CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Bush and Blair on "democracy"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush and Blair on "democracy"

post #1 of 8
11/26/03 at 8:25pm
Thread Starter 
Bush said it in reaction to the hundreds of thousands who came out to protest the invasion of Iraq, and I've recently seen Blair using the exact same words, responding to the demonstrators during Bush's visit:
"The beauty of a democracy is that everybody gets to express their opinion."

Does is strike anyone else that this is not only an outrageous dismissal of these supposedly valued opinions, but a critically distorted definition of "democracy?" It seems to me that what they're describing is "free speech," while "democracy" is when leaders listen to what their followers want them to do.

I know this has been hashed over ad nauseum, but still...
Reply
post #2 of 8
11/26/03 at 9:10pm
It is free speech that Bush was describing, but that's almost always part of a real democracy. A democracy isn't the elected leaders doing what the public says (and I'm glad that's the case, or they'd flip-flop more than they do now), but where people elect leaders to represent them. Whether or not the leader does what they want is up to the leader. If the people don't like it, they send the leader on their way at the end of their term.
Reply
post #3 of 8
11/26/03 at 9:42pm
Thread Starter 
I would hope that free speech would always be a part of democracy, but the reverse is not necessarily true. We elect leaders based on their policies at the time of election, but the theory is that, through a series of representatives, the will of the people eventually reaches the top, and we expect that our leaders will abide by it. The theory, at least, is that people don't just vote every four years then slip into a pleasant coma until the next election, but in fact get to monitor the leader's decisions and play a part in making them. Of course the will of the leader doesn't change at the whim of the people, but when there is a sustained mass outpouring of opinion from the public, and no substantial counter-demonstration, then I would expect the leader of a "democracy" to at least be a little less flippant before ignoring it all.

but you're right, the true test is election day, when, at the end of the day, we have a democratically elected leader who represents the majority of...um...oh well.
Reply
post #4 of 8
11/27/03 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally posted by sorro
If the people don't like it, they send the leader on their way at the end of their term.
Unless, of course, the electoral college differs from the majority of voters...
Reply
post #5 of 8
11/27/03 at 12:12pm
That's only the case in close elections, where America flips a coin. I can't see a candidate who wins 50-55% of the popular vote losing in the electoral college. I still see the electoral college as a hedge for the smaller states against big cities like New York, LA, and Chicago.
Reply
post #6 of 8
11/27/03 at 3:09pm
A hedge against democracy is more like it.

We're already calling some states' "electoral votes" before there's even an major opposition candidate for the President to face, meaning that the opposition candidate - whoever it is - won't campaign much there and therefore the votes of people living in that state are meaningless in the scheme of things since it won't impact the results of the election one bit.

I'm going to vote Presidentially next year, but no matter who I vote for, I'm voting for Bush because Georgia is a Republican state. Period.

THAT IS ABSURD AND WRONG.

I'm tired of people campaigning for swing states and little else. It's BS, and it assures that the majority's interests will continue to be ignored in favor of these swing voters demands.
Reply
post #7 of 8
11/27/03 at 6:08pm
Thread Starter 
How do you do that quote thing?

"I can't see a candidate who wins 50-55% of the popular vote losing in the electoral college."

If you mean those numbers literally, no one could possibly lose with those percentages, due to the presence of smaller candidates. If by that you mean one of the two major candidates getting just slightly more of the popular vote than the other, then you DID see it:
Bush - 47.87%
Gore - 48.38%

and that seemingly small difference equals over half a million people. hardly worthy of a coin flip.
Reply
post #8 of 8
11/27/03 at 11:22pm
I did mean it literally, because 50% is where the mandate comes in, and we haven't had a 50% president since George Bush back in 1988. When it gets to really small margins, it is America flipping a coin, and ultimately 500 or so people in Florida threw it Bush's way.

The quote thing is the little button down in the right hand corner of a person's post. Click it, and you can quote them.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Bush and Blair on "democracy"