I am actually quizzed by the word "Democracy". Because of the elections in France.

Let's take an example, if 51% wants Sarkozy to win and the rest for Royal, will that be a kind of true democracy in France ??

When 49% doesn't want to have Sarkozy as their President, but obviously if he becomes, does this truly reflect the people opinion.


Doesn't that sould like "DemocraZY" ?? or am I not getting the clear point of democracy ?

Mmmmmmm. That sounds like a typical socialist argument for not accepting what the majority votes for...

Think of it this way: The French will still have parliamentary elections this upcoming summer (hence Bayrou not shutting up). They can just as well balance any candidate they do not support.

If you are talking about the "oppression" of the "minority" by the "majority", maybe you should check out Montesquieu and the United States Constitution. Actually, the Americans wrote quite a lot about that -- check out the post-Articles of Confederation American Constitution. During the ratification of the US Constitution there was quite a bit of discussion about the majority oppressing the minority -- which is justly prohibited by US law. Check out the Federalist Papers.

By the way -- "democracy" simply means the rule / governance of the majority. They have a right to oppress, torture, and do whatever they see fit. You might be referring to "liberalism" -- i.e. the protection of certain inalienable rights.

Well, I hear that Sarkozy got 53% and Royal conceded defeat. When 47% of French doesn't want him to be The Next Man, how well is democracy represented ??


It's all a game !!

Look at it this way, 53% are against Royal! The winner takes it all when the executive power is elected, proportional representation is secured in the legislative.

What would be your solution, then? Even the parties in the Swiss government only represent 81.7% of the voters...

Socialist in the French context i suppose? The argument usually goes like this: "x% of the residents weren't allowed to vote, x% didn't vote, x% did vote for other candidates, so the winner doesn't represent the majority!"

Democracy means the voice of the majority -- the majority selected Sarkozy. During the first round every party had a chance -- the mainstream left and right came in first and second.

There will be parliamentary elections in June. The French system of government has the equivalent of two executives -- i.e. the prime minister and the president. The electorate will have a chance to choose the party they support the most then. If a majority backs the left and the centrists Sarkozy could very well be impeded from instituting his reform policies.

I am sort of confused: what exactly do you think democracy is?

On a side note: I support Sarkozy and was very happy with the results.

Trying to confuse a creative person with facts, are we ?

I think time has to come to re-invent a system to govern people !


Kingdoms & Monarchy, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism will have a new failure friend named "Democracy".

What we have today is liberal democracy. Most people do not understand what liberalism is and often confuse liberal principles with democracy, while the two actually go hand in hand. You're free to advocate your own system of government, but don't simply state that a democratic election was non-democratic -- that just makes no coherent sense, particularly as voter turnout was exceptionally high.

What election would I declare undemocratic in the Western World? The 2000 US Presidential Election -- George W. Bush did not receive the most votes, Al Gore did (550,000 more), but failed to win the presidency because of the American electoral system.

Just an FYI. Maybe what you write is not what you mean, but most countries are not a Democracy. France is not a Democracy. It is a Republic which is consistent with most governments in the world, other than most of the Middle East, China, etc. There is a big difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

BTW, the reason the US President is not elected by the voting population of the people is to prevent too much control from areas which are highly populated. The North East, West along with Texas, and Florida contain the majority of the pupulation in the US. Without the electorate those locales would have full decision power of who becomes President. To give the remaining population and states some power to influence the election of a President the electorate was established. Thus, it's highly possible that the overpopulated areas desire to have a specific President, but based how the overall vote was broken down by state a different individual might win an election. Generally speaking this would only happen in a VERY VERY VERY close race.

I've had the same thoughts several times in the past! Remember the US election years ago between George W Bush and Al Gore? The election was so close that it all depended on the results of one state (I forget which). There were several recounts until Gore conceded, which all ended up in the two candidates falling over themselves in the last minutes (this involved things like personally handing out stuff to the needy, or something at that level) to secure the very FEW extra votes needed to win. That, in my opinion, was not fair at all! Democracy it was, but was it fair? Don't think so! And to think that those last FEW votes put Bush in office.

(Spoiler ahead): It reminds me of the book Sons of Fortune (Archer), where the Governor election is so close that one candidate is chosen at the flip of a coin... Even if that's the law, it can't be right!

What shall we use instead of the current imperfect system(s)?

Solutions please, don't just say "that's shite"

First of all, having a choice of more than two candidates (who are usually at other ends of the political spectrum). I know that we have the so-called 'independent' candidates in the US election, but their backing is usually at such a minuscule level that they really don't count. If you have several candidates (extreme left, centre-left, centre-right, etc. with a few in between), it would be a step towards preventing a 50-50 result. Whatever happened to landslide elections?

GBN: I keep thinking your avatar says "Cher: Still Dead" and my face lights up with glee. Then I re-read it and it makes me think of the Cuban model: Democracy is no substitute for a Fatherly Dictatorship...

Yes and no. The state was Florida, and the reason that state was involved was because it was the closest of all states. This state was the only state in which Gore could potentially win, thereby winning the electoral college. Had Gore focused on any other state he wouldn't have won. Actually New Mexico was closer in terms of votes. Gore won by 366 votes. Bush never requested a recount in New Mexico. In Florida Gore cried like a baby because Bush won by 537 votes. He then stated to make up information to claim the state was stolen. He started lying and acting like a child. The reason Gore really lost was because of this...



That is why the electoral college exists. Gore lost more states and more geographical land. Thanks to our system the North East and West coast don't have full control over who becomes president. You can also see which states have the most electoral votes. These states get ALL the focus from the candidates. The potential candidates NEVER visit Alaska, Hawaii, South Dakota, etc.

The elections were held under democratic procedures, which was my main point. I was objecting to the statement that the election in France was not democratic -- i.e. did not express the will of the majority of the French people. The NZZ reported today that Sarkozy received the largest majority of any center-right politician in France in the last 40 years (de Gaulle's 1965 election).

A republican system of government can still be liberal and democratic. All "republic" really means is that there is no ruling sovereign a la Queen Elizabeth II. This was extremely important in terms of both the United States (King George III) and France (Louis XVI, etc. later on after the re-establishment of the monarchy and its next overthrow).

The United States is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy. It is a liberal democracy nonetheless.

The population has shifted over time, so the system was not set up to reach this end. The "founding fathers" were not necessarily democrats (the Senate before 17th Amendment, the Electoral College, and voting rights) -- the system democratized itself over time.

There are positions for and against the electoral college as it exists today -- I personally believe that it should either be reformed or eliminated.

God am I slow: The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Syrian Arab Republic. Should have pointed that out before.

Or even better: The Islamic Republic of Iran.

That's not a republic.

That's a republic.

I want it, just reformed. People who live in states like South Dakota essentially have no say in the government and president. People who live in New York, Florida, and California have too much influence in the US government. That IMO is wrong and needs to change.

BTW, here is the difference between a Democracy and Republic. You'll notice that socialists and the Middle East aren't republics.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/gove...0repubblic.htm

You send me a website that opens up with quotes from the Bible? Whatever you wanted to post did not work -- the link goes directly to their homepage. Any homepage with the discussion about bible study, placing Islam alongside homosexuality, and discussing the one world government does not appear credible.

Also, you need to realize that people define terms differently. During the Cold War, one had to specifically define what was meant by the word "democratic" and what "democracy" actually was. Most people have since come to consider these differences as irrelevant and have adopted the definition "a system of government where political leaders are chosen through free, fair, and competitive elections" (My own words, taken freely from Zakaria, 2003). However, in the past it was necessary to state one's exact position. There were countries like the German Democratic Republic. "Democracy" within this context meant the just, truly democratic distribution of economic goods and the democratic control of the means of production. In short, social equality.

I prefer the following definitions of republic, which keeps things rather simple: "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state." ; "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them" (dictionary.com). In the past Republicanism was opposed by those in government because it meant the dissolution of the establish monarchical systems and their replacement with a non-hereditary executive. This did not imply that it was liberal, or that it was democratic (The Commonwealth under Cromwell, the French revolutionary government after the regicide in 1792).

This definition is still important in places like Canada and Australia, which continue to formally maintain Queen Elizabeth II as their executive. Republicans in these countries would like to sever ties with the British monarchy and introduce a Republican form of government, in that they elect a non-hereditary executive.

That being the case, like I originally said: you can have non-democratic republics, you can have liberal (constitutional) democratic republics, you can have illiberal democratic republicans, and so on and so forth. My major complaint, which I mentioned at the beginning, is the belief that "democracy" means more than the choice of the majority / plurality. It does not. Republicanism does not necessarily mean a democratic or a liberal government either.

This all could go on further, but I think I've basically said all that I can without getting into stupid details which no long matter. On a side note: I see absolutely no reason to respond to your rubbish on the 2000 election, and I know that everything I have written will more than likely be ignored on your part.

Interesting. That isn't what I linked too. When I click the link it works fine. Let me just paste the text since there is a problem.

Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.


A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

1. an executive and
2. a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3. a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4. certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
US Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.