On 23 Apr 2012 20:07:52 GMT, Han wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:21:52 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Red Green" wrote in message
. ..
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...


"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure
of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the
political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been
lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.-- Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

There are a great variety of "democracies" around these days. I think
Wikipedia has it right:
quote
A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially
apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter" (Latin:
res publica) and where offices of state are subsequently directly or
indirectly elected or appointed.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified
definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a
monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res
publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to
describe a state using this form of government.
/quote

The US is somewhat special among these because of the way the Senate is
chosen, which is not population-, but state-based. Moreover, it seems as
if here in the US, the power of the Senate is relatively greater than
equivalent institutions elsewhere. The other distinction is whether there
is a popularly chosen (in whichever direct or indirect way) President or a
monarch who inherited the titular head of state job. In a sense countries
with a president have more power vested in the head of state than most
monarchies have in their Prime Minister. Keep in mind that the Queen of
England has very little real power, and the Queen of the Netherlands
practically has to ask the PM for permission to blow her nose - everything
and anything she does as a head of state has to be approved by the PM and
his/her cabinet. The Kings of Nordic countries similarly. The US and
French President have real power, but then the German President is more
like a monarch.

Where democracy of sorts comes in is by the direct election of
representatives. Again there are many different implementations.

BTW, all the countries mentioned have a Constitution which forms the basis
of law in each respective country.

Readin an interesting book right now:
Why Nations fail: The origin of Power, Prosperity and Poverty by Acemoglu
& Robinson

Yes, that's a very good explanation -- better than most textbooks, or
maybe all textbooks. Our particular form is sometimes called a
"Madisonian republic."

We sometimes get some hardheads in here who insist that the US is not
a democracy, but rather a republic, and if I can get them to discuss
it, we usually learn they don't really understand that the two are not
opposing systems, but are descriptions of different aspects of a
system.

Madison and Hamilton, in their discussions of "republics" in the
Federalist Papers, were talking about a structure of government.
Jefferson was talking about the way we elect officials -- how we man
the republic. When Madison and Hamilton railed against "democracy,"
they were talking about direct democracies. As Jefferson pointed out
in the letter from which I quoted above, this representative democracy
was a "new principle." He wasn't completely accurate about that, but
close enough. Today, it's considered to be one of the basic types of
democracy and by far the most common.

I've heard about the book you mention; I hope I find time to read it.

--
Ed Huntress