A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
============
representative democracy and capitalism are the most effective way to
ensure liberty, freedom and justice for all.
================

Like the Queen of Hearts, you are free to define words anyway you
please. And, yes, I know that you Americans have your own specific
definition of "representative democracy". I'd like to suggest,
however, that you're playing fast and loose with the definition of
"representative".

How so?


You've had elections where a significant proportion of your electorate
(hundreds of thousands? millions? you're the American, you'll know the
exact data.) voted Green in the hope that their view of the world would
be represented in your Congress.

And they lost. That's the way it works. All they need to do is convince
enough people to vote their way and they get to enact their agenda. What's
unrepresentative about that?

But the system of government your hold
up as praiseworthy disrespects the ballots of Green voters. How is that
representative?

How are their ballots disrespected? They are allowed to vote for anyone they
choose, and their ballots are counted. Nothing could be more representative.
Just because they comprise a minority political party with an agenda not
attractive to a majority of voters, and thus they lost in the election
doesn't mean that they have not had their due process respected.


Or, even more dramatically, in recent history, how was your process
"representative" when it ignored the wishes of millions who cast
ballots for Ross Perot and the Reform Party.

Nobody ignored their wishes. They voted. They lost. That's the way democracy
works. Moreover, you mischaracterize our system by making the erroneous
presumption that it is impossible for minority political parties to be
represented in our government. It's not. Beyond the presidential election,
there are innumerable elections at every level of government in which
Greens, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and politicians of every
political persuasion are well represented.

Just take Boulder, CO as an example. While the vast majority of Colorado is
staunchly Republican and quite conservative, Boulder is a bastion of Green
Liberalism. So much so that it's asinine policies (such as its reverence for
prairie dogs) is actually destroying both the environment and the economy of
the area.

And there are independents in Congress, albeit few of them, but that's the
choice of the constitutients in their districts.


I accept your answer if you tell me that that's the American system,
that all candidates and parties are aware of the system, and that
everyone has to live with the consequences of that system. Fair enough!
It's YOUR system.

Indeed. That's precisely how it works.


But please don't hold it up as an ideal.

Why not? It's worked better than any other system on the planet, ever.

Please don't presume to
lecture, for example, the Germans, about "representatve" democracy.
You'll note that the voices of Greens and Perot-like politicians in
German are heard in their parliament.

To what effect?

Maybe, one day, when you bring
your system into the 20th century (never mind the 21st), others will
listen.

Or, maybe places like Germany will come to see that "inclusiveness" merely
for the purposes of political correctness does not serve the interests or
needs of the nation.


"Representative" indeed!

Indeed, and most exactly.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

One comment only required: you clearly cannot concieve of an electoral
system or a form of government that is both different and better than
yours.

You belittle the German model. Likely you should study history before
you are so quick to dismiss alternate systems. As you likely don't know
(judging from your response), the German model was essentially based on
the American model. Under the tutelage of Americans occupying Germany,
post-WW2, a governmental system was devised. The resulting system took
the best parts of your American system and improved on it.

I know. That may be difficult for you to comprehend. Yes, some things
are better than whatever exists in the USA.

frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++++++++

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

One comment only required: you clearly cannot concieve of an electoral
system or a form of government that is both different and better than
yours.

Because history has demonstrated that there isn't one.

You belittle the German model.

Guess who imposed the "German model" on Germany?

Likely you should study history before
you are so quick to dismiss alternate systems.

History proves that our system is the best.

As you likely don't know
(judging from your response), the German model was essentially based on
the American model. Under the tutelage of Americans occupying Germany,
post-WW2, a governmental system was devised. The resulting system took
the best parts of your American system and improved on it.

Not really.


I know. That may be difficult for you to comprehend. Yes, some things
are better than whatever exists in the USA.

Nah.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser