They are decided by the winner of the popular vote in democracies.

np- Were Jim Crow laws legitimate, in your view? They were all like, enacted through the legislature, signed by the governor, and so forth.

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

If he uses this to make some kind point, how will be react to a major event?

As opposed to those "old" terrorists? Shook worthy

Tin soldiers and Conway coming
We're finally on our own
This winter I hear the drumming
None dead in Ohio

When did the US become a democracy?

1789

And you should check what the definition of representative democracy

I did not claim that the US is a democracy. Quite the opposite.

"Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[2] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a crowned republic, Ireland is a parliamentary republic, and the United States is a federal republic.[3]"

We are not a direct democracy. The states elect the president.

What about all those parliamentary countries like the UK and Canada where the PM is determined by the number of MPs that support them.

You asked when we became a democracy. Not my fault you didn't know.

A huge problem in the US is the winner-takes-all principle and the resulting two party system.

There is no diversity and no need to work together with parties with different views. The US system paints everything as black or white, for or against.

This is dangerous since it has a tendency to divide people.

I would argue that rara is right, we're not a small d democracy. That would imply one-person one-vote representation or at least something close to that. That's not at all what we currently have.

In fact, if you go back through our history you see something. We've implemented the heavy machinery of advanced systems to deny millions representation since our founding. In the beginning, the main culprit was obviously slavery. For a brief shining moment, that was abolished and black Americans even gained many legislative seats in many states in the Bible Belt South. But then we had Reconstruction, and again machinery was put into place to silence the majorities and enforce the will of the property-owning white man above all others.

This machinery has been recognized and pushed back against at various points in our history as well. Women fought for the right to vote and were finally recognized as being equally worthy of participation in our supposed "democracy." But at that time in many states, women of color did not qualify for that right to vote. Maybe on paper they did, but not practically. Heavy machinery was put into place to deny black Americans and other people of color access to social services when the taxpayer-heavy New Deal was put into place. This was put into place by all branches--not just the legislative. Again, citizens' right to a small d democracy was denied.

In the 1960s, Jim Crow was finally abolished and the public school resource was forcefully integrated by the federal government. In fact, they had to bring in the National Guard in order to do so. But many states in the south wouldn't abide by federal court orders regarding voting and schools until well into the 1970s, and even then they would find ways to fight and reverse those laws all the way up until 2017. In fact, schools are arguably far more segregated today in the U.S. than they were in the 1980s and 1990s [1]. Heavy machinery that cost many taxpayer dollars for legal fights, political fights, and local struggles for power over who got to be in what school district and what school district got the funds. And it usually tended to play out a certain way, not just in the South as we all know but throughout the country.

Today, that machinery takes on its modern forms, which I've described above. There is also the powerful and unaccountable local police force problem which we see constantly on social media videos where another unarmed black man is killed for no reason, and no justice is found.

We as citizens must recognize this cancer if we are to eradicate it. No longer can we pretend that "everything is okay." We must recognize that our system is completely broken and does not represent the will of the people. We must recognize that not every election is legitimate just because it has an outcome. We must recognize that if we want to change these things, every one of us has to take responsibility and fight every day to do what we can. Because the U.S. is absolutely not a small d democracy today--but it can be one, if we are willing to fight for it.

[1] http://www.alternet.org/story/145553...public_schools



http://www.contactsenators.com/

Agree it certainly seems like a parliamentary system where multiple parties are represented would work far better. For ex we would currently have a progressive wing, a libertarian wing, conservative, etc. As it stands now the idea of representation is a sham. If you are not part of the one party in power, you basically have zero say and that ends up making people feel angry and disenfranchised.

I know the history. I was responding to a post. Then you interjected trying to muddy the waters.

It's not my fault you can't follow a conversation.

rara a few years behind with the derposphere's we aren't a democracy blabber.

I followed the conversation and like the ACA thread you decided to ask dumb questions instead of actually showing how the guy was wrong.

BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH

You're appealing to your own authority not because of experience, knowledge or involvement, but because you simply existed at a particular moment in history?

G
T
F
O

My point with parliamentary systems is that 99% of the people do not get to vote directly for their PM (the person with the primary executive authority) so the US is not alone in not having a nationwide popular vote. Of all the major democracies of the world only France seems to have a popular vote for a President or executive office holder (not counting those with minor procedural powers as in most countries without QEII in that role)

Can't overstate how atrocious the TV media has been on this. I'm currently watching MSNBC and the PREMISE OF THE SEGMENT IS HOW KELLYANNE GOEBBLES SHOULD HANDLE HER MISTAKE.

THERE WAS NO MISTAKE YOU DUMB MOTHER****ERS

I didn't see a video and don't know about batons, but I'm sure at least tear gas and pepper spray were used on the 200+ peaceful protestors and journalists that were arrested and charged with felonies in Washington DC.

The false arrest and heinous overcharging and collective punishment are abuse as much as baton strikes.

The issue isn't that the president isn't elected directly. The problem is first-past-the-post. This is then compounded by the vast differences in population in the individual states.

Also infuriating that after all that handwringing by center left media about the use of the word "lie" ("we can't divine intent"), to have MSNBC declaring her statement a mistake. Mistake presumes intent to tell the truth, a presumption that has no basis in Kellyanne's history.

How do you make a mistake using the word MASSACRE? Lmfao