Text 23959, 68 rader
Skriven 2008-11-21 20:43:20 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 23870 av BjöRn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Majorities
==================
Hello Bjorn,

>RB>Which applies in any country without compulsory voting (which has its
>RB>own problems). If you compare the so-called "majorities" of parties in
>RB>our "democratic" countries with the number of eligible voters, all of u
>RB>have minority governments.

BF>You obviously haven't studied the situation in Sweden. We've had as
BF>much as 91% of the eligible voters casting their votes, and we *don't*
BF>have compulsory voting here.

Wow!  The former Soviet Union had a near 100% turnout of the eligible
voters, but that was with compulsory voting.  Hard to imagine an entire
country even getting over 90% of the eligible voters to the polls, much
less getting them all to actually vote.  Unless absentee voting is the
norm, rather than the exception.

BF>We've quite often had coalitions and even single parties with
BF>absolute majority even if you compare the votes with the number
BF>of the eligible voters.

Unlike other democracies, the USA has a two-party system, rather
than a multi-party system.  However, the early history of the USA
did have multiple parties vying for the presidency, with members
in the Congress from all parties.  In fact, the U.S. Constitution
makes no mention of political parties.  Nor is their any mention
of economic system.  More like a nuts and bolts approach as to
how government should be run.  The addition of the Bill of Rights
and other Amendments to the Constitution make it more of a human
rights document, but does not change the original intent.

In a previous message you mentioned that much of the U.S. Constitution
is based on English law.  While that is true, there is one very
important distinction (aside from the fact that England has no written
constitution) that makes the U.S. Constitution and form of government
very different.  And that is the concept of where rights are derived
from.  The English version holds that the people get rights from
government.  The American version holds that the people own the rights,
and it is the obligation of government to protect those rights.  IOW,
American government is run "with the consent of the governed", not the
other way around.  To stress the point, the Queen of England has one
power - the power to dissolve parliament.  She is also head of the
Church of England, and is viewed as a goddess by her loyal subjects.
The President of the United States is no god or goddess, and in a
way must be an atheist (no religious test being part of the U.S.
Constitution), and has no power to dissolve the Congress (although
he/she can declare martial law and suspend elections indefinitely).

As to which European government is closest to the American form
of government, that would be Germany, which has a federalist system,
but not a republican form of government (Germany's form of government
is parliamentary rather than republican).  The best way to describe
American government is as a republican form of government with a
federalist system.

BF>So I guess Sweden must be declared "the brightest shining beacon of
BF>democracy in the world" then? :)

Nah.  That honor belongs to Louisiana, which has the best politicians
that money can buy.  ;)

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * My name is Lee! I know Kung Fu!

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)