Re: Re: Re: History
Originally posted by Hotpoint
You misinterpret what I and other people mean by this. By US Law GWB is legally President but that is because the United States is not a Democracy in the strictest sense but rather a Republic that holds periodic elections
You can only claim to have been Democratically Elected if you got more votes than those you were running against. If not then you clearly lack an electoral mandate regardless of the Legality under which you hold the position
Interestingly this anomaly is present in other Countries that have FPTP (First Past the Post) Electoral systems. The same happened twice in the UK with the Conservatives under Churchill winning the 1951 Election with less votes than Clement Atlee's Labour Administration and Harold Wilson (Labour) beating Edward Heath (Conservative) in one of the 1974 General Elections again despite getting less votes
I think you've got this backwards. The hypocracy here is a man who was not democratically elected preaching the virtues of democracy. Lets face it that's just amusing 
I don't misinterperet a thing. It's just a bull**** argument.
The fact is the man was elected president of the US in the way we elect our presidents. If the US is not a "Democracy in the strictest sense" it is still the closest thing the world has to one. Last I checked, there were no laws that limited a President's power when depending on how many votes they got. A President's job is to get **** done. What you and others like you are saying is that because he did not get the popular vote (or, even dumber, and OVERWHELMING portion of the popular vote) the guy has no right to do anything. You would make him a lame duck.
The fact of the matter is this choice (and, coincidentally, nearly everything this president has done) has been supported by a majority of the population of this country. Democracy in action, my friend. The fact that the media is liberally biased doesn't change the actual percentages, people have supported the things that are being done.
If everything is supposed to be decided democratically, then it shouldn't matter who the President is, you should just do what the majority of the citizens of the country want, right? Well the majority of the citizens of the country agree that we should go to war with Iraq. But wait--you don't agree so all that goes out the window.
The truth is, we elect these people because we trust them to run our country, not because they are puppets at our whim. ("Hey, 80% of the US wants to nuke Jamaica. Guess I gotta do it.") Funny enough, we have an electoral college for the same reason. Our government is built on a system of checks and balances, so that even though every person in the country doesn't vote on every decision the government makes, the interests of the people are protected. It is unreasonable to hold a vote for every decision, so we vote for those leaders that share our concerns and views and let them vote on those ideas. That sounds like the most realistic way to carry out a democracy to me.
