Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The USA is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic.
sure...
I don't see your point...
are you saying that, because by specific definition America might not have a political system called "democracy" (as defined, only, by appeal to the etymology of the term, as opposed to the practice of voting and popular rule as the term is almost ubiquitously used in colloquial conversation) there is no violation of democratic principles in the delegate system? Are you saying that the violation is ok? or what?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
"and to the republic for which it stands"We don't have a democracy.
People think that because we vote means we are a democracy, but we never vote for laws, just people to pass laws. In Oregon we do vote for some laws, so here it is a bit of a blend, and we have seen the problems that it causes.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
"and to the republic for which it stands"We don't have a democracy.
Republic = Anything that isn't a Monarchy (this is why dictatorships get to call themselves Republics)
This idea that the US "isn't a democracy" is a really bizarre conservative myth. Being a republic doesn't mean the country isn't also a representative democracy. It's like saying that an apple isn't an apple because its really a fruit.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosYou mean the few republicans who voted?
As evidenced by Iowa he doesn't care about what the people think and you've just said that his whole objective is to get delegates no matter if the people support him or not.
You realize these people can become delegates for Romney right? Its about the dedication of the supporters to represent their district. This is how the nomination works. Not just based off the beauty contest. Know your stuff.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You realize these people can become delegates for Romney right? Its about the dedication of the supporters to represent their district. This is how the nomination works. Not just based off the beauty contest. Know your stuff.
I know this stuff. It also means that Ron Paul does not represent "the people" of the state and explicitly does not care about doing so. As a result its hilarious his supporters still buy into the myth that he's a man of the people.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Why would I care about voter fraud? Why wouldn't you? haermmpetpet
well, the major difference here would be that, to me at least, an institutionalized system that undercuts democracy and places the power to determine leaders in a small minority of delegates is at least equally problematic as illegal forms of election rigging.
it seems like you are saying: Paul is doing nothing illegal, therefore there are no violatiins of democratic principles. this would be identical logic to saying something like: marijuana prohibition is the law, therefore it can't be a violation of personal liberty.
so, sure, if the only stuff you care about are specifically illegal violations of democracy, great, good for you. however, the system itself can be built in a way that violates democracy, and it appears Paul has no issues at all with exploiting that.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
His dedicated (and educated apparently) supporters who know how the process and rules work, become delegates which is how the state is really won = Him not caring about the state or the people.
Red herring. What I said was that I believe that when your political strategy is to disenfranchise the greatest possible number of people you no longer get to call yourself a "man of the people". Very simple.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, the major difference here would be that, to me at least, an institutionalized system that undercuts democracy and places the power to determine leaders in a small minority of delegates is at least equally problematic as illegal forms of election rigging.
This is for a nomination for the republican party. There is no power until he comes president. These delegates represent their district. This is how the system always worked.
Originally posted by inimalist
it seems like you are saying: Paul is doing nothing illegal, therefore there are no violatiins of democratic principles. this would be identical logic to saying something like: marijuana prohibition is the law, therefore it can't be a violation of personal liberty.
Lol. Explain this one, I'd love to hear it. Marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional to begin with. stoned
Originally posted by inimalist
so, sure, if the only stuff you care about are specifically illegal violations of democracy, great, good for you. however, the system itself can be built in a way that violates democracy, and it appears Paul has no issues at all with exploiting that.
Constitutional Republic.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
This is for a nomination for the republican party. There is no power until he comes president.
right... so, in that case, why have any democracy in deciding the candidate?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
These delegates represent their district.
looking at Minnesota then, which district did Paul receive 83% of the vote in?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
This is how the system always worked.
logical fallacy, just because something has been done in a certain way does not mean it is correct.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol. Explain this one, I'd love to hear it. Marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional to begin with. stoned
you are appealing to the fact something is the law as a justification for why it is right.
that you think marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional in the first place actually emphasizes my point, as you are using entirely different standards for different laws.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Constitutional Republic.
hand waving justification for legalized voter suppression