democracy, a question (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

(posting this here, bc it's a bit more philosophical in nature and the political answer is probably self-evident):

Is a democracy what the majority of the people want or what the majority of the people voted for?

 

[Zardnok]

True democracy "should" be what the majority of people want. A "Representative Republic" is what the majority of people voted for. Philosophically they are two different things. People think America is a Democracy, when in reality we are a Representative republic. There are obviously problems with both systems.

 

[FullMonte]

True democracy "should" be what the majority of people want. A "Representative Republic" is what the majority of people voted for. Philosophically they are two different things. People think America is a Democracy, when in reality we are a Representative republic. There are obviously problems with both systems.

I would disagree with your assessment. In reality, if the people all vote for what they want, and that vote is used as one massive pool of votes, then there is no difference between what the people want and what the people vote for.

A representative republic is where the people all vote for what they want, but the people are all sectioned off into groups. Each group's vote total determines how the group as a whole votes.

 

[Brennan77]

(posting this here, bc it's a bit more philosophical in nature and the political answer is probably self-evident):

Is a democracy what the majority of the people want or what the majority of the people voted for?

Your question doesn't make sense to me unless you're asking whether people vote for things they don't want.

 

[saintmdterps]

(posting this here, bc it's a bit more philosophical in nature and the political answer is probably self-evident):

Is a democracy what the majority of the people want or what the majority of the people voted for?

True Democracy has always been equaled with mob rule, but in fact is a system in which every law is passed by vote of the electorate. In a country this size, Democracy as such is not feasible and so we have a republic in which we send elected legislators to do our bidding. These officials are supposed to vote the will of their individual electorate. Unfortunately, our elected legislators are almost 100% corrupted by special interests, and so do the bidding of these special interests first and the will of the people be damned.

The only time I lived in a true Democracy was our fraternity house. We brought everything up for vote at chapter meetings, but it's not hard to gain consensus among 35 drunk college males

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Your question doesn't make sense to me unless you're asking whether people vote for things they don't want.

it's more the idea of whether a democracy should empower the voters or 'everybody'

 

[Brennan77]

it's more the idea of whether a democracy should empower the voters or 'everybody'

I still don't understand. Are you making a distinction between people who are able to vote and those who are not?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I still don't understand. Are you making a distinction between people who are able to vote and those who are not?

is 'democracy' about the total population or everyone under the line or everyone who voted for the winner?

 

[Brennan77]

is 'democracy' about the total population or everyone under the line or everyone who voted for the winner?

If you have a point I'm not getting it. I'm not trying to be dense. There's an entire population of people who can't vote for various just reasons. And then there's a population of people who can vote and do not. When I vote, I try to make good decisions for the well being of the entirety of everyone who is represented inasmuch as possible. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Your question only makes sense if it's rhetorical, in which case it might be helpful if you just came out and said what you mean.

 

[SaintsFan11]

is 'democracy' about the total population or everyone under the line or everyone who voted for the winner?

It's all three and, at the same time, none of the above.

 

[mt15]

We had a US Senator come and speak to our high school. He spent most of the time answering questions. It was during the Vietnam war, and the senior boys had a real chance to be drafted and sent to war in a few short months. Politics were vital then and we all paid attention.

He was asked if he voted the way the majority of the people in his district wanted him to vote, or did he vote his own conscience. He answered that he believed that the people elected him to study the issues, weigh the options and vote the way he felt would be best for everyone. He said you couldn’t really be swayed by letters and phone calls because those are often manipulated by special interests. He was a good man.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

If you have a point I'm not getting it. I'm not trying to be dense. There's an entire population of people who can't vote for various just reasons. And then there's a population of people who can vote and do not. When I vote, I try to make good decisions for the well being of the entirety of everyone who is represented inasmuch as possible. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Your question only makes sense if it's rhetorical, in which case it might be helpful if you just came out and said what you mean.

not a point, i was asking a question
still am

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

*Yawn*
*Stretch*
Maybe there's an old episode of Seinfeld on television.

 

[Brennan77]

not a point, i was asking a question
still am

I honestly don't understand what you are asking for then.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I honestly don't understand what you are asking for then.

cool
i don't know how else to ask it