You should probably check your facts. All but the first one is false. They have engaged in genocide: see Native Americans; trail of tears. The USA is a republic, not a democracy.
When one group is actively trying to absolve its sins of the past, and the other doesn’t even recognize them while doubling-down, the claim that “everyone has sins” an abdication of the idea that behavior matters.
Republic and democracy refer to two different axis.
Republic is about how the vertex of government is structured.
Democracy is about where the executive/legislative power comes from.
The US is both, you could argue that Canada is not a republic as they have a recognized queen, but it would be a stretch as she has essentially zero power there.
They said they elect their leaders democratically which is simply not true no matter how you want to phrase it. The president is elected by an electoral college and not a democratic vote.
But the electoral college ultimately derives its members from people who are voted on by the general electorate.
The electoral college is an abstraction so that the states in the United States are able to have a check and balance on federal power. Having a direct democracy of 300 million people would be a bad idea, a lot of political philosophy has been written on why.
If you build on a library that builds on library using AGPL license, you are still bound by the AGPL license, no matter how abstracted. If your country ultimately derives for the people, you are democratic. It is just that the USA is technically a democratic Republic, and intentionally so.
That doesn’t magically make it a democratic election. In fact, the way you describe it working is a relatively new way of doing things and varies from state to state. It is not uniform. Also, if you paid any attention at all in the last election, you’d realize how tenuous it all really is and in multiple elections, the actual person voted in wasn’t even the winner by popular vote. So by definition, it can not be democratic.
> That doesn’t magically make it a democratic election. In fact, the way you describe it working is a relatively new way of doing things and varies from state to state. It is not uniform. Also, if you paid any attention at all in the last election, you’d realize how tenuous it all really is and in multiple elections, the actual person voted in wasn’t even the winner by popular vote. So by definition, it can not be democratic.
Now I am by no means a fan of the electoral system and I think one van argue that the US fails to live up to being democratic in practice for several reasons (I consider the electoral college a very minot part of the issues), however saying that it can not be democratic by principle or definition it can not be a democracy. I mean let's remember that in Athens (where the term comes from) only a minority of male citizens was allowed to vote.
I think that some of the problems with the EC would go away if the number of electors/House seats was updated to match current U.S. demographics. The last time that was changed was in the 1930s, if I recall correctly. In the first United States Congress, there were about 65 thousand Americans per representative. Nowadays, that ratio is closer to 760 thousand Americans per representative.
Unfortunately, that kind of rebalancing has zero political support. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, while not as good a solution in my opinion as it doesn't fix the underlying problems with citizen representation, is probably more politically feasible in terms of fixing presidential elections.
If your definition of democracy is "nationwide popular vote to elect a single role" you will find that there are very few democracies around.
Actually in the US the election of the president is remarkably linear.
In Italy the actual head of state is elected by the parliament (with no underlying direct vote) and then during national elections 1) the people elect a new parliament (with a complex mixture of proportional/non-proportial seats) 2) the parliament proposes various governments to the head of state 3) the head of state selects (and makes suggestions for modifications) the government (the actual executive branch).
And surely there are democracies that follow a more complex process.
The main difference between the US and most other countries is that the US counts votes for the president federally and not nationally, and the difference would almost completely disappear if more states would follow Maine and Nebraska example and drop the Firts Past the Post election style.
Democracy means that the legitimacy of the state is given by the people, not blood, not military, not religion, not oligarchs.
Do you really want to vote on every little bit of minutia that you would have to if this were a direct democracy?
There's an old game, Anachronox, that does a wonderful job of making fun of this when the player is on the planet Democratus. Worth a play if you haven't.
reply