why the USA are not a democracy?

Originally posted by Cywr The two major French parties are the socialist party, and the UMP. Remove le Pen (teh last election was the first time that they gained that degree of popularity), and you have your two main parties though out much of recent French political history.

But even Chirac's party got less than 20% of the vote in the first round. The first THREE parties (including le Pen)  only had 53% of the vote.

It's true that in the second round of presidential elections one andidate is usually rightish, and the other leftish. However, under the Fifth Republic there have been six presidents, every one of them from a different party.

De Gaulle  UNR - Union for a New Republic

Pompidou  UDR - Union for a Rural Democracy

D'Estaing  UDF - Union for French Democracy

Mitterand  Socialist

Chirac       UMP - Union for a Popular Movement

 

They haven't fluctuated in the UK since the US was formed any more than they have in the US. since 1830-odd a minor party has become a major one just once in the US and once in the UK. The decline of the liberals and subsequent drift into obscurity followed by a come back in the 90s, and the rise of Labour in the post year wars? Thats fluctuation, one of the two main parties went away, and a different one replaced it.

Yes that's what I said.

The US has been Democrats Vs Republicans from day one.

No it hasn't. The Republican party was founded in July 1854 in Jackson, Michigan.  It eventually replaced the Whig party, which had had four presidents since 1840 (one not serving a full term).

There was even a period when the US was de factor a one-party state. In 1824 all the candidates for president came from the same party, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, which provided all the four presidents in a row from 1800-1828.  Andrew Jackson won the 1828 election for the new Democratic party, which isn't far off when the Conservative party was formed in the UK.

Generally speaking the two countries are about the same in their record of fluctuations.

 

Edited before replied to to add the list of French Presidents.

 

Edited by gcle2003

Originally posted by ITAPEVI Fact: Many Americans (not all) seem to think that the USA is a Democracy. It isn't; it is a Republic. It may seem like I am being pedantic here, but there is a real difference between the two forms of government. A republic is the rule of the people by an elected body of officials (and an elected head of state). Once they have been elected you, the people, have no real control over them. They can do whatever they want so long as they don't break the law. They don't have to keep campaign promises (although it helps if they want to get reelected) A democracy is the rule of the people by the people. That means anyone can vote on anything (or, indeed, Everything). All votes are open to the public; if you disagree with foreign policy then you can vote to change it, etc. The distinction between the two is hardly subtle.

You are wrong about the two froms. The "democracy" you are talking about is a representative democracy. The US has to many people to vote on every single issue so it does not work well here. Anyways, what is with your obsession with posting pictures that have no relevance whatsoever to your argument. I thought there was an advertising topic on this site.  I do not think that any of the bigger nations in Europe have a representative democracy. The reason we don't let people do such things here in America is because we have 280 million people. Think of millions of people voting on the issues instead of the people they elected to do that. Why have all the hassle. If the US had a small population of below 10 million, a representative democracy would make sense, but not in the huge nation it is today.

[QUOTE=Cywr]The two major French parties are the socialist party, and the UMP. Remove le Pen (teh last election was the first time that they gained that degree of popularity), and you have your two main parties though out much of recent French political history.

You are unaware of how the major parties are composed. They are already
> coalitions of different interests. There have already been "coalition
> negotiations" within the major parties to form their policy viewpoints.

I agree...and I could never tell whtehr my major party MP was one of the
stripes I supported...or one if the stripes I did not support.

Originally posted by Cywr I'm not sure they did, Germany has largely been coalition governments, so it is i think, a bad example.

But the coalitions have been some grouping of two major parties and two very minor ones, one of which is very recent. That is in fact also true of the UK, in which the Unionists, for instance, have always been minority partners of the Conservatives.

Minor parties get more play with proportional representation, as I pointed out initially.

France is a good one though, it has for the msot part been dominated by two major parties.

Which two would they be?

These were the results of the last French presidential election (numbers are percentages of votes in the two rounds):

Jacques Chirac - Rally for the Republic	19.9	82.2
Jean-Marie le Pen - National Front	16.9	17.8
Lionel Jospin - Socialist Party	16.2	-
Fran�ois Bayrou -Union for the French Democracy	6.8	-
Arlette Laguiller - Workers' Struggle	5.7	-
Jean-Pierre Chev�nement - Republican Pole	5.3	-
No�l Mam�re - The Greens	5.2	-
Olivier Besancenot - Revolutionary Communist League	4.2	-
Jean Saint-Josse -Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition	4.2	-
Alain Madelin - Liberal Democracy	3.9	-
Robert Hue - French Communist Party	3.4	-
Bruno M�gret - Republican National Movement	2.3	-
Christiane Taubira - Left Radical Party	2.3	-
Corinne Lepage - Citizenship Action Participation for the 21st Century	1.9	-
Christine Boutin - Forum of Social Republicans	1.2	-
Daniel Gluckstein - Workers' Party	0.5	-

Doesn't look much like a two-party system to me.

But this is popularism, nothing to do with 'Anglo-Saxon' crap. And India isn't a two party system in the vein of the US, or of the UK (which differes from the US in that those two dominant parties fluctuate)

They haven't fluctuated in the UK since the US was formed any more than they have in the US. since 1830-odd a minor party has become a major one just once in the US and once in the UK.

for that matter, it has a much stronger regional influence which means that major parties often have to form coalitions with smaller ones in order to gain government.

Yes, but the lead is held always by Congress or the BJP.

 

Originally posted by ITAPEVI PASHA IS sahte AMERIKALI  ����, �����, ����, �����

Did you mean kotumeyil?

If you meant so, What's the relevance? "PASHA IS sahte AMERIKALI" means "pasha is a fake American" and of course I am not! And why do you write in Turkish? I'm really confused!

 hmmmmm

Seko !! what did you say?

To be Honest iam one of ITAPEVI's posts biggest fans

 

Originally posted by Cywr In France, non-mainstream parties can be effective from time to time but in US and UK this isn't the case... In local government they can, and in Parliament you have the lib-dems, as well as the regional parties (Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland), which you don't have in the US. By the way, this "Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-American) tradition" notion is used in the comperative government courses of political science departments... Strange then that i was taught about the difference between the US Execetive Democracy, and the British Parliamentry Model, in such a Political Economy course.

Of course there are many differences. At least UK is a kingdom! Also presidency, constitution issue (no written constitution in the UK), etc.  You know, it's just a rough classification... US and UK usually have some different ways of doing something. Just an example: the social sciences. For instance, they rely more on statistical data rather than theoretical comments, etc... But you know all these classifications are rough. I don't see much difference between the styles of representative liberal democracy. I explained my reasons before... 

Are you running a promo for everything.com there?

In France, non-mainstream parties can be effective from time to time but in US and UK this isn't the case...

In local government they can, and in Parliament you have the lib-dems, as well as the regional parties (Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland), which you don't have in the US.

By the way, this "Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-American) tradition" notion is used in the comperative government courses of political science departments...

Strange then that i was taught about the difference between the US Execetive Democracy, and the British Parliamentry Model, in such a Political Economy course.

By the way, this "Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-American) tradition" notion is used in the comperative government courses of political science departments...