Is it truly "of the people, for the people, by the people"

Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill John Kennedy by himself, or did a conspiracy do it? And if a conspiracy did it, did the conspiracy include Oswald?

Well i was watching the movie "JKF".. it really struck me... Is America a democracy. Why are they not releasing the documents... Dont take it personal..

america is not a true democracy. it is a republic led by elected officials. one of the only true democratic aspects is that we get to vote on certain laws as well as who the lawmakers are.

IMHO a true democracy can't work because the general public is not well enough informed to make responsible decisions on every little issue. For instance there are several state constitutional ammendments we vote on every election. For the most part it involves reading a short text blurb and checking a box. For most people it's the first time they've heard of the proposed ammendment and they have not had the time to see the implications. I believe this "democratic" aspect should be removed.

Spoken like a true Florida resident....

This will contradict my previous post about whether or not America is a democracy. It is titled to be a "representative democracy". We do vote, but we vote representatives into office to vote on legislation for us. We vote on the amendments that they do pass(mostly state, sometimes federal bills).

I agree with not being well enough informed. Most people aren't. The most objective information you could get is on the ballot, and the ballot info they send before the elections. A lot of people don't take the time to read these, so they rely on tv and radio, and other sources to get their information. This does not fully inform, imo, an individual on a certain matter. An individual does not learn about the costs of a certain bill, the pros and cons, how much money a candidate will receive with the current soft money ban bill that was passed. They will find ways around the soft money ban, I am curious to see how.

Anyways, being a representative democracy differs America from being a direct democracy. If America weren't representative, the population would have to do the job the reps do; go to city hall, etc.

Originally posted by salvelinus
Spoken like a true Florida resident....

one liner? if you disagree with what I said tell me why. Nobody would say that the US is a "true" democracy. and it can easily be noted that most of the state amendments that I spoke of are rediculous when examined. I reallly don't see your point.

aside from that, florida got a bad rap because of the election. The only problems in florida are the retirement communities which are largely migrated New Yorkers. So blame NY.

JFK was probably killed by the mob, imho. How else do you explain the magic bullet theory?

actually I think the gov DID release the documents a couple years ago (a couple years after that movie)

that democratic and republican stuff makes no sense to me at all.

ROD-
in reality, democrat and republican is no more than party names. Their ideals don't really come down to democracy vs republic.

the difference, democrats are typically more liberal. republicans are typically more conservative. Republicans typically believe things should be more localized and democrats typically believe things should be more centralized (federal).

Don't turn that into a big party bashing thread starter people.

As I said in an earlier post on a similar topic, only our elections are democratic, and even then there are some problems preventing "complete democracy." It takes a money-engine to field a candidate for public office, and so only the Democratic and Republican candidates typically have much of a voice to get their messages across. Ignorance and indifference are two other problems working against democracy in America. How can the people rule if most of the eligible voters don't vote and for those who do vote don't know much about the issues or candidates (e.g., lifelong Democrats/Republicans, single-issue voters)?

Political candidates of either party cannot make a strong appeal to me because they are too busy focusing on single-issue senior citizens (Social Security and Medicare) and their traditional single-issue supporters (pro-life grandmas, labor unions, investors).

>>actually I think the gov DID release the documents a couple years ago
last i heard they werent slated to be released until 2037, a couple of years ago they tried to push that back by like 30 years or something?!

Well in a way i admire American democracy.. because you get to elect your president directly.. Whewre as we follow the british system (inherited by them) where we elect MP's who elect the prime minister..... I say many advantages and disadvantages of these two systems...


American Democracy: -
---------------------------

Advantage (According to me) :-
a) Get to elect your leader directly
b) The leader's post is secure and he does not need to bowe to the wims and fancies of MP's
c) Can pursue very difficult and strigents biils since he does not require the consent of MP's etc etc
d) Works faster and effeciently in decesion making

Disadvantage:-
a) Too much power in the hand of one person
b) Not much of transperency
c) If corrupt the whole system is done
d) Too much centralization


Indian (British) democracy

Advantage:-
a) The power is distributed.. is not with one person
b) Everything is almost decentralised
c) Some corruption does not stop the whole govt machinary...
d) The views of many people are incorporated
e) The leader can be removed from power if the MP's decide to do so..


Disadvantage:-
a) People cannot ellect their leaders directly
b) Decesion making is very slow since many people have to be taken into confidence
c) The Govt wastes its time securing it seat since usually it is run by the support of many parties
d) Not much of efficiency




this s what i feel..
I feel the american democracy is better..... The disadvantage i see in our system is that consider there are 2 MP's A and B.. and A support the leader A1 and B supports the leader B1... Here if i want to electr A1 as the leader i would have to vote for the MP A.. But what if i dont like the MP A but i would prefer B at the local level but prefer the leader A1 at the top level... that is not possible.. so the people are left to decide where they want good governence.. at the local level or the national level...

Any British here to coment on this...

Vasanth, I believe much of that to be incorrect according to how I understand the systems.

Let's start from the bottom up.

In America.

The State Level
You vote for your state governor and they, along with two other (I believe unelected) bodies, the legislature and the court system are responsible for drafting, debating, agreeing and passing laws that affect you. This is why laws vary from one state to the next.

The Federal Level
You vote for the president of your choice. Then they, again along with two other bodies, the house of representatives and the supreme court, debate and pass federal laws. The house of representatives is made up of 100 elected state representatives and the supreme court is made up of 9 judges, selected by The President and approved by congress.

Any law, federal or state, has to be approved by all the relevant bodies before it is passed. I believe Federal Laws in general only apply to national concerns such as immigration and organised crime etc. Most crime and punishment law for example is determined at state level. As can be seen, the power of The President over an individual in America is very much diluted. That's quite good I think especially considering it's size and diversity.

Britain
The British System is practically exactly the same. The only difference is that more power is centralised, probably due to the difference in size.

You vote for your local MP who is a 99% of the time a member of one of the political parties. They then gain a seat in parliament and vote for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister selects the Cabinet (Secretaries of State).

When a member of the cabinet wishes to pass a law, again it must be debated and agreed upon by the PM, the House of Parliament and the House of Lords. The House of Lords is the equivalent of the court system in America, it's where the Law Lords sit. These Law Lords are now no longer hereditary but granted the position by the PM. If such a law is passed, it then affects every individual in the country. Overiding any by-laws. The majority of laws covering all aspects are determined in this way.

By-laws (Would be the equivalent of US State laws)
Local Authorities can set By-laws for individual constituencies. Usually a by-law will only affect minor things like maybe not being able to walk in a particular area due to nature protection or something. As stated however, these are superceeded by National Law.

As can be seen, as far as the individual is concerened, more control is exercised at central government level under the British system than in America. Tony Blair has more control over me than George Bush has over say Govtcheez. When it comes to something such as war, again it is very similar. Both Bush and Blair can do pretty much whatever they like. Technically The Queen is head of the British armed forces but she no longer has any say in matters (Thankfully)

If any American's wish to correct any of this then please go ahead. I'm not American so I only have Internet Information to go on.

While we are on this subject, I have a query.
In most representative democracies a deciding vote is worth the same no matter where you live. Ie. A deciding vote is worth the same whether it is in some small out of the way rural community or the inner city of the largest city. It is worth one seat.

However, in the us presidential system, a deciding vote is worth much, much more in California than, say North Dakota. This seems to be against the one vote, one value principal. If someone is running they are better off sucking up to Californians that North Dakotians.

partially true. of course one can not hope to win the presidency if they lose ALL of the states with smaller electoral count.