The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Unless you want to go back to Ancient Grece democracy, which only allowed ''citizens'' to vote.

depending which period you refer to - Greece once was a real democracy (popular vote etc.)
the US(SR) is a pseudo-representative democracy

[Chaka-Z0]

depending which period you refer to - Greece once was a real democracy (popular vote etc.)
the US(SR) is a pseudo-representative democracy

It was, but only citizens were allowed to vote. And not everybody was a citizen, actually only a small part of the population were (politicians, philosophers, the elites and such).

[SoulReaver]

And not everybody was a citizen, actually only a small part of the population were (politicians, philosophers, the elites and such).

and soldiers etc. I know about the hierarchy Plato was a big fan of that but I didn't know only the upper echelons had something as basic as citizenry. you sure about that?

if so what were the ordinary 'non-citizen greeks' (sounds like an oxymoron) called then - denizens? dwellers? inhabitants?


ps. I was referring to Athens specifically

[Chaka-Z0]

and soldiers etc. I know about the hierarchy Plato was a big fan of that but I didn't know only the upper echelons had something as basic as citizenry. you sure about that?

if so what were the ordinary 'non-citizen greeks' (sounds like an oxymoron) called then - denizens? dwellers? inhabitants?


ps. I was referring to Athens specifically

My previous post was vague so its understandable, the previous aristocracy was what you're referring to.

Well its the best source I could find on short notice but the information is correct:

In

the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or “rule by the people.”

However, the “equality” Herodotus described was limited to a small segment of the Athenian population. For example, in Athens in the middle of the 4th century there were about 100,000 citizens (Athenian citizenship was limited to men and women whose parents had also been Athenian citizens), about 10,000 metoikoi, or “resident foreigners” and 150,000 slaves. Out of all those people, only male citizens who were older than 18 were a part of the demos, meaning only about 40,000 people could participate in the democratic process.

[Chaka-Z0]

So it was about 4/10 of the citizens, which was much better than the previous aristocracy but still wasn't even close to our current ''broken'' system.

[Annoyed]

When this country was forming, the smaller states would have never joined if slavery was going to be abolished, nor if blacks were allowed to vote or women for that matter.

Do you still need state militias to defend the States sovereignty? Well if you say yes to that, good luck trying to overthrow the US armyYour electoral system needs a reform, and you're not the only one, many countries including Canada needs it too, although the impact of its current system isn't as grave as yours.

These rules and old laws are not fit to be used with a population as big as the current one. Get out of the past for crying out loud!

Yeah, giving all of the people a voice isn't a good idea, is it? Just let the deep blue urban areas have a say, the hell with everyone else, right?

[jelgate]

Sounds like you're mad that your side isnt the majority

[Chaka-Z0]

Yeah, giving all of the people a voice isn't a good idea, is it? Just let the deep blue urban areas have a say, the hell with everyone else, right?

Actually yes, that's exactly it, Jel summarized it well. The majority should prevail, red wave or blue wave doesn't matter. If your side loses, suck it. If you win, go ahead be my guest.

[SoulReaver]

So it was about 4/10 of the citizens

only male citizens who were older than 18 were a part of the demos

sounds fair enough

[Chaka-Z0]

sounds fair enough

So they thought too, until the barbarians (you) overthrew their empire a while after

[mad_gater]

Yes it is? Explain to me why one vote from an individual in a rural state is worth more than hundreds, if not thousands of city residents? Why should the rural people's voice matter more if they are lower in quantities? You guys keep bringing this argument and it makes no sense, in a democracy what matters is the total amount of people, not the ''kind'' of people. Unless you want to go back to Ancient Grece democracy, which only allowed ''citizens'' to vote.

i.e.: We got a village of 10 in my state, that's it nobody else live there. Our 10 bois will have the same electoral power than the whole population of NY state.





Sure mate, the Republicans are above reproach. I only need to scratch the surface of your party to reveal a lot of racist bigots, religious zealots and patriotic fanatics bigots. Its not hearsay, I can back any of these accusations with facts. Deportation bus, The Trump Prophecy, Tea Party, etc.

Fact check list:
Trump was not elected by the people - Check
Your supreme court is biased AF - Check
Trump backs white supremacists - Check
Your President is pulling a Palpatine - Check

And now that he has control of the judiciary, the next step is...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]42748[/ATTACH]

You do realize that there is a reason why an actual democracy is called TYRANNY of the majority, right? This is why the government of our country is not an actual democracy but a republic, where both the people and the government are constrained by the Constitution.

[Gatefan1976]

You do realize that there is a reason why an actual democracy is called TYRANNY of the majority, right? This is why the government of our country is not an actual democracy but a republic, where both the people and the government are constrained by the Constitution.

So, if one party (either of them) control all of the government, aren't you just crating a tyranny of the majority as well?

[Annoyed]

You do realize that there is a reason why an actual democracy is called TYRANNY of the majority, right? This is why the government of our country is not an actual democracy but a republic, where both the people and the government are constrained by the Constitution.

Problem is that the govt. has not been following the restrictions laid down by the Constitution. It hasn't even been paying lip service to it for a long time now.

[Annoyed]

So, if one party (either of them) control all of the government, aren't you just crating a tyranny of the majority as well?

So, how did you feel about 2009-2011, when the Democrats had both houses of Congress and the White House?

[Chaka-Z0]

So, if one party (either of them) control all of the government, aren't you just crating a tyranny of the majority as well?

No single entity / President should have full control of the judicial and decision powers of the gov.

MG having the people choose their leader is NEVER going to end up with huge majorities like what we are witnessing right now. Even though you probably support Trump, fact remains that you have a President in office ruling your collective arses that was not elected by the people.

It would also encourage emerging parties to diversify your political area and at the same time prevent the ruling party from having total control and therefore enable the opposition to keep an eye and react if need be.

I have never witnessed in my life a democratically-elected leader that got 80% of the votes, that's simply not possible unless your name is Poutine.