5 ms·

For us foreigners, knowing that America has strong democratic roots, it is obvious (and worrying) that the majority of american citizens actually agree with tha

by return0 13y ago

For us foreigners, knowing that America has strong democratic roots, it is obvious (and worrying) that the majority of american citizens actually agree with that.

duaneb 13y ago
Well, as a republic, the government is usually about 2 years out of sync with the public: we won't actually get a chance to yell at them until next election.
crocowhile 13y ago
Well, can't blame the electorate this time: Obama is doing the opposite of what he always promised and got elected for.
- smsm42 13y ago
  That argument would be very convincing if Obama weren't elected twice. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
  - vacri 13y ago
    You make it sound like there was a viable alternative, like the other party in the two-party system wasn't being held to ransom by ultra-nationalists.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      That's because it is exactly the situation. Nobody is "held ransom" by anybody. But voters that think like you - low-information voters that can vote for anybody provided that he is "our guy" because "their guy" is The Devil himself - are exactly the reason why it happens again and again. And will happen until the majority abandons such mentality - which I personally wouldn't expect happening any time soon.
      - vacri 13y ago
        Voters that think like me live in a multipolar democracy that currently has a minority government in power. It's a tacit weakness of the US system that there can only be two viable parties. "If everyone changed and voted for a third person" is not a retort, because it still requires everyone jumping on the same bandwagon to effect a win; it'll just be a different brand of wagon.
        Volpe 13y ago
        It's a two party system, but the two parties don't have to be the same ones that are their now. I don't understand the "viable alternative" arguement. You are saying "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" <--- Is that what you mean? That seems self defeating. ...
        vacri 13y ago
        If you had rapid iteration - elections every month - then a tertiary party would have something of a chance. As it stands, the iterations are so slow, that with FPTP voting, the two main parties will just move slightly to diminish the threat - the incumbent edifice carries on. With preferential voting (or similar), you actually have the realistic probability of more than one party being in power. Here in Australia, the current government is formed from one major party, one minor party, and a couple of independents. It's not just 'mathematically possible', but a plausible outcome. That can't really happen with FPTP voting. Well, it can happen, but it's an oddity - see the current situation in the UK with the lib dems. "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" The problem here is that by voting for someone whom you slightly prefer, you split the vote in a FPTP system, making them both lose out to the third person you didn't want in. If 60% of the population want a left-wing candidate, and they're split evenly-ish, they'll still lose out to the single right-wing candidate who only has 40%. It sounds self-defeating on paper, but in real terms it's more like self-preservation.
        smsm42 13y ago
        Two viable parties are plenty enough if they are real parties and not a collection of people that use different-colored jerseys to play the same game. Unfortunately, right now majority of voter will vote for "their guy" almost no matter what, which lets "their guy" very broad license on any bad behavior. If the voters would say "either you put a leash on NSA or we're not voting for you, period" - then things may have been going in different direction. But voters don't do that - if you see, for example, how many voters of party A supported government surveillance when party A is in power and when party B is in power, the difference is depressingly significant. Because if "our guys" do it, it must be good, but if "their guys" do it, it must be bad. That's how we get into such a mess.
- daxelrod 13y ago
  We, the electorate, can be blamed for believing him. Or for feeling forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  The problem is Obama needs swing voters, and swing voters tend to vote kneejerk on national security. If he follows his personal values, he'll alienate them. It's a mess.
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
And yet, the vast majority of US citizens still agrees. I mean, they have the right to bear arms so that when they strongly disagree with their government, they can form an army and overthrow it (or something, whatever that amendment is for). If not that, at the very least they can strongly protest against the decisions and policy made, vote for a third party and break the two-party system, or vote / demand the voting and government system to be upturned to stop having to choose for the lesser or two evils in the form of a single man who will get most of the blame and responsibility for poor governmental decisions.
jebblue 13y ago
>> America has strong democratic roots No, America has strong American roots. Democracies and Republics both corrupt themselves over time. America is unlike any other nation on earth, it's a hybrid, a democratic republic.

by return0 13y ago

For us foreigners, knowing that America has strong democratic roots, it is obvious (and worrying) that the majority of american citizens actually agree with that.

duaneb 13y ago

Well, as a republic, the government is usually about 2 years out of sync with the public: we won't actually get a chance to yell at them until next election.

crocowhile 13y ago

Well, can't blame the electorate this time: Obama is doing the opposite of what he always promised and got elected for.

smsm42 13y ago
That argument would be very convincing if Obama weren't elected twice. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
- vacri 13y ago
  You make it sound like there was a viable alternative, like the other party in the two-party system wasn't being held to ransom by ultra-nationalists.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    That's because it is exactly the situation. Nobody is "held ransom" by anybody. But voters that think like you - low-information voters that can vote for anybody provided that he is "our guy" because "their guy" is The Devil himself - are exactly the reason why it happens again and again. And will happen until the majority abandons such mentality - which I personally wouldn't expect happening any time soon.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Voters that think like me live in a multipolar democracy that currently has a minority government in power. It's a tacit weakness of the US system that there can only be two viable parties. "If everyone changed and voted for a third person" is not a retort, because it still requires everyone jumping on the same bandwagon to effect a win; it'll just be a different brand of wagon.
      - Volpe 13y ago
        It's a two party system, but the two parties don't have to be the same ones that are their now. I don't understand the "viable alternative" arguement. You are saying "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" <--- Is that what you mean? That seems self defeating. ...
        vacri 13y ago
        If you had rapid iteration - elections every month - then a tertiary party would have something of a chance. As it stands, the iterations are so slow, that with FPTP voting, the two main parties will just move slightly to diminish the threat - the incumbent edifice carries on. With preferential voting (or similar), you actually have the realistic probability of more than one party being in power. Here in Australia, the current government is formed from one major party, one minor party, and a couple of independents. It's not just 'mathematically possible', but a plausible outcome. That can't really happen with FPTP voting. Well, it can happen, but it's an oddity - see the current situation in the UK with the lib dems. "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" The problem here is that by voting for someone whom you slightly prefer, you split the vote in a FPTP system, making them both lose out to the third person you didn't want in. If 60% of the population want a left-wing candidate, and they're split evenly-ish, they'll still lose out to the single right-wing candidate who only has 40%. It sounds self-defeating on paper, but in real terms it's more like self-preservation.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        Two viable parties are plenty enough if they are real parties and not a collection of people that use different-colored jerseys to play the same game. Unfortunately, right now majority of voter will vote for "their guy" almost no matter what, which lets "their guy" very broad license on any bad behavior. If the voters would say "either you put a leash on NSA or we're not voting for you, period" - then things may have been going in different direction. But voters don't do that - if you see, for example, how many voters of party A supported government surveillance when party A is in power and when party B is in power, the difference is depressingly significant. Because if "our guys" do it, it must be good, but if "their guys" do it, it must be bad. That's how we get into such a mess.
daxelrod 13y ago
We, the electorate, can be blamed for believing him. Or for feeling forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
Tloewald 13y ago
The problem is Obama needs swing voters, and swing voters tend to vote kneejerk on national security. If he follows his personal values, he'll alienate them. It's a mess.

Cthulhu_ 13y ago

And yet, the vast majority of US citizens still agrees. I mean, they have the right to bear arms so that when they strongly disagree with their government, they can form an army and overthrow it (or something, whatever that amendment is for). If not that, at the very least they can strongly protest against the decisions and policy made, vote for a third party and break the two-party system, or vote / demand the voting and government system to be upturned to stop having to choose for the lesser or two evils in the form of a single man who will get most of the blame and responsibility for poor governmental decisions.

jebblue 13y ago

>> America has strong democratic roots No, America has strong American roots. Democracies and Republics both corrupt themselves over time. America is unlike any other nation on earth, it's a hybrid, a democratic republic.