Why is democracy so screwed in many countries?

[philosopher]

I live in Denmark. Denmark, like other Scandinavian countries have a parliamentary system with a limit of 2 % votes for any political party to get seats in the parliament. It is amongst the lowest limits in the entire world, but it allows virtually everyone the right to be represented politically.

Not only that, but the government has no veto or the sole right to make law proposals - let alone let a law through.

Often our government is in minority. It often represents only 20-30 % of the total seats, and the remaning seats are supporters of the government who gets to support the governing parties. The government in turn can make deals with either the supporters - or the opposition. It allows for flexibility.

It means that although the majority gets represented, it is not like 51 % decides the fate of the remaning 49 % as is often the case in many other countries - like say Turkey, U.S., France, UK etc. They also often seeks to make broader deals/agreements across the political compass, ensuring that 60-70 % of the people are being represented.

If the supporters (or the government) finds a situation unsuitable for what they want to achieve, either because the supporting parties or the opposition won't make any deals with them, they can call for an early election. And that's about it. That is the only major power the PM has - although if the supporters won't support them anymore, they can call for a no-confidence vote and force an early election.

Elections are not fixed for a 4 year period. Its only the maximum number of years between each election.

Aside from that, the administration has got no right to declare war on its own. A declaration of war has to be passed by a majority of the MP's.
The same happens with entering or withdrawal from international agreements.

Now, look at the U.S.:

Donald Trump has got a lot of power. He can do virtually whatever he likes. Get the U.S. out of WTO? No problem - he just signs a withdrawal.
Declare war on some poor country? No problem... just sign a declaration of war.

He has so much power, that I doubt that was the will of the American people.

Also, because of the U.S. electoral system, a lot of people are not being represented. Its called gerry mandering.
We've got nothing of that in Denmark. Everyone's votes is equal and we have a lot of local places to vote.

And we allow prisoners to vote as well. Why shouldn't criminals have the right to vote? What damage can a criminal do to the elections? They ain't got a majority anyway...

I think that the idea of a president holding so much political power, is ridiculous. How the hell can you say a system is democratic if it allows for the president to do whatever he wish, and ignore the other half of the population?

That's the sort of things we Scandinavians don't understand about the world...

Why allow one, uno, ein, 1 individual virtual dictotorial power and call it a democracy?

[Walker]

Once again, Trump is being accused of things that Obama actually did, and in this case it's predicated on what Trump might do.

It's like Clinton's crimes being projected onto Trump, while Clinton gets a pass.

These Progressives are insufferable projectionists (Racists projecting their racism onto others, etc.)

How f****ing stupid can people be? (rhetorical)


Denmark Population: 5.8 million
United States Population: 326 million

*

“This is the kind of socially corrosive federal overreach that Trump was elected to roll back.”

Obama's school discipline guidelines put students in grave danger

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... ave-danger

"For parents of American schoolchildren, this may be the biggest Obama administration scandal they never heard of. Duncan took the policies that led to the Parkland school shooting and forced them upon school districts serving millions of students, without the consent or knowledge of parents or teachers. And because advocates and journalists have framed the policy as an "effort to fight racial discrimination," it's politically incorrect to question it. Despite the fact that teachers overwhelmingly oppose Washington's efforts to dictate discipline standards and engineer results, they risk being labeled as racist for questioning them."

[philosopher]

Once again, Trump is being accused of things that Obama actually did, and in this case it's predicated on what Trump might do.

It's like Clinton's crimes being projected onto Trump, while Clinton gets a pass.

These Progressives are insufferable projectionists (Racists projecting their racism onto others, etc.)

How f****ing stupid can people be? (rhetorical)


Denmark Population: 5.8 million
United States Population: 326 million

*

“This is the kind of socially corrosive federal overreach that Trump was elected to roll back.”

Obama's school discipline guidelines put students in grave danger

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... ave-danger

"For parents of American schoolchildren, this may be the biggest Obama administration scandal they never heard of. Duncan took the policies that led to the Parkland school shooting and forced them upon school districts serving millions of students, without the consent or knowledge of parents or teachers. And because advocates and journalists have framed the policy as an "effort to fight racial discrimination," it's politically incorrect to question it. Despite the fact that teachers overwhelmingly oppose Washington's efforts to dictate discipline standards and engineer results, they risk being labeled as racist for questioning them."

You didn't answer my question:

Why do presidents have so much power?
Why not give all the power the parliament?

In the case of the U.S. the House of Representatives should have the most political power. Not the Senate. Not the president. The President should be more like PM with the same power as a PM has in any scandinavian country.

The size of the population has absolutely nothing to do with its political system.
Any nation that can have democratic elections, should be able to have a political system with all the powers vested in the parliament elected with representatives of the people.

Population sizes matters nothing in this regard.

Entire Bicameralism is ridiculous. Why on Earth should a country have two chambers? It makes no sense.
Why not a single chamber with elected representatives?

[Walker]

Your premise is flawed.

Educate yourself.

Begin with the judicial branch, which holds disproportionate power, and not constitutionally.

[philosopher]

Your premise is flawed.

Educate yourself.

Begin with the judicial branch, which holds disproportionate power.

How is my premise flawed?

Why bicameralism? Why not unicameralism? Unicameralism makes sense. Bicameralism does not.

In regards to the judicial branch, ones again US system makes no sense. Why on earth should judges be elected politically? The judges should not be elected by anyone. It should be separated from the powers of the president and parliament. It should hold no political power.

The parliament should make the laws. Then the judicial system should decide - from those laws - which laws are being broken by whom. If the parliament is unsatisfied witht the conclusions from the judges, the parliament is free to re-write the laws.

You shouldn't have judges appointed by the president, because he would only appoint somone who agrees with him the most. Those powers should be separated.

[Walker]

Because of your fake concern about what Trump might do, and because you have no clue about the actual damage that Obama did, which is why you should educate yourself before arrogantly rewriting the constitution, or attempting to discuss the constitution, based on your ignorance.

[philosopher]

Because of your fake concern about what Trump might do, and because you have no clue about the actual damage that Obama did, which is why you should educate yourself before arrogantly rewriting the constitution, or attempting to discuss the constitution, based on your ignorance.

I'm aware of what Obama did. Everyone in the US uses gerrymandering and politically appointed judges of the supreme court.

The parliament - unicameral (in the U.S: The House of Representatives) should make the laws. Then the judicial system should decide - from those laws - which laws are being broken by whom. If the parliament is unsatisfied with the conclusions from the judges, the parliament is free to re-write the laws.

You shouldn't have judges appointed by the president, because he would only appoint somone who agrees with him the most. Those powers should be separated.

Then everyone is equal before the law, no matter if you are Trump, Hillary, Obama or whoever.

[philosopher]

Even in my country, high judges are appointed by the government administration. Its unfair. High judges should be appointed by election in the parliament by all the representatives - members of parliament. Or by popular vote every 4th year or whatever term.

Bicameralism exists in the EU as well. We have the EU Parliament - and the Commission. Its unfair too. We should only have the EU parliament.

Bicameralism and government appointed judges have no place in a fair democratic system. That's the boiled down version of my OP.

[tim3003]

Because it doesnt produce the results it aspires to:

I hate to sound elitist or doom-mongering, but these days elections are about clever politicians conning the uneducated and fearful people who make up the majority of any electorate into giving them their votes. We would hope elections are about the public being informed by those who seek to represent them, and being helped to make up their minds in a thoughtful way. Maybe the problem is exacerbated by the mass media, where politicans who are good at melodramatic sound-bites get reported on more than those whose answers are more considered but generate less emotive effect.

What we are left with is an electorate less informed about the range of issues confronting them and more prone to vote through fear of whatever demons have been summoned up by candidates. The obvious example is immigration or foreigners exerting power over them. I'm British, so can't comment on the ins and outs of the Trump effect, but surely the fear of immigration and Chinese exports are his greatest weapons. In the UK the Brexit debate is drowning beneath the stoked-up fears of immigration and of Brussels 'telling us what to do'. This technique is nothing new of course. Hitler used it to great effect.

Maybe a secondary cause is the rise of mass migration in recent years. People from countries whose poverty and corruption seems unending get tired of it and want what they see in the media of life in the west. And the west is compassionate towards refugees - well most of it - so they think they have a good shot at a new life. Hence the fear of an immigrant invasion is easily stirred up and manipluated by candidates in western democracies.

The solution? I think maybe the political cycle needs to complete. If Trump messes up enough and people reconsider, then what he stood for might be seen to be flawed, so the pendulum could swing back to a more compassionate view of humanity. As it was, so will it be again; mankind seldom learns the lessons of history - at least the vast majority of voters don't.

[Walker]

There are more federal workers in the US than there are people in Denmark.

Many of them are from the counties surrounding Washington that feed at the trough filled by the rest of the country.

Quite a large political voting block to influence the politics, based on the size of the country.

*

Here is more reckless, actual damage from the Obama administration that is now being handled constitutionally in the United States, thanks to the Trump administration:

So, there is no need to rewrite the constitution in the US based on some faux concern for democracy.

This particular mess was caused by President Obama and congressional leaders ramming legislation through without review, during a small window of majority power. The ramming through without review violated the due process clause of the constitution.

Politicians rely on the old paradigm that the public has a short memory.

That’s because the media quickly made sure that the public forgot Obama's lies through non-investigation and non-reporting, unlike the fake news story about Trump that was repeated almost 200 times by major media outlets in a single day, that day being this past Friday, and then was quickly silenced when finally informed that they had their facts wrong yet again.

Opioid Crisis

A lot of people in the US forgot Obama’s actual lying remarks implying that physicians and heath-care workers medically diagnose for profit, which were but some of the whoppers not investigated or repeated over and over to the general public, but which were eagerly swallowed when told by the Obama-voters, who really were clueless.

During a televised health care town hall in 2009 at the White House, The Wall Street Journal reported comments by Mr. Obama, “After discussing ways ‘we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves,’ he continued that in general ‘at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.’”

A great deal of Mr. Trump’s time is taken with cleaning up Barack Obama’s and the Democrats’ deadly messes. The horrific report from the CDC of 72,000 overdose deaths last year remind us why Mr. Trump declared the opioid crisis a national health emergency.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -opioid-d/

[FlashDangerpants]

Your constant bullshitting is really just irritating. It makes me have to agree with Walker sometimes, and that makes my digestive system point the wrong way round.

Not only that, but the government has no veto or the sole right to make law proposals - let alone let a law through.

Have you ever heard of a bipartisan congressional bill? They are very common in America, it's where at least one congressman from each party sponsors a new law. You guys aren't special, it's just that you are ignorant.

Often our government is in minority. It often represents only 20-30 % of the total seats, and the remaning seats are supporters of the government who gets to support the governing parties. The government in turn can make deals with either the supporters - or the opposition. It allows for flexibility.

Britain currently has a minority government. Apparently from another thread you think this counts as Right Wing Facism.
That^^, incidentally, is an ad hominem. It is fair because something you are claiming here is in direct contradiction to something you have claimed before elsewhere, thus the attack is against the man - but the move is not fallacious. I just taught you some introductory logic, you are welcome.

It means that although the majority gets represented, it is not like 51 % decides the fate of the remaning 49 % as is often the case in many other countries - like say Turkey, U.S., France, UK etc. They also often seeks to make broader deals/agreements across the political compass, ensuring that 60-70 % of the people are being represented.

Does the Danish minority government still rely on deeply right wing an anti immigration party to get legislation pushed through with those 60-70%? How is this a great thing?

Donald Trump has got a lot of power. He can do virtually whatever he likes. Get the U.S. out of WTO? No problem - he just signs a withdrawal.
Declare war on some poor country? No problem... just sign a declaration of war.

The office of president has been granted limited fast track rights to negotiate trade agreements, but the ultimate choice remains with Congress. Trump probably can't remove the USA from WTO without congressional support, it certainly wouldn't be easy even if he could.

The president is not empowered to declare war at all, congress is.

He has so much power, that I doubt that was the will of the American people.

The presidency has much less power than you imagine, that's why Trump has never enjoyed it.

Anything beyond business as usual that they ever do inevitably gets tested in the Supreme Court, and some stuff doesn't even get there. this happened again just the other day, he's been trying to phase out an Obama law called DACA that protects illegal immigrants brought to the country as children from deportation ... he signed off on that a long time ago. It is currently blocked by a 9th circuit and the SC - which has a conservative majority right now - has left the appeal off their docket for 2019 meaning he is stuck with DACA for another year.

How is that the powers of a dictator?

Why allow one, uno, ein, 1 individual virtual dictotorial power and call it a democracy?

Why bullshit. The US president has a much more restricted set of powers than the French one does. If Trump was French he wouldn't have to worry about being impeached because in France there is no such provision. And have you seen what's going on in France right now? That doesn't look anything like a dictatorship. Neither does America.

You are, once more indulging in stupid hyperbole and making a fool of yourself.

[philosopher]

Have you ever heard of a bipartisan congressional bill? They are very common in America, it's where at least one congressman from each party sponsors a new law. You guys aren't special, it's just that you are ignorant.

I never said it was special. I only outlined what it is in Denmark.

Britain currently has a minority government. Apparently from another thread you think this counts as Right Wing Facism.

I know.

Does the Danish minority government still rely on deeply right wing an anti immigration party to get legislation pushed through with those 60-70%? How is this a great thing?

It is not a great thing. But they do enjoy support from the largest opposition party - Social Democratic Party.
With Liberal Party, Danish People's Party, Libertarian Party, and Conservatives + Social Democratic Party and even the Socialist People's Party, they get about 70-80 % of the votes for anti-immigration policy.

Most Danes btw. are anti-immigration. If you wish to pursue anything serious in Danish politics, you have to be:

* Anti-immigration.
* Harsh on crime & punishment.

I disagree with this policy, but it does enjoy popularity from at least 80 % of the entire Danish population.

The president is not empowered to declare war at all, congress is.

Thanks for clarifying this.

[Impenitent]

democracy is a lynch mob

the united states is a republic

-Imp

[philosopher]

democracy is a lynch mob

the united states is a republic

-Imp

A Republic has nothing to do with whether or not it is a democracy.
A Republic refers to the fact that it is not a monarchy.

In the U.S. people vote for the next sheriff.

You also vote on keeping the Death Penalty, as they did in California a couple of years ago.

That's a lynch mob by definition. You should separate those powers. The legislative, executive and judicial branch should be completely separated.

[Greta]

How can you run a successful democracy when corporations are just as powerful as the government?

With corporations constantly pushing governments to improve the corporate share of national wealth - and having the power to punish governments that fail to comply - individuals rightly no longer feel represented.