First of, I just want to say that I certainly don't think the U.S. has any special authority when it comes to the principles of democracy. We are, technically, a democratic republic. Unfurtunately, many Americans don't understand this, and I must admit that I am embarassed whenever other Americans try to adapt a "holier-than-thou" attitude about democracy. That doesn't change the fact that our election system is still both valid and fundamentally democratic.

you may not like it, but it is very much present in your foreeign policy. just agree with me that that can cause resentment, will you?

This is nothing like the election of President Bush. Bush did not merely say the method of elections was accepted by Americans, it is accepted. Also, the elections were not "fixed" by any stretch of the term. The rules were laid out long before the election began, they were available for everyone to see, and the presidential candidates understood them. Those rules were not changed during the process of the election. Here, there was an equal chance for every candidate to win. In Iraq, I doubt there was.

Perhaps I should not have pointed out Bush as saying that it was accepted. Did you get my point though? That argument used can be used to justify how Saddam rules Iraq as well. One could argue that the stability given by not having all that many squabbeling for power is preferrable to possibly uncertain electoral results. I am not saying it is, just that it could be said. And it could be.

These consciously ignorant people are the bane of every democracy. They present a paradox to the way the government is run. If they do not understand the issues relevant to politics, they cannot truly reflect their opinions in their voting, and the nation is not a true democracy. They cannot be forced to learn these things, however. That would take away their freedom of choice, and the nation would not be democratic. So, what can we do about it? The information about how the president is elected is available to everyone. The USA's governmental process just ignores the uninformed, which, in my opinion, is the best way to handle the situation.

I have always been of the opinion that you should be required to know some certain things in order to vote. The USA demands that foreigners who are going to vote in the USA must know how it works. Why not hold those standards to the rest of the populace?
do you think taht a deocracy works when it is little more than happenstance which decicion is taken?

One of the most basic principles of democracy is that "everyone has a voice" in how things are run. It is each individual's responsibility to voice his or her opinion when the time comes, not the government's. If you do not vote, or you do not make use of the other methods and resources available to you for forming and sharing your opinion, then you lose your voice in the matter. Well, the time for speaking up about the election of Bush has come and gone. The media made it very clear that Gore won the popular vote, yet Bush was being elected, and I heard no public outcry about it. That sounds like acceptance to me, or at least as close to acceptance as a democracy can reasonably come.

It certainly sounds like people do not care. It upsets me when people can just let politics run its course without caring.


Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat
Dissenting voice of wotmania
Frightfully stubborn pacifist

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent