How Pro-Democracy Are You?

[vcczar]

Just for fun poll

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I notice you excluded three VERY important and vital elements of being truly pro-democracy in the United States that are utterly essential, and that the great majority of candidates of both major parties, and the party engines and ideologues themselves, have VERY bad track records at:

-Ending institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates by restricting ballot access, FEC funding, Primary election support by the FEC, coverage and advertising equality, etc. as well as making the FEC nonpartisan, not bipartisan, and perhaps having a special set of courts with strictly nonpartisan membership with no appointment by elected politicians to deal with complaints about judicial irregularities separate from the standard federal courts, which are appointed by elected politicians and mostly for partisan and ideology spoils and patronage appointments, and thus cannot be trusted in this matter to render fair verdicts.

-Abolishing electoral institutions that favour the two party establishment, and greatly handicap other parties, or new parties, like the Electoral College and the First-Past-the-Post House Electoral Districts with State Government drawn (and thoroughly gerrymandered) district lines. These have also become antagonistic to true democracy.

-Getting big money out of the process, or at least severely limiting it's power (big corporate donors and moneyed special interest and lobby, especially ones originating from certain countries, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, in utter violation of U.S. campaign law on such foreign organized groups impacting U.S. elections, but those two countries, and occasionally a few others, have a blind eye turned to them - this must end). Also, corruption in government by big money must be recognized, and bribery and graft taken seriously as crimes and punished, not brushed under the carpet.

The United States will ALWAYS be lagging behind in democracy until these not-elephants-or-donkeys-but-big-animals-nonetheless-in-the-room have been addressed.

This would be part of Free and/or Fair elections.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, but I do have to clarify this, because there seem to be those, even seemingly on this forum, who firmly believe, "free-and-fair," just has to mean balanced voting capability access and lack of, "malfeasance," between the supporters of the two major parties, and in those two parties' Primaries, alone, and the conduct of an election in that limited regard.

Don't forget to take this poll now that you've clarified this. Free and Fair elections would encompass what you are talking about.

[Timur]

4 hours ago, Patine said:

-Ending institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates by restricting ballot access, FEC funding, Primary election support by the FEC, coverage and advertising equality, etc. as well as making the FEC nonpartisan, not bipartisan, and perhaps having a special set of courts with strictly nonpartisan membership with no appointment by elected politicians to deal with complaints about judicial irregularities separate from the standard federal courts, which are appointed by elected politicians and mostly for partisan and ideology spoils and patronage appointments, and thus cannot be trusted in this matter to render fair verdicts.

Also, the criteria for entering the debates should not be 15%. More like 5% or having full ballot access to 270 electoral votes (as long as America has the electoral college, that is).

Edited September 2, 2021 by Timur

[Timur]

As for the answer to the Civil Rights question--it depends. If "women's rights" mean abortion, then no. If it means that everyone should be paid fairly, then yes (granted that the wages are unfair).

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Although I'm not a supporter of free abortion, or using it as a form of birth control, or carrying on with it at the rate it is now, when it comes down to brass tacks, the life, and living standards and livability, of an actualized person (the mother) should always take priority over a potential person that is not yet actualized. To say otherwise is quite warped, twisted, and very disturbing of a point-of-view. That being said, I chastise both sides of the argument because they only focus on the rights of the mother vs. the unborn child, solely and completely, and utterly miss the real problem - the underlying social, economic, cultural, political, and religious failings of both Conservatives and Liberals/Progressives that leads to the abortion rate being so damned high, and the fact that the unborn child, if it does end up being born, is not given a damn about, nor it's mother, or any of their suffering and strife, AFTER actually being born...

Don’t forget to take the poll. 

[vcczar]

Let's see if we can get more people to take this.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

May I have a, "neither promote democracy nearly sufficiently, and both benefit highly, and without desire for change, from many highly undemocratic institutions, abuses of incumbency, and stacking of the deck," or a synonymous abbreviated, choice, for number 2, please?

Ok, I made a similar--more concise--option. 

[pilight]

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ok, I made a similar--more concise--option. 

I want to change my vote

[MrPotatoTed]

The only reason I couldn't give my full support to all the questions is that these past few years have opened my eyes to just how overwhelmingly STUPID so much of our country is.  Like...intentionally, willfully stupid.  Proudly embracing their stupidity.

I have no problem with them being stupid in the privacy of their own homes, or with their families.

But when choices are being made that impact me and my family's well-being, I need the smart people to be at the helm.  

[vcczar]

19 minutes ago, pilight said:

I want to change my vote

Ok, I'll make note of the change here.

[vcczar]

7 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

The only reason I couldn't give my full support to all the questions is that these past few years have opened my eyes to just how overwhelmingly STUPID so much of our country is.  Like...intentionally, willfully stupid.  Proudly embracing their stupidity.

I have no problem with them being stupid in the privacy of their own homes, or with their families.

But when choices are being made that impact me and my family's well-being, I need the smart people to be at the helm.  

I understand that. I don't consider myself a Populist. I'm more of what I would label as a Pragmatic Meritocrat Progressive. However, I think almost all these Pro-Democracy principles would lead to a more engaged, more knowledgeable, and relatively more rational populous than the current system or a more restrictive system. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, vcczar said:

I understand that. I don't consider myself a Populist. I'm more of what I would label as a Pragmatic Meritocrat Progressive. However, I think almost all these Pro-Democracy principles would lead to a more engaged, more knowledgeable, and relatively more rational populous than the current system or a more restrictive system. 

You are more optimistic than I am. ;c)
 

[vcczar]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

You are more optimistic than I am. ;c)
 

Maybe so.

[Timur]

To be honest, I have little respect for "the people." If they are stupid, there should be no democratic government.

Who do the people choose? Andrew Jackson, Ben Tillman, and James Vardaman. Why, the elitist planter class politician LeRoy Perkins is preferable...

Edited September 3, 2021 by Timur

[pilight]

8 hours ago, Timur said:

To be honest, I have little respect for "the people." If they are stupid, there should be no democratic government.

Every time you call "the people" stupid, you should remind yourself that you are one of them

[vcczar]

13 hours ago, Timur said:

Ben Tillman, and James Vardaman. Why, the elitist planter class politician LeRoy Perkins is preferable...

Tillman and Vardaman were populists but they weren't very Democratically elected. Both were elected during Disenfranchisement...99% of Blacks could not vote and almost as many poor whites could not vote. You had to be able to pay a poll tax, which a significant part of the populations, both black and white, couldn't afford in these impoverishes states. As such, the two were elected by elites and middle class.