A critical aspect to democracy is an informed electorate. In the US, people rely on the media too much and dont bother checking the facts. In the 2000 elections, Al Gore was misquoted time and time again, that now everyone repeats the "he invented the internet" right wing mantra. In fact he as a Vice President had a substantial role in creating the infrastructure which is now the Internet. I guess most in the US are too stupid to understand what the Internet is.
2007-02-11 06:17:28 · 13 answers · asked by elvatoloco2025 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
2007-02-12 03:30:37 · answer #1 · answered by djollie111 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the misquoting of Al Gore makes for the end of democracy, I think it adds to the flavor of democracy.
Politicians should expect to be misquoted.
The 2000 election is over with and politicians in the future will know they need to garner broad support and that 51% may not be good enough when the electoral college is involved.
2007-02-11 06:27:08 · answer #2 · answered by Vultureman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in case you bypass again to the the beginning and conventional one hundred forty 5 years marijuana and all drugs were no longer unlawful. The financial ruin of the state has lots to do with the detention center inhabitants of that are in there for drug appropriate offenses. The conflict non drugs is one it is to make certain on liberty of living a drug free and moral existence. no longer attempting to wrestle the epidemic through the criminal justice equipment. it is way less complicated to get drugs in the prisons than on the streets so how is making this decision against the law a demonstration of degradation? The criminal gangs thrive off the earnings reason on the artificially severe cost because of the guidelines. the beginning grow to be no longer a organic democracy yet a democratic republic and there are transformations. yet your regular aspect of failing from an ethical regular being the muse reason for systemic failure I strongly consider. those who're moral do no longer want a regulation that asserts no longer to thieve or attack others; they do no longer want a regulation that tells them what to and not in any respect to ingest. We tried prohibition of alcohol and it did not paintings also in a time the position many would say we had a higher moral regular. guidelines do no longer make a people moral yet ethics do. we've declined and could fail quickly as we see international tyranny turning out to be.
2016-12-04 01:20:14 · answer #3 · answered by kwiatkowski 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless we include some type of proportional representation (% of votes= % of seats), we are. But I do agree that we believe too much on what the media says. So if the media says that voting third party is a wasted vote, are you going to listen to it? I think the ideal way to choose who you want to vote for is by doing research and checking on their issues. If you look at the incumbent, you must check the voting record because later they can easily flop and say that it's a lie. The internet will be a great factor for the 08 election and also this year for campaigning. I find it stupid that the Supreme Court called multi-member districts unconstitutional and that shoots PR down. We need to come up with something that says PR helps the Voting Rights Act more than with majority-minority districts (and it really does). I favor electoral reform and my ideal electoral system for the U.S. House of Reps. is by having a type of mixed system (Instant Runoff Voting for single member districts and proportional compensation done by regions, with each state receiving at least 1 "at-large" member and each state being part of a region (without spilling boundaries)). But we have to wake up because it seems that we don't care. Thanks!
2007-02-11 11:16:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Vice President is a freaking figurehead unless the Senate is evenly divided. Otherwise he sits there with the gavel in front of him for pictures.
2007-02-11 07:09:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yup, but don't forget the remainder of the world. Say hello to globalization. It's time to take back the Republic and rebuild this great country into the sights set by our forefathers.
2007-02-11 06:32:00 · answer #6 · answered by Ted S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How did you go from Democracy doomed to Al Gore and the internet? Who cares what Al Gore did or didn't do. I know what he didn't do, he didn't get elected!
2007-02-11 06:24:31 · answer #7 · answered by Brianne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't say Democracy is doomed, but I do seriously hope the two mainstream parties are, as they do nothing for the country at large.
2007-02-11 06:26:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't confuse Democracy with the "Democratic" party.
2007-02-11 07:51:12 · answer #9 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the people's responsibility to get the facts, but they don't. A lot only watch one news program while the rest barely open a newspaper.
2007-02-11 06:21:30 · answer #10 · answered by Groovy 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋