I always wonder if voting is worth it and I fight myself to say that it is. I know that we aren't a democracy. We never were a democracy, and we will probably never be a democracy unless some sort of technological advancement is made to give people the time or speed up the process for going through and understanding any law that would affect us, and of course, we rewrite our constitution. My imagination would suggest a sort of matrix-style download where you can re-read bills and potential laws in your sleep and wake up with a huge amount of knowledge...
This is a republic. I hate to burst any good citizens bubble of our government defined as a democracy, because the reality of the situation is not. (In case there are people who do not know this.) In a democracy, people directly vote for laws that are made. Since that would be too time consuming for an individual living in a large country with millions of lines of law/law in progress to read over and understand, as well as simultaneously being a functional citizen in any other unrelated profession , we choose people that we think would be most consistent with our ideas of how things should be, to devote all their time choosing laws that would most ideally reflect us, in whatever regions that we live in, scaled down to our town council, and up to our national executive. Swinging more “democratic” or “republican” doesn’t change the system, since the system is by definition and structure a Republic. With the system in practice, one can argue that it is a democratic-republic, depending on how well you believe the politicians represent the people.
Noting why this is a Republic can help to fairly judge a politician when considering what they have voted in favor of, or against. Think about a politician voting inconsistently for a bill that includes certain issues that the politician said they stood for: those same 500-page bills may have included a lot of other issues that the politician was consistently against, thus making it impossible to be consistent , no matter which way they vote. Politicians and the media are often “translating” laws that other politicians have voted for. Who says that these translations are in context, and if they are even the main summary of law x, y or z, or simply small excerpts of meaningless technicalities, meant to manipulate the people to be in favor of laws that hinder progress, and aid in oppression? Conversely laws that aid in progress and stop oppression would be “translated” to make people stand against them. It should not be forgotten that the overall media, just like the politicians involved in government, are also large, powerful and wealthy entities with personal interests and ties, which are not always parallel to the best interests of the general, and they can just as easily deceive without actually “lying”.
I always wonder if my vote really counts, after all the manipulations of public opinion, all the money thrown into a campaign. Even downright voter fraud manages to show up in basically every major city, for example, causing a machine not register a voter if it is for a certain candidate. I wish there was more media coverage on the issues of voter fraud instead of their efforts to manipulate public opinion… I remember a few years ago, in Chicago, one noble reporter went to test machines for accurate voting, and found that 8 of the 13 machines tested in several different regions would not even register a republican vote! What an important thing to consider when assuming that Chicago is overwhelmingly democratic, or any major city as far as I am concerned. Mayor Daley of Chicago has ran the city for several terms becoming almost a dictator, as his father, a well known mobster did the same thing. The fact that he consistently wins by landslide means nothing if people knew of the voter fraud that goes on. It is possible that the same could be said for republicans somewhere in the US, but as I live in an extremely liberal area, run by democrats, I can only speak for things that I have observed here and am not trying to attack democrats in general, only specific corrupt ones that run my area.
Media, like the Times, currently associated with CNN, was founded on noble agendas such as exposing corruption and summarizing the truth for everyone to understand. But over the years , it became somewhat corrupt, because such interests do not rule their actions anymore: they have allowed themselves to be manipulated by people in power, exchanging positive coverage on corrupt individuals, for personal interviews or other juicy information that will make better sales. They have chosen sides in government, in regard to personal agenda, and in doing so, no longer honor the reasons for which they originally emerged.
NEVER believe any media is unbiased: Everyone is biased, to the point where one can be blindly biased to individuals/organizations that claim that they are unbiased. It would be better for media to show their nature, so the people know where they stand, when taking into consideration what they show: I have no problem with liberal or conservative media as long as they don’t claim to be unbiased. However, since liberal media outweighs conservative media (there are more liberal news channels and papers, and many people who influence the media are liberal), I am very cautious of it.
Sometimes, an artist will create a lie to summarize a truth that cannot be explained in one sentence: politicians and media many times sum up parts of truth to create one giant lie. I don’t suggest becoming a conspiracy creator, only that people look around them taking as many things into consideration as possible. Don’t assume that large media’s main interest is to help you make a more intelligent opinion, and stop assuming that we are a democracy. When was the last time you directly voted for a law that was made?
I hate to say it, but you are right. I also question the electoral college. In the beginning, the electoral college made sense because the people had no way to become informed, but not the masses have a way of becoming informed, so we no longer have a real need for them.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
I also agree that the Electoral College's worth to American democracy needs to be reevaluated, but I'm hesitant to just want to throw it out. I don't want Californians, Floridians, and New Yorkers taking total control of national elections. States with smaller populations, like Alaska and Wyoming, would have their votes overwhelmed. And, since states with small populations are rural, without an Electoral College, farmers and small town Americans would have their votes overridden by the states with a lot of city dwellers.
You're right, all media sources are biased. Firstly, they are all private companies, so they have hidden agendas. Secondly, we live in a capitalistic society, and that means the primary concern of all media outlets is to make money. They'll report on whatever story gets them the ratings and the ad revenues, even if that story is not very important.
And, again, you're right, we technically do not live in a democracy, this is a federal republic. Our government is indirectly participatory, at every level imaginable (we vote on everything from the presidency to the local sheriff). I'd be just fine with this if we could make our government more transparent- I want to know everything that those Congresspersons do behind closed doors. Otherwise, why should I trust them?
Though, we do vote on laws sometimes- referendums. The most famous (or infamous, depending on your stance) example of this currently is Proposition 8, the Californian bill on November 4th's ballot that would illegalize gay marriage.
Well, I guess referendums are only practiced in certain states, and only concerning very few state laws, not federal. I don't think they are practiced in my state as they are not in the majority of states, but I was unaware of them to begin with. Maybe this is a good idea for all states?
A democracy may be defined as a direct vote;but, it is much more than that. A vote can be defined as a voice. For every vote is every voice. If you decide not to vote then that is your choice. Even if you vote for something and the opposite happens it doesn't matter at least you expressed your voice in a form of civic duty. America is not a direct democracy; however, it is a Dmocractic Republic. Meaning it is a mix of a democracy and a Republic. The electorial college is designed to make voting easier. Every vote does count. For instance, say in this presidential race you want to vote for John McCain but the popular vote says that Obama is going to win. If every undecided person or people who didn't vote originally stuck with their decision(voice) then the out come can be a lot different. But by not voting you are not making the democracy part work. A democracy can only work if we (the people) make it work. We are the ones who decide the fate of our country. We elect who would best represent our voice.
These United States are actually a Federal Constitutional Republic. They are not a Democratic Republic.
Examples of Democratic Republics are the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), North Korea, Sri Lanka, and the former East Germany (1949-1990).
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I think this may have been confusing concerning "democratic Republic". I wasn't being technical in that sense, because I know that would be incorrect. I was just trying to say that the only way I see a chance for an arguement of us even being indirectly a democracy (which I don't think we are) is if people believe the best interests of the public is well-represented under this republic... or, I suppose I should say, under this Federal Constitutional Republic (to be more accurate)? (So that it, in a sense, behaves like a democracy.)
Thanks for the response because it is nice to know there are (hopefully) many people out there who know this is a Republic (Federal Constitutional Republic), as I don't see any point in believeing we are something that we structurally are most definately not. I think the word "democracy" is carelessly thrown around because people like the ideal so much. It is important to realisticaly consider what America is, not what we want or think we should be.
There are good reasons why we are a Federal Constitutional Republic, as this is not necessarily a bad thing. I suppose every system does have it's flaws though, and one of our huge flaws is the lack of honesty and integrity concerning the media, and "translation" of bills concerning politicians, along with fair representation of any arguement in an effort to help the general public make more informed opinions, vs simply trick the public into believeing they are making more informed opinions by being manipulated under media to support "their" opinions. But then again, what system doesn't have this problem? I watch media just like I would a marketing commercial, because that is what it usually is, concerning politics. Media is a large private, wealthy business with special interests, and I cannot emphasize that enough. I think this is why our founding fathers didn't make us a democracy: because the general public can be too easily manipulated by false hopes and promises and most people simply do not have the time to dig deeper.