Conference back40::soapbox

    I think the next step then is to define "people", ie. which people do
    elected representatives represent.

    The bipedal large brained life forms are usually considered to be
    people.

    Hope this helps.

    Glenn

    .1 Which people do elected representatives represent..
    From the low voter turnouts I would guess our representatives represent
    a lot of dunderheads who don't care enough to vote, often vote straight
    ticket because they would never vote for a Democrat/Republican or who
    vote as their parents/spouses have informed them to vote, and who vote,
    when confused by the issues, for the best looking candidate who tells
    them the best sounding lies, "Yes, Virginia, there IS free lunch! We
    will let the government pay for it! And, in our party platform, we will
    not have to raise taxes. We are the party for the working man!".
    
    For those of you who do not receive the Worcester Telegram in Mass.
    a recent column by Bob Herbert will give you an idea of how informed
    the voters are (data from the America's Talking/Gallup Poll) 1,020
    respondents - 60% could not name who was president when the A-bomb
    was dropped, 35% did not know the first A-bomb was dropped on Japan,
    4% thought it had been dropped on some other country, 22% knew NOTHING
    about an atomic bomb attack, two percent thought JFK launched the first
    nuclear strike and one percent thought it was Nixon. 
    
    See, Kennedy was twice as bad as Nixon. Statistics don't lie.
    
    There's more. "An election night poll showed that nearly half the
    voters believed that either welfare or foreign aid was the largest item
    in the federal budget."  And another "Consider that many of the people
    who are screaming the loudest about the so-called Republican revolution
    were too ignorant about the issue of civic responsibility to drag 
    themselve to the polls last November to vote."
    
    That's some of the people who get represented by our representatives.
    Of course they never have to worry about hearing from such
    constituencies or worry that how they vote will alienate such
    non-voters. "When in doubt vote for the incumbent"
    
    

    Premise 1: Dunderheads are people who dont vote or vote irresponsibly.
    Premise 2: I dont vote.
    Conclusion: I am a dunderhead.
    
    Perhaps I should give up my liver.
    

    Well you can keep it unless you've filled in your Liver Donor Card.
    
    Yer prolly OK since if ya don't vote, you prolly also don't bother with
    carrying socially useful documents.
    
    Another theory is that your brain donor card has already been executed.
    
    Seems to fit the data, if dunder :== empty
    

    What exactly is a socially useful document. A Visa? 
    If you can tell me what a vote does I'll tell you why I dont vote.

    Priorities, PRIORITIES!!
    
    Brain foist, then liver.
    

    You seem to suffer for this I am sorry.
    

    .3 A-bomb.  Didn't the first one go off up a tower in some US desert,
    full of radio active giant ants and loads of B-Movie actors?  Old
    Openhiemer gave his "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds"
    speach and became a "goddam pinko" in the process.
    
    The kicker with democracy IMHO, is information.  Only informed votes
    can really help the system.  People who vote for higher welfare
    payments and lower taxes for instance are a tadd perplexing.  Rather
    like tighter gun control for everybody else but could they a mini-gun
    on the car as part of a well ordered militia.
    
    Some "goddam pinko" American prof. did some very interesting
    experiments on democracy.  These were based on the idea that for it to
    work people must be willing to change there minds.  What he did was
    collect a pseudorandom group together, put them in a hotel for 48 hours
    and get them talking about, in this case, crime and punishment.  This
    was filmed by C4 (populated, owned, run, and funded, entirely by
    "goddam pinkos").  This was great TV.  Watching peoples mind's clicking
    when they were finally confrunted by there predjudices was wonderfull.  
    
    After there little introductory chats they were put in little groups to
    talk about some subtopic.  The capital punishment one was the most
    "tense" as I remember it.  Only one person declared themselves
    unconditionally opposed to it at the start (spot that goddam pinko) 
    at the end of 24 hours ear bashing only two of  a group of about twenty
    had not changed sides.  I think (I think I remember) that it was the use
    of "expert witnesses" that did this.  Cops, QC's, perps, victims,
    politicians, and soldiers(northen ireland).
    
    Anyway, work calls.
    
    R. Michael. 
                         

    
    
    	The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Federalist
    Republic. Repeat after me:
    
    	"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America,
    	and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS...."
    
    	We have certain, inalienable rights that can never be 'voted away'
    by the majority. In democracies the majority rules. In the U.S. the
    majority rules only on issues that are not covered under inalienable
    rights. 
    
    
    jim    

    
      Well, the Grrek origin of the word democracy implies it is just
     "the rule of the people".  Forget the forms, look at the reality.
     Do you think the people rule the USA today ?  More or less than
     in the old days ?  I think we're a democracy-wannabe...
    
      bb

    I pledge allegance to the flag of the United States of America,
    and to the democracy, for which it stands....
    
    ...doesn't sound right.
    
    Congress is a democracy, usually. America is a Constitutional Repulic,
    or is when the people of power want it to be.
    
    You're right thought, there is a lot of confusion amonst the folks
    who didn't pay attention during civics class.  Maybe, the course 
    materials these days is being spun in a PC way.

    according to the curmudgeon's dictionary, democracy is:
    
        democracy, n.  A form of government in which all the citizens have
        equal voice regardless of their race, color, creed, etc.   A term
        commonly applied to the government of the United States; hence, a
        figment of the imagination.

         	I swear to the Lord
         	I still can't see
         	Why Democracy means
         	Everybody but me.

                	        -- Langston Hughes, "The Black Man Speaks"

    Was Langston Hughes a contemporary?  If he wasn't, I can help answer
    his question.
    
    During times of slavery, blacks were considered property...an extension
    of their owners if you will.  Because of this, they were considered
    subhuman and hence not afforded the rights of the rest of us.
    
    Isn't it amazing how easily we can get suckered into believing this??
    
    -Jack

    The reader can take it anyway think feel appropriate.  The point is
    that we have seen government manipulate the Constitution as they see
    fit.  What was that quote from animal farm??? "All animals are created
    equal but some are created more equal than others."

      Just want to second the thoughts of .10 and .11 and I am
      surprised by the apparent lack of discernment regarding
      differentiating democracy from republic.
    
      As .10 implies, a country can fall under the description
      of democracy and anihilate any certain race of people - so
      long as the majority votes in such legislation.  Our govt.
      does not uphold majority rule that is contrary to what a
      certain document says (that document being the Constitution).
    
      Its scary to not IMMEDIATELY discern the difference.

    Should we elect representitives, delegates, or leaders?  I think
    leaders are what we think we want.  People to make tough descisions and
    see them out.  Alas, what we get is career politicians.  they need the
    votes, to get paid, get on the tele, pick up the directorships etc.
    that pay them the big bucks.
    
    In the UK at least, I think politicians pay should take a serious jump
    upwards but it must be their main or exclusive income.  That way we get
    people who turn up occationally.
    
    Neither USA or UK are one citizen one vote.  Due to our rather wierd
    systems different votes have different value depending on where there
    cast.  Add the presidential electoral college thing and it all gets a
    bit strange.
    
    R. Michael.

  There seems to be an assumption that being a democracy and being a republic
are mutually exclusive. Where does this idea come from? Anyone have any
documentation?

  The definition of democracy is in .0. Here's the definition of the word
Republic from the American Heritage Dictionary.

  republic 1. Any political order that is not a  monarchy. 2 A constitutional
form of government, esp. a democratic one [from the Latin respublica "public
matter"] 

  So it would appear that the United States is both a democracy and a republic
since we are both "Government by the people, exercised ... through elected
representatives" and a "political order that is not a  monarchy".

  And definition 2 defines a republic as a constitutional democracy so by
that definition not only are democracy not mutually exclusive, democracy seems
to be a subset of republic.

  George

    
    
>  And definition 2 defines a republic as a constitutional democracy so by
>that definition not only are democracy not mutually exclusive, democracy seems
>to be a subset of republic.
    
    	Sounds good to me as long as we keep democracy a subset of republic
    and not try to go vice-versa. 
    
    	The point is, we are not JUST a democracy....we have a
    constitution. Can one have a democracy without a constitution and if
    so, what would it look like?
    
    jim

    I heard the purpose of the electoral college was although commoners
    had the power to vote, The EC was instituted because the politicians
    didn't believe the commoners were smart enough to vote.
    
    I believe the EC should be abolished.  
    
   -Jack

re: .             <<< Note 338.17 by BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM "Born to grep" >>>

>    Should we elect representitives, delegates, or leaders?  I think
>    leaders are what we think we want.

It depends upon the position to which you are electing them. If it's
a Chief Executive position (President, Prime Minister, Governor, Mayor,
sheriff, etc.), then you want a leader. In most other positions (State
assembly, city council, Congress, Parliament, etc.) you want a representative.

Too many (in some cases _any_) people presuming to be leaders in positions
which they were elected to to be representatives, is not goodness.

    
    Electoral College penalizes a regional candidate, and harkens
    back to the days of strongly differentiated regions.  To the
    extent we still think the USA has distinct regions, the EC is
    an idea which still has some merit.  In a homogenous country,
    it would be a silly anachronism.
    
      bb

    .14
    
    Apologies for tardiness - I'm REALLY busy today.  With real work.
    
    From the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia:
    
        Langston Hughes (1902-67), an American writer, expressed the life
        of a black American in poetry, prose, and drama with an almost
        effortless use of the cadences of blues and jazz.  His whimsical
        outlook was nonetheless realistic, and a later militancy is evident
        in a posthumously published collection of poetry, The Panther and
        the Lash (1967).

  From a practical point of view the Electoral College hasn't meant that much.
In almost all cases, who ever wins the popular vote, also wins the Electoral
College vote. I think there were only one or two cases, if that, when that was
not true. 

  Perhaps the biggest difference is that there have been elections that were
within 10%-20% in the popular vote but were 80% or 90% land slides in the
Electoral College. Interesting from an academic point of view, but the same guy
would have ended up president. 

  George 

    Who gets to be in the electoral college?

  Each party at the state level selects a slate of electors . When you vote for
president you are voting for which slate (winner take all) will vote for your
state. 

  So for example, if the Democratic ticket wins in Massachusetts and the
Republican ticket wins in New Hampshire, then the slate of electors chosen by
the Massachusetts State Democratic party will cast the electoral votes for
Massachusetts and the slate of electors chosen by the New Hampshire Republican
party will cast the electoral votes for New Hampshire. 

  The electors chosen meet in their states capital to vote on a designated day,
usually in the middle of the December following the election. They send their
votes to Congress where they are counted in early January. The House counts
the votes for President, the Senate counts the votes for Vice President.

  There are almost never any surprises.

  George

    
      It's ceremonial - the parties pick their electors, usually from
     luminaries and contributors.
    
      When Pennsylvania has gone Democratic, James Michener did it.  It
     turned out to be a dinner party for the Pa. electors.  They seal
     them up and send them to the Senate.
    
      bb

    George is still here?
    
    
    %*]

RE             <<< Note 338.28 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    %*]

  Now there's a fine definition of democracy.

  Nice contribution,
  George

    
    
>>    %*]
>
>  Now there's a fine definition of democracy.
>
>  Nice contribution,
>  George
    
    	Actually, it reminds me of the expression on Clinton's face after
    he saw the congressional election results. ;*)
    
    
    jim

  I'm a bit surprised at the lack of debate here. Every time anyone says
anything about the U.S. being a democracy there seems to be a strong argument
that they don't know what they are talking about because the United States is a
republic rather than a democracy.

  The definitions in the dictionary would suggest it is both. I asked for
definitions that back up the point above that is always being raised. 

  So have we decided that the United States is both a democracy and a republic
or is still in dispute? 

  George 

    I think we've decided, George, that what is important to you about the
    words and the definitions is not important to all that many people; you
    seem to be more interested in defending your misstatements than in
    communicating anything of interest.  Hey, whatever floats your boat.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 338.32 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    I think we've decided, George, that what is important to you about the
>    words and the definitions is not important to all that many people; you
>    seem to be more interested in defending your misstatements than in
>    communicating anything of interest.  Hey, whatever floats your boat.
    
  Hold on a minute. Are you are saying that I am alone in using the definitions
of words found in the dictionary and that most people use other definitions? 

  Funny, SOAPBOX is the only place I've ever heard that claim made. Well ok,
people in the sports notes file don't like the dictionary definition of the
word sport, but most of the other people I've encountered in my life seem to
respect the dictionary as the source of definitions of words in the English
language.

  Ok, just so I know the rules here in SOAPBOX, where do we look for the
definition of words when there is a dispute over their meaning?

  George 

    > Are you are saying that I am alone in using the definitions of words
    > found in the dictionary and that most people use other definitions? 
    
    No.  I'm saying that you seem to think that the dictionary definition
    is useful to CYA when someone else disagrees with you; and your point
    in this definition debate is CYA, rather than figuring out what is
    important to the person with whom you are ostensibly engaged in the 
    communication in the first place.
    
    > Ok, just so I know the rules here in SOAPBOX, where do we look for
    > the definition of words when there is a dispute over their meaning?
    
    I don't pretend to be arbiter for SOAPBOX.  But I can tell you that 
    the name of the game is communicating.  Focus on achieving understanding, 
    not on insisting you're right.  Nobody cares about the latter but you.
    
    DougO

RE       <<< Note 338.34 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    No.  I'm saying that you seem to think that the dictionary definition
>    is useful to CYA when someone else disagrees with you; and your point
>    in this definition debate is CYA, rather than figuring out what is
>    important to the person with whom you are ostensibly engaged in the 
>    communication in the first place.

  No this is not true. Most often someone has busted my chops by saying that
I was using the wrong definition of the word democracy while I was trying to
make a different point. All I'm doing is trying to get agreement as to what
these words mean so we don't have to get side tracked arguing about that every
time the words are used.
    
>    I don't pretend to be arbiter for SOAPBOX.  But I can tell you that 
>    the name of the game is communicating.  Focus on achieving understanding, 
>    not on insisting you're right.  Nobody cares about the latter but you.
    
  As long as I've been involved with SOAPBOX which has been a series of several
month spurts over the past 10 years or so, the name of the game in SOAPBOX has
been winning the argument including ad hominem attacks against people who's
views did not line up with right wing philosophy.

  SOAPBOX almost never means communicating or achieving understanding. 

  George

    
    Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!!! Will wonders never cease!! I'm in total agreement
    with DougO!!
    
    RE: .35
    
    >SOAPBOX almost never means communicating or achieving understanding.
    
    So why do you bother to keep trying?

In answer to George's question -


	It's a breath mint _AND_ a candy mint.

Not to mention a floor wax and a dessert topping.

RE  <<< Note 338.36 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>

>    >SOAPBOX almost never means communicating or achieving understanding.
>    
>    So why do you bother to keep trying?

  Strange question from the master of trying to cram opinions down the
throats of others.

  Show me one place where you ever tried to understand what I was saying
rather than just dishing out insults.

  George

RE         <<< Note 338.37 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>In answer to George's question -
>
>	It's a breath mint _AND_ a candy mint.

  No, this is not the position of the people with whom I debate.

  When ever I try to use the words "democracy" or "republic" according to the
definition given in the dictionary I get flack saying I'm wrong and that I
should know better.

  Notice now who is trying to understand and who is trying to blow smoke and
derail the debate. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, all I did was
present the dictionary definition and ask of you agree with it or not. If not
all I'm asking is for your definition.

  And what do I get? The usual insults, an accusation that I am the one trying
to create confusion, and a self righteous claim from those who most often dish
out trash and ignore the opinions of others that SOAPBOX is all about listening
and understanding.

  George

    
    George, the US is both a democracy and a republic. Is there a problem?

    
      I wasn't actually aware there WAS a debate in this topic.  I still
     don't see one.  Basically, a Republic is just "no king".  A
     Democracy is "rule of the people".  Both are matters of degree.
    
      What's to debate ?
    
      bb

    >a self righteous claim from those who most often dish out trash and
    >ignore the opinions of others that SOAPBOX is all about listening and
    >understanding.
    
    Where's that Pot and Kettle note?
    
    DougO

RE                      <<< Note 338.42 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>      I wasn't actually aware there WAS a debate in this topic.  I still
>     don't see one.  Basically, a Republic is just "no king".  A
>     Democracy is "rule of the people".  Both are matters of degree.
>    
>      What's to debate ?
    
  You tell me. The reason I asked was that in several previous notes I got
beat up for saying essentially what you wrote. There is a faction that believes
very strongly that the terms democracy and republic are mutually exclusive with
democracy being a town meeting form of government and republic being more of a
representative form of government.

  When I say in these debates that the U.S.A. is a democracy I get back flack
about how I should "know better" and that the U.S.A. is a republic and not
a democracy.

  So all I want to know from those folks is what their definition might be,
and why my definition (the dictionary definition) is wrong.

  Of course this all means that I don't listen which is what SOAPBOX is all
about.

  George

RE       <<< Note 338.43 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Where's that Pot and Kettle note?
>    
>    DougO

  I'd go easy there DougO, if there is a Pot & Kettle note, your note on how
SOAPBOX is all about listening and understanding would get the P&K note of the
year. 

  George

    
      Well, George, it's really due to the unfortunate naming of our
     political parties.  If they were just named "hidebound conservatives"
     and "kneejerk liberals", we wouldn't argue over the definitions.
    
      bb

RE                      <<< Note 338.46 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      Well, George, it's really due to the unfortunate naming of our
>     political parties.  If they were just named "hidebound conservatives"
>     and "kneejerk liberals", we wouldn't argue over the definitions.
    
  ... wana bet?

  George

    
    RE: .39
    
    > trying to cram opinions 
    
    I voice my opinions... which for the most part are cynical...
    
     So what? 
    
    Your problem is that you state opinion as fact... and then try to
    defend yourself with verbosity ad naseum...
    
     RE: Insults...
    
     That's cause your such a freakin easy target....
    
    
     

  Give it a rest alternate polaski.

  Ok, you guys who are always beating me up about the United States not being
a Democracy, where are you hiding. Come out and fight like ducks.

  George

    
    RE: .49
    
    > Give it a rest alternate polaski.
    
    Good answer!!!
    
    Good answer!!!

>                     <<< Note 338.49 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>  Ok, you guys who are always beating me up about the United States not being
>a Democracy, where are you hiding. Come out and fight like ducks.

Arguing/discussing something with you is a total waste of time. You always 
have _YOUR_ opinion. when presented with eveidence based on dozens of 
experts in a field you dismiss it as "only their opinion" while still
expressing _ONLY_ your opinion that  you are correct.

So I will say it once. We are a republic that was the original intent 
except for the town meetings which were/are a democratic form of local
government.

and in my best "george" voice "The above is my opinion so it is the ultimate 
truth".

Amos

RE    <<< Note 338.51 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>

>Arguing/discussing something with you is a total waste of time. You always 
>have _YOUR_ opinion. when presented with evidence based on dozens of 
>experts in a field you dismiss it as "only their opinion" while still
>expressing _ONLY_ your opinion that  you are correct.

  That is not correct. What I said is that when interpreting the 2nd amendment
of the Constitution, Congress is only bound to decisions of the Supreme Court,
not to the experts that you guys listed.

>So I will say it once. We are a republic that was the original intent 
>except for the town meetings which were/are a democratic form of local
>government.

  That's not the way the dictionary defines those two words. What definition
are you using?

  George

                     <<< Note 338.40 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  And what do I get? The usual insults, an accusation that I am the one trying
> to create confusion, and a self righteous claim from those who most often dish
> out trash and ignore the opinions of others that SOAPBOX is all about listening
> and understanding.

I know, George can fight over the smallest piece of turf with all the 
ferocity and futility of ol' Col. Custer. But in this case, I have to agree 
with him. Soapbox is far more often used as a...well...soapbox, then a 
forum for "listening and understanding." And not very pretty, with a few 
very notable exceptions :-).

Tom 

    I think this all gets back to topic 50 were people were
    giving Clinton a hard time for failing to provide leadership in
    some areas, especially in cutting spending.

    That string George said entered a note which said:

>  There are no good leaders.
>
>  And this is good. In a democracy the people should lead.
 
    I took this as his argument to defend Clinton for failing to
    lead. SO I replied (from 50.695)

>   Since when is this a democracy? The founding fathers knew better.
>   In most cases a democracy is a bad form of government.

    There was then a brief discussion about what a democracy is, and
    rather than rathole further, George created this topic.


    I picked on George because I felt his comment about "the people
    should lead" would only apply to a true democracy which we are not.



    George....I think the point is that democracy is a relative term.
    In a true democracy everyone has a vote on every issue. Certainly
    the U.S. is not a true democracy. However people call governments
    a democracy even when the people have votes on some of the issues.
    This is not the strict political science definition of a democracy,
    but it is a popular one, and by this definition the U.S. is a democracy. 


    Sorry I caused all sorts of people to get on your case in this topic.
    However, my original point from topic 50 stands. In a true
    democracy the people should lead, but we are not a true democracy.


    					Ed
    
    

    
    Just stirring the pot here...what was the difference between a Republic
    in the old U.S.S.R. and the Republic of the United States?    :^)
    

RE         <<< Note 338.55 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Forest City Madman" >>>

>    Just stirring the pot here...what was the difference between a Republic
>    in the old U.S.S.R. and the Republic of the United States?    :^)
    
  Obviously there are many differences, communism versus capitalism, one party
with no choice versus two parties with ... well two parties. 

  But the thing they have in common, and the thing that makes them both
Republics is that both were born in a revolution in which they threw out the
system where the head of state was a monarch and they replaced it with a system
that did not have a monarch. Thus they were both republics. 

  George 

    A democratic body is ruled by majority vote.  The vote must be
    in public (hear that: Congress?)  The will of the majority overrules
    the minority.
    
    Therefore, Congress is a democracy.
    
    A Republican form of government is where the people excersize their
    sovereign powers themselves, or through delegation (congresscriters)
    to the government via public servants.  In America, the people
    are sovereigns, excersizing self-rule with the governments instituted
    with specific and limited (via Constitutions) powers and in specific
    jurisdictions.
    
    Therefore "we" are sovereigns.  We abide by common law.  Do we
    need to conform to every dictate coming down from DC or our state
    capitol?  No.  Does a major computer company have to?  Yes, because
    they exist at the whim of the government.  Wait 'till you get a
    national identity card, or a sosh#, then you exist at the whim of
    the government too and get to abide by statute, ordinance and mandate.
                         

    
    Democracy is like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top.
    

    Its arrival gives us pleasure and its departure simply leaves us
    hungrier for more!

    
    I wish I'd said that 8^/.

    You will Debra, you will.