precipice now and it can shift toward the people or allow itself to become ruled by globalists. If we allow ourselves to succumb to the latter, our populations will shrink drastically and we will become indentured servants for a long time to come.

[Green Arrow]

A certain level, but probably not more than there currently exists. It took about 200 years to erode much of that autonomy and that happened because the world changed, technology changed and the country became far more populous. America didn't stand still, it changed at the behest of the people and the businesses that benefited the economy at large. For good or bad and in spite of corruption, it's still better than many other parts of the world, but I think the world is on a precipice now and it can shift toward the people or allow itself to become ruled by globalists. If we allow ourselves to succumb to the latter, our populations will shrink drastically and we will become indentured servants for a long time to come.

What state autonomy exists now?

[Dr. Who]

What state autonomy exists now?
Everything that doesn't violate the Constitution and its various Amendments. Taxation? Commerce that doesn't cross state lines? Governance over municipalities? Attracting business to the State? Judicial independence?

[domer76]

Has "democracy" in this country succeeded, in other words is it accomplishing exactly what it's designers intended and has created a system of governance and citizenry that can be ranked among history's best or has it failed, and to what degree?

I live comfortably, come and go as I please, where I please and when I please. I associate (or choose not to) with whomever I wish. My speech has not be infringed upon and I worship (or not) as I wish. Everyone I know has enjoyed the same privileges. I see the expansion of liberties and equal treatment under the law for many who never enjoyed those rights and privileges before.

All in all, it's pretty successful.

[kilgram]

Democracy is the worst form of government. It will succeed at destroying itself.
The best form is the dictatorship. The best form is where a minority has the absolute power to decide. Like a monarchy, that is a good system.

Enviat des del meu Aquaris E5 usant Tapatalk

[Peter1469]

I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can have a central authority while still maintaining a certain level of state autonomy.

Right. Federalism.

Problem: most Americans drool when they hear that word. They don't understand it.

[donttread]

That probably didn't work because a country cannot function well without all of its parts answerable to a central authority. It worked well enough when the population was small and fairly static, but as people and goods moved more and more and corporations dotted the landscape, more central control was really demanded. You can't have one citizenship and inconsistent rules and regulations in disparate parts of the country. Then you get constitutional challenges. Moreover you get business prevailing upon the fed to tie up all of the loose ends. It was destined to have to change unless it never grew. The EU is more like the concept that you want, but the EU is not a country. It is a union of separate countries with separate everything except currency. It is a unified trade zone. It doesn't have a Constitution that usurps the Constitutions of the separate countries. It doesn't create a single citizenship for all.

[donttread]

That probably didn't work because a country cannot function well without all of its parts answerable to a central authority. It worked well enough when the population was small and fairly static, but as people and goods moved more and more and corporations dotted the landscape, more central control was really demanded. You can't have one citizenship and inconsistent rules and regulations in disparate parts of the country. Then you get constitutional challenges. Moreover you get business prevailing upon the fed to tie up all of the loose ends. It was destined to have to change unless it never grew. The EU is more like the concept that you want, but the EU is not a country. It is a union of separate countries with separate everything except currency. It is a unified trade zone. It doesn't have a Constitution that usurps the Constitutions of the separate countries. It doesn't create a single citizenship for all.

Big government propaganda Dr. I'm a little shocked

[donttread]

And what?

The entire point of the Constitution was to give the federal government limited powers and all other powers retained by the States.

When the term federalism is used today, most think federal power, when that is the opposite.

Public school education I guess.

The federal take over of education will ensure that less and less about the Constitution and BOR's and even the real meaning of the now obsolete terms "Union of States" or "United States" is taught to our children.

[donttread]

What state autonomy exists now?


Hardly any, because the people don't try to protect that which they no longer understand

[Chris]

That probably didn't work because a country cannot function well without all of its parts answerable to a central authority. It worked well enough when the population was small and fairly static, but as people and goods moved more and more and corporations dotted the landscape, more central control was really demanded. You can't have one citizenship and inconsistent rules and regulations in disparate parts of the country. Then you get constitutional challenges. Moreover you get business prevailing upon the fed to tie up all of the loose ends. It was destined to have to change unless it never grew. The EU is more like the concept that you want, but the EU is not a country. It is a union of separate countries with separate everything except currency. It is a unified trade zone. It doesn't have a Constitution that usurps the Constitutions of the separate countries. It doesn't create a single citizenship for all.



For all we know the Universe, Life and Everything in it operate without central control. Man but for the last miniscule fraction of his existence has lived without central control. Large swatchs of the earth still do exist without central control. And suddenly you declare it impossible? Most people like the idea of government, just not the reality.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It failed mostly because special interest groups are the priority of congressional legislation not the voters. Doesn't matter which party one votes for. We pull the the lever, the SIGS reap all the benefits. "Representative" in name only.

IMHO By design, our elected foster parents aren't supposed to represent those who elected them. The Founding Fodder hated democracy and put us under an oligarchy of "wise guardians." The Framers framed us.

[The Sage of Main Street]

`
When I get a purple thumb by voting, then yes.....we have succeeded. As Iraq proved, a purple thumb is a sign of a yellow spine.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You need a new category "Has the REPUBLIC in America succeeded" as we never were a democracy (mob rule) and we have not been united states in some time due the concentration of power at the federal level The 1% and their flunkies tell us we are a republic to give us a proud self-identification with our own slavery.

[donttread]

For all we know the Universe, Life and Everything in it operate without central control. Man but for the last miniscule fraction of his existence has lived without central control. Large swatchs of the earth still do exist without central control. And suddenly you declare it impossible? Most people like the idea of government, just not the reality.