Author Topic: The end of democracy in the USA?  (Read 47763 times)

Offline cjameshuff

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2012, 11:45:01 AM »
Mostly what I've heard of Australian politics relates to the government's apparent "Big Brother knows best!" approach to censorship issues.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2012, 01:47:47 PM »
There most definitely is an air of "if you're for it, then I'm against it -- no matter what it is" that's making it impossible to do even those things everyone really wants. It's very worrisome.

I wonder if it would help to increase the time between elections? It seems like US politicians are always trying to score points to help them win the next election which is always two years away. If the elections were farther apart maybe they would actually leave campaign mode long enough to get some work done.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2012, 08:12:50 PM »
Ah, but the next election isn't always two years away.  It's two years away for Representatives, but it's six for Senators and four for President.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2012, 10:46:51 PM »
I was reading Bill Bryson's book about Australia not long ago, and it talked a lot about how little news from Australia makes it to the US.  I think the average American knows that Australia isn't exactly Cuba, but I doubt most of them know much more than that.
Ah, I have a lot of time for Bill Bryson - his sense of humour is deliciously dry. His book "Troublesome Words" is very useful for me as an editor, and "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is a tour-de-force of science communication.

I skimmed his book about Australia, having a brief look only at what he wrote about Canberra. I can understand why he says what he says about Australia, but I suppose I sort of thought that Americans might realise that Australia has many things that Americans consider "socialist" (like a nationalised healthcare system) without being in the slightest bit a socialist or communist country (like Cuba or North Korea).

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2012, 11:03:10 PM »
We get some Australian news over here in New Zealand (Sky News, via our Satellite T.V. provider) which I watch from time to time, and from what I've seen it seems more like the current U.S. style than N.Z. style; just for comparison.

They get a bunch of Aussie politicians around a table, in a show that's supposed to be about debate, and they mostly just seem to shout "you are a doody head" at each other; based on what seems little more than their party membership.

(I'm not saying it's all that much better in N.Z., but that's my general impression of it.)
Yeah, I think I know the show you mean...

One of the less appealing aspects of party politics in Australia is that politicians pretty much always vote along party lines. It's very rare for politicians to cross the floor to vote with the opposing party, so when it happens it's big news.

It's all the more in effect now, given that the current Government has a razor thin majority, a politician under investigation for doing naughty stuff when he was a union official, and the Speaker is under investigation for doing naughty stuff when he was a back-bencher. The Opposition has a massive lead in the polls, yet the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is a very divisive figure. His tactics in the Parliament have to some extent mirrored those of the Republicans - oppose everything the Government proposes.

Yet having said all that, a lot of legislation quietly passes through Parliament with bipartisan support. The Opposition doesn't want to draw attention to that because presumably it would harm their claim of staying tough on the Government, and the Government presumably keeps it quiet because they want to keep getting stuff done so they can go to the next election with a record of legislative achievements.

The other thing that so clearly marks Australian democracy from American is that our Parliament doesn't allow filibustering. There are set limits on times for speeches which generally mean that people have to stick to the topic.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2012, 11:06:29 PM »
...I'm an electrical engineer who specializes in communications, so I've always thought of it as a pure good. But when I see Fox News or listen to AM talk radio, I wonder.
In the same newspaper which had the article I linked in the OP, there was another one about Aaron Sorkin's new TV show. He was quoted as saying that people who watched Fox News were actually worse informed than people who watched no news at all.

That's worrying if it's true.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2012, 11:12:36 PM »
Mostly what I've heard of Australian politics relates to the government's apparent "Big Brother knows best!" approach to censorship issues.
I think opposition to that is something our Obviousman is involved in.

As a general rule Australians do accept government intervention in a range of everyday activities, whether providing funding to non-government schools or subsidising medications (thank you!). But I think the desire to get involved in blocking Internet sites has touched a raw nerve, especially given that the list of proscribed sites is secret, and that the censorship software isn't that great.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2012, 12:43:50 AM »
I skimmed his book about Australia, having a brief look only at what he wrote about Canberra. I can understand why he says what he says about Australia, but I suppose I sort of thought that Americans might realise that Australia has many things that Americans consider "socialist" (like a nationalised healthcare system) without being in the slightest bit a socialist or communist country (like Cuba or North Korea).

No, I don't think most Americans know about Australia's flirtation with socialism.  We know about Europe, but most of the people who know that Australia has socialized health care know that essentially all industrialized nations do.  In many cases, that's why people know.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Al Johnston

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2012, 03:16:09 AM »
... most of the people who know that Australia has socialized health care know that essentially all industrialized nations do.

Indeed. It's a source of some bafflement to the rest of the world that the USA doesn't...
"Cheer up!" they said. "It could be worse!" they said.
So I did.
And it was.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2012, 01:09:43 PM »
A lot of Americans, too.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2012, 09:43:50 PM »
The other thing that so clearly marks Australian democracy from American is that our Parliament doesn't allow filibustering. There are set limits on times for speeches which generally mean that people have to stick to the topic.
I think some people think filibustering is easier than it really is. First of all, it can only occur in the Senate; the House of Representatives, being a much larger body (435 vs 100 members) always has time limits on speeches. You can't filibuster there.

Even in the Senate, a cloture vote can be taken to cut off debate. This used to require a supermajority of 2/3 of the Senators present; since 1975 it requires 3/5 (60%) of all Senators -- whether or not they are present and voting. In practice, this has made cloture easier and filibustering somewhat more difficult. Now filibustering tends to occur only when one party has only a slight majority in the Senate, which has often been the case in recent years.

I think the American system has bigger problems than filibustering. At times it can even be a good thing by serving as a check on the tyranny of the majority, though it has often been the reverse such as when many Southern Senators filibustered the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s.

The main difference between the American government and most other western democracies is our President. Rather than being the leader of the majority party in the legislature, he's elected independently and runs a completely separate Executive branch of government. All three branches (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) are in theory co-equal and separate, each with unique powers over the others and limits on its own power. While the Congress can impeach and remove the President (or any other federal officer) from office, it is nothing like dissolving Parliament and calling for elections. It is a much more difficult, solemn and painful process that, while tried twice (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) has never actually succeeded in removing a President. (Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face inevitable impeachment.)

More important than filibustering, I think, is the President's veto power. He can veto any bill sent to him, and his veto can be overridden only by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. Because Congress has been so divided in recent years, veto overrides have become extremely difficult and this hands considerable power to whoever happens to be President at the time -- already a very powerful office compared to most Prime Ministerships.

Since FDR was elected four times in a row, the US Constitution was amended to implement term limits for the President; no one can now be elected more than twice. (In theory one could still serve nearly 12 years if first elected as Vice President, succeeds to the Presidency on the death or resignation of the incumbent, and is then elected President twice in his or her own right.) So this means that most Presidents spend their first 4-year term trying to get re-elected. Only if they succeed do they have the option of conducting a second term without having to worry about another election (though they are still very concerned with getting members of their own party into Congress, of course.) It is always interesting to see whether a President makes truly major policy changes in a second term; usually it doesn't happen, but it could.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2012, 10:01:40 PM »
You have fallen prey to a common misperception about impeachment, I'm afraid.  Or at least you're implying it.  Impeachment is only the first stage in removing from office.  It's like indictment.  Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached.  Johnson only stayed in office by a single vote, in fact, of the next step.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Tanalia

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2012, 11:24:07 PM »
Someone who is elected in as VP who then serves more than 2 years as President is only eligible to be voted in as President once, making the limit 10 years.

There is some contention over whether a former President could get elected as VP and then take over as President (for whatever reason) and keep accruing more time in office, as the 22nd amendment only appears to restrict being elected as President.  As this situation has not been tried, no decision has been made as to whether the amendment should also be considered a restriction on eligibility.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2012, 01:41:31 AM »
You have fallen prey to a common misperception about impeachment, I'm afraid.  Or at least you're implying it.  Impeachment is only the first stage in removing from office.  It's like indictment.  Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached.  Johnson only stayed in office by a single vote, in fact, of the next step.
Did I give that impression? You're right, the House impeaches and then the Senate tries the case and convicts or acquits. The Chief Justice presides over the trial to avoid the obvious conflict of interest that would result if it were run by the nominal chair of the Senate, the Vice President.

When I said that the process of removing a President through impeachment has been "tried" twice but has never succeeded, I was referring to the formal impeachments of Johnson and Clinton followed by their Senate trials and acquittals.

Although Nixon resigned before he was even formally impeached by the House, his case is arguably the one and only successful use of the impeachment process because he would never have resigned without the threat of almost certain impeachment and conviction. I was between high school and college that summer, and I followed every minute of the proceedings. I knew it was history in the making, and while a lot of Americans were upset and embarrassed about the whole thing I thought it was actually an excellent demonstration of the strength of the American system. It was actually possible (then, at least) to get rid of a powerful but corrupt leader without anyone firing a single shot. How many countries can make that claim?





« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 01:43:35 AM by ka9q »

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2012, 02:11:45 AM »
Someone who is elected in as VP who then serves more than 2 years as President is only eligible to be voted in as President once, making the limit 10 years.
I stand corrected. I should have re-read the 22nd Amendment first.
Quote
There is some contention over whether a former President could get elected as VP and then take over as President (for whatever reason) and keep accruing more time in office, as the 22nd amendment only appears to restrict being elected as President.  As this situation has not been tried, no decision has been made as to whether the amendment should also be considered a restriction on eligibility.
The 12th Amendment specifically states
Quote
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
I don't think that provision was amended by the 22nd, so doesn't that resolve the issue? Someone who has already been elected President twice is not constitutionally eligible to be elected Vice President, which is the case you mentioned.

A more obscure case would be someone other than the elected Vice President assuming the Presidency after the death or resignation of both the elected President and Vice President. If only the Vice President leaves office, the President can appoint his successor subject to Congressional approval, as Nixon appointed Gerald Ford after Spiro Agnew resigned. Ford is the only US President never elected as either President or Vice President. If Dwight Eisenhower, who served two terms as President, had still been alive when Agnew resigned, could Nixon have appointed him to replace Agnew, and could Eisenhower then have become President again when Nixon resigned? It certainly would have been strange to see these two men swap their offices.



« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 02:13:37 AM by ka9q »