“But over time, the executive branch grew exceedingly powerful. Two world wars emphasized the president’s commander in chief role and removed constraints on its power. By the second half of the 20th century, the republic was routinely fighting wars without its legislative branch, Congress, declaring war, as the Constitution required. With Congress often paralyzed by political conflict, presidents increasingly governed by edicts.”
Imagine counting the first four score and seven years as democratic.
we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don’t we?
Last I checked, democracy didn’t mean “fair,” it ment that the leaders were voted into power.
In the same way we count the Wright Flyer as the first airplane, sure.
I have heard more than a few people discount the existence of democracies in US adversary states - such as Cuba and Venezuela and Russia - precisely on the grounds that their democracies aren’t “fair”.
Broadly speaking, “democracy but its a rigged election” is just dictatorship with extra steps.
This depend very much on how you define “fair,” and how it is used in context.
So, I would say a system that only let’s white male landowners vote is not “fair” because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is “fair,” and it’s a democracy.
On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably “fair.” But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not “fair,” and you don’t have a democracy.
To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.
One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer. There are all sorts of ways to fudge that figure via how districts are drawn and delegates are awarded. But straight up disenfranchising whole ethnic and gender groups is as explicitly “unfair” from any but the most revanchist perspective.
What you’re describing is Republicanism, in so far as decision making power is devolved to a base constituency and managed via a legal doctrine rather than the whims of a dictator. But the fundamental problem with describing democracy in this manner is that you can make the voting pool arbitrarily small without violating the constraints. Why stop at “White Male Landowners”, after all? You can shrink it to Firstborn Sons or military officers or immediate family of the preceding executive. Taken to its absurdist conclusion, it’s a single person issuing a single vote on all issues. But hey, it’s “fair” by the letter of the law, so ignore the rest of the disenfranchised population.
Not unfair to say “Democracies exist on a spectrum”. But at some point, you’re so far off the ideal that the term becomes farcical.
Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn’t guarantee fair.
To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)
But you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I’m arguing that it’s still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I’m arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn’t be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that “democracy” means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.
A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.
And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.
Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.
For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.
That stayed airborn for 12 seconds.
I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?
So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?
You’re doing exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re attributing a bunch of other qualities to “democracy,” and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.
I think we are done here. You’re arguing against things I’m not writing.
We? No. But they gotta keep the bar as low as possible to justify this fantasy.
By this standard, the US is still a democracy. Leaders are still voted into power and that isn’t going to change.
Will they let everyone vote? Obviously not, but you seem to think it’s democracy when only white men can vote so…
It’s not a good democracy, no. The fact that Trump is not following the rules suggests that it isn’t a democracy at all, since we are voting for stick figures, not leaders. But he was elected fair and square, at least until we find evidence otherwise.
And again, “democracy” doesn’t mean “good,” or “fair” or “virtuous.” We are none of those things right now, weather we are a democracy or not.
He didn’t even get a majority. He got a plurality. 49.9%
Yea. If we counted popular vote, rather than EC, that would not qualify him for president.
I’m not actually sure what happens if no candidate gets a majority.
I guess this means that Russia is a democracy.
I’m prepared to argue that fake voting doesn’t count.
By contrast to literally every other country. Yes very much in that time period. Believe it or not, most monarchies were also completely fine with slavery and plantations. And their citizens had even less political power.
One of the proximate causes of the American Revolution was British abolitionism leaking into colonial politics.
You had ex-military ultra-wealth planation owners defecting to the revolution in drovers following Dunmore’s Proclamation.
They were completely fine with collecting rents off their subjects - slave or free. But quite a few of them had strong reservations against chattel slavery (the Spanish Catholics, most notably). And more simply could not stomach the expense of policing transatlantic trade from piracy.
That is what ultimately lead to the outlawing of the practice across Europe.
Democracy isn’t defined relative to other countries. Only property-owners could vote, and only white men could own property, so that means the vast majority of the population couldn’t vote. That doesn’t sound like a democracy to me, that sounds like an aristocracy. I will grant you it was more democratic than monarchies and such, but even some of them (like the UK) had a parliamentary system so the king’s power wasn’t universal. They were deeply unequal, of course, but that’s just the pot calling the kettle black, because so was (and is) the US.
Yes because if it isn’t perfect may as well not even try.
I’m sure glad that United States never decided to split away from England and was unable to influence the entirety of Western democracy to form.
Without USA, you never get the French revolution as Thomas Paine never publish common sense without French revolution. You don’t get free France without free France. You don’t have European democracy.
The French Revolution in 1789. Paine published Common Sense in 1776.
Paine was also involved in the French revolution, but the Jacobins threw him into the Bastille because he was opposed in principle to capital punishment, so refused to vote to execute the king.
The pitfalls of typing things on your phone at work is that sometimes when you mean to say American revolution, you write French revolution twice because you’re only commenting while you’re waiting for something to happen at work and not giving your phone your full attention.
Do you have to try to be that disingenuous or does it come natural?
What a thing is trying to be is pretty irrelevant to what it is. A wife-beater can talk all he wants about how hard he’s trying to stop beating his wife, but meanwhile she’s got a fresh supply of new bruises every day. Whether or not he’s trying to stop, what he’s doing is beating his wife, so is he a wife-beater or is he a changed man? Here’s a hint in case it’s not as obvious to you as it is to everyone else: he’s still a wife-beater, but that doesn’t mean he should stop trying to change.
The fact that the US talked a big game about democracy does not make it a democracy, but that also doesn’t mean it should’ve stop trying to become one.
Only recently has everyone above the 18 had the ability to vote, excluding those who are slaves as per the 13th amendment. For most of American history, women couldn’t vote. Black people weren’t considered people. We kicked out anyone Chinese. We locked away Japanese Americans because they were ethnically Japanese.
America was maybe a democracy for 56 years, since the Voting Rights Act of 1968. That’s a stretch at best, as the country never healed for being an Apartheid for 200 years.
Right? Someone clearly hasn’t read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.