Is California a democracy?

[renard_ruse]

In a literal sense we have elections and even referendums, so technically yes, it still meets the narrow definition.

On the other hand, its become a one party state. There is no viable opposition to the Democrats. Not a single state wide office is held by a Republican or any non-Democrat. There is no realistic possibility that any Republican will win any of the state wide offices in the foreseeable future. Even a liberal Republican like Schwarzenegger's election victory a decade ago would be highly unlikely today.

And, more than that, nobody seems to care or be concerned. Nobody bothers to even talk about state politics anymore. People know who is going to win. You just have to hope they don't pass too many stupid laws or raise taxes too much, but otherwise people just ignore the whole thing.

I don't believe that everyone is as liberal as the politicians, they just loyally support the Democrats for ethnic reasons mostly (its an overwhelmingly non-white state) and don't really care about what the politicians do. Or the Hispanics and Asian-Americans are moderately liberal but not doctrinaire across the board, but they aren't going to vote for another party. There are high numbers of independents (we call them non-partisan voters in California) among Hispanics and Asian-Americans, which is the one sign there could be some hope for change some day but I doubt it will happen for many years if ever.

People have mostly tuned out and don't pay attention to state politics anymore. Its not relevant to people's lives.

The same thing is likely to happen nationally in the next couple of decades.

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe most of the people in California are just happy they have no Republicans in office to shake their heads and tsk tsk about. It's fine, too, if the nation goes Democratic.

The Congress now is Republican controlled and we can all see how much meaningful work they are doing.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown just signed a few bills that by the end of the first Clinton term will show us exactly how great one-party rule is, especially when it is elitist-Progressive-Socialist with a distain for borders and use of energy and natural resources.

Keep you eyes on California and dream of the day that it is nation-wide.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Just face the fact that you're a rapidly shrinking minority bound for oblivion as your ignorance dies off. Your ideology is being actively rejected by the young and the educated. Like cromagnon you will soon be a sad footnote in history.

 

[Glycerinelimits]

Arguing the details of politics when attempting to delineate the differences between the Republicans and Democrats is silly. The danger is there is no real discourse. People seem to look at an issue and pick the Republican side or the Democrat side. There are really only two possible answers to some problem? It doesn't matter whose side you take, the unspoken premise is THEIR interests are ALWAYS protected. There is a very real possibility that neither side proposes the right answer to an issue -- just what they want to "sell."

The real danger is one party dominating over the other -- “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

These parties are made up by human beings that have faults (we have a criminal and an idiot competing to be President) and to imply that if one is in total control, everything will be pee chee is dangerous. The altruistic King discussed by the Greek Philosophers does not exist. We are responsible for ourselves -- not some Mythical Mommy or Daddy we conjure up.

 

[boogerflipper]

Arguing the details of politics when attempting to delineate the differences between the Republicans and Democrats is silly. The danger is there is no real discourse. People seem to look at an issue and pick the Republican side or the Democrat side. There are really only two possible answers to some problem? It doesn't matter whose side you take, the unspoken premise is THEIR interests are ALWAYS protected. There is a very real possibility that neither side proposes the right answer to an issue -- just what they want to "sell."

The real danger is one party dominating over the other -- “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

These parties are made up by human beings that have faults (we have a criminal and an idiot competing to be President) and to imply that if one is in total control, everything will be pee chee is dangerous. The altruistic King discussed by the Greek Philosophers does not exist. We are responsible for ourselves -- not some Mythical Mommy or Daddy we conjure up.

"We are responsible for ourselves"

That absolute, natural truism is the outstanding problem, though, as a great number of us do not want to be responsible for ourselves; the modern-liberal mindset is completely infused with that evil, irresponsible concept.

It's simply more socialist swing to the left as individual responsibility is further diminished in collective favor of the state growing even more responsible - which is totally, Orwellian hilarious when you consider government's true love: plausible denialability.

 

[underguy1]

There's nothing very democratic about a 2 party system. They serve the illusion of democracy.

Both parties serve the capitalist overlords who really control things.

Politicians are increasingly just actors playing roles that big business writes for them.

Capitalism and democracy are antithetical.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There's nothing very democratic about a 2 party system. They serve the illusion of democracy.

Both parties serve the capitalist overlords who really control things.

Politicians are increasingly just actors playing roles that big business writes for them.

Capitalism and democracy are antithetical.

Give us a proof herr doktor...

 

[underguy1]

Give us a proof herr doktor...

Grow up, wankwaffle.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Arguing the details of politics when attempting to delineate the differences between the Republicans and Democrats is silly. The danger is there is no real discourse. People seem to look at an issue and pick the Republican side or the Democrat side. There are really only two possible answers to some problem? It doesn't matter whose side you take, the unspoken premise is THEIR interests are ALWAYS protected. There is a very real possibility that neither side proposes the right answer to an issue -- just what they want to "sell."

The real danger is one party dominating over the other -- “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

These parties are made up by human beings that have faults (we have a criminal and an idiot competing to be President) and to imply that if one is in total control, everything will be pee chee is dangerous. The altruistic King discussed by the Greek Philosophers does not exist. We are responsible for ourselves -- not some Mythical Mommy or Daddy we conjure up.

Methinks that when one sees a Republic as a Democracy that it will always tend to one party, the party of irresponsibility. The party that will never ask from whom but always demand to whom. The Democrats figured this out in Detroit, Chicago, St. Louie, California...

It is not one party dominating another, but the mob dominating politics and unfortunately, the mob is never sated until the are living in the ruins of the Coliseum and looting its stonework to build hovels up agains its skeletal remains.

 

[Glycerinelimits]

There's nothing very democratic about a 2 party system. They serve the illusion of democracy.

Both parties serve the capitalist overlords who really control things.

Politicians are increasingly just actors playing roles that big business writes for them.

Capitalism and democracy are antithetical.

I would argue that in the "pure" forms, they are not antithetical at all but capitalism is a natural extension of democracy. Pure Capitalism are many free markets of many free sellers and many free buyers setting equilibrium prices. The reality is, democracy and capitalism are contaminated with many disequilibriums which is what I interpret to be your key point and I agree with it. These disequilibriums are all about power. In a democracy, those that get power do not want to give it up. In markets, once a few sellers take hold of a market, cronyism flourishes.

What we see before us is what people call, or sell us, as a "democracy" (technically we are a democratic republic but it is still a form of democracy) and "capitalism" but we are experiencing perverted versions of democracy and capitalism.

 

[underguy1]

I would argue that in the "pure" forms, they are not antithetical at all but capitalism is a natural extension of democracy. Pure Capitalism are many free markets of many free sellers and many free buyers setting equilibrium prices. The reality is, democracy and capitalism are contaminated with many disequilibriums which is what I interpret to be your key point and I agree with it. These disequilibriums are all about power. In a democracy, those that get power do not want to give it up. In markets, once a few sellers take hold of a market, cronyism flourishes.

What we see before us is what people call, or sell us, as a "democracy" (technically we are a democratic republic but it is still a form of democracy) and "capitalism" but we are experiencing perverted versions of democracy and capitalism.

There's no such thing as a free market. Your view of what capitalism is is a fantasy.

Capitalism is a class based power system.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There's no such thing as a free market. Your view of what capitalism is is a fantasy.

It's called the black market guy, and it's real.

Capitalism is a class based power system.

How?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

Capitalism is a class based power system.

Utter fucking bollocks

Even the poor trade, make deals and contracts. You are an idiot.

You have no idea what the pejorative Capitalism stands for or what comprises an economy.

 

[underguy1]

Utter fucking bollocks

Even the poor trade, make deals and contracts. You are an idiot.

You have no idea what the pejorative Capitalism stands for or what comprises an economy.

You are an ill-educated libertarian skid mark.

You conflate and confuse 'capitalism' with trade and commerce. Human beings and their societies trade and engage in commerce out of necessity and desire.

They don't need capitalists to do so.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are an ill-educated libertarian skid mark.

You conflate and confuse 'capitalism' with trade and commerce. Human beings and their societies trade and engage in commerce out of necessity and desire.

They don't need capitalists to do so.

More name calling.

Continued failure to define 'capitalism' or 'capitalists' as something other than 'shit I don't like'.


Define capitalism and capitalist or your comments continue to be meaningless.

 

[underguy1]

Fuck off, shit stain.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Fuck off, shit stain.

More name calling....gawd ferbid ya be civilized in conversation.

 

[underguy1]

More name calling....gawd ferbid ya be civilized in conversation.

More babble. You can't do conversation because you're a compulsive liar and a deliberate troll.

 

[magicalmoments]

Seems to me that before you can have a sensible debate on this question, you need to first define what is meant by democracy.

Does one person one vote define it or is it majority rules or are there other factors that need to be considered?

 

[BotanyBoy]

More babble. You can't do conversation because you're a compulsive liar and a deliberate troll.

More name calling.

Totally incapable of civil discourse.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Utter fucking bollocks

Even the poor trade, make deals and contracts. You are an idiot.

You have no idea what the pejorative Capitalism stands for or what comprises an economy.

You are an ill-educated libertarian skid mark.

You conflate and confuse 'capitalism' with trade and commerce. Human beings and their societies trade and engage in commerce out of necessity and desire.

They don't need capitalists to do so.

You cannot read for shit.

That is all I have to say to someone so illiterate.

 

[sharingfantasies]

California has a state constitution and also follows the US Constitution. The US is a republic, not a democracy. We vote for representatives that vote for leaders. We don't personally vote for leaders. Our problem is that the representatives are supposed to represent the majority of the people and that is not always the case.

What makes a republic different from a democracy?

A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution. A democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different.

The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue.

 

[underguy1]

California has a state constitution and also follows the US Constitution. The US is a republic, not a democracy. We vote for representatives that vote for leaders. We don't personally vote for leaders. Our problem is that the representatives are supposed to represent the majority of the people and that is not always the case.

What makes a republic different from a democracy?

A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution. A democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different.

The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue.

What nonsense.

Being a republic means you don't have a monarch.

The US ruling elite is forever claiming to be the ultimate democrats and lectures the world on the subject. Usually before bombing the fuck out of somewhere.

 

[underguy1]

More name calling.

Totally incapable of civil discourse.

Why would I waste (more) time attempting civil discourse with a compulsive troll?

Why don't you just stop whining.?