Is democracy broken?
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, I, for one American, am perfectly happy that people who don't care are not forced to cast a ballot on issues or candidates they know nothing about. I would prefer that more people were interested and informed enough to vote, but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government... I think interest and knowledge could be improved by re-instituting a mandatory national service requirement for all citizens, either military or non-military, but both to include mandatory training on the responsibilities of a citzen. As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality (and tends to balance out on both sides of most issues). If you have some examples in mind, I would welcome seeing them ...This, however is a problem that could be solved, IMO , by campaign finance reform: limit political contributions to ONLY those by individuals, and set the upper limit on an individual contribution to a reasonable amount (say $25K) per individual including any by the candidates themselves . Corporations,PACs,Unions, and the like should be expressly prohibited from contributing to individual candidates, and from funding advertizing that targets specific candidates. Getting focus away from the next election might also be accomplished by strict term limits. I would propose the the chief executive (President, PM, whatever) be limited to a two non- consecutive 6 year terms rather that the (current US practice of) two consecutive 4 year terms... Members of the upper house should be limited to two 6 year terms (whether consecutive or not), but be subject to a vote of confidence at the middle of each term (losing that would force a new election for which they were not eligible). The lower house terms should be changed to single 6 year terms, with one-third elected every two years instead of the current practice of re-electing all every two years, but all incumbents subject to a vote of confidence every two years). Some changes in the application of census results to the determination of how many representatives a state can have would be needed as well, since this is on a 10 year cycle and therefor not a multiple of 6 year terms... Representative government (there are no true democracies that I know of) is nowhere near as perfect
Again, really quickly (I gotta stop posting during work hours :-()... OldRob wrote: but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government No, but theoretical considerations only take you so far. My original question was more along the lines of is thing working in practice? I'd be curious to know how low the turnout would have to go before you became concerned about it? 20%? 5%? What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. OldRob wrote: As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality Ah, but I didn't say hijacking an election. I said hijacking the political process. I was talking more about the influence that big business and other powerful entities have on the day-to-day running of a country, the laws it sets, etc. OldRob wrote: I fail to see any other form of govenment (past or present) that is even a remotely attractive alternative. Yeah, this is where I get stuck as well :-) Great post, BTW.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Again, really quickly (I gotta stop posting during work hours :-()... OldRob wrote: but that is not the fault of the SYSTEM of government No, but theoretical considerations only take you so far. My original question was more along the lines of is thing working in practice? I'd be curious to know how low the turnout would have to go before you became concerned about it? 20%? 5%? What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. OldRob wrote: As for special interests "Hijacking" an election, I think this is more perception than reality Ah, but I didn't say hijacking an election. I said hijacking the political process. I was talking more about the influence that big business and other powerful entities have on the day-to-day running of a country, the laws it sets, etc. OldRob wrote: I fail to see any other form of govenment (past or present) that is even a remotely attractive alternative. Yeah, this is where I get stuck as well :-) Great post, BTW.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. There are at least two possibilities here: 1.Either things are so screwed up that no one believes it is even worth the attempt to change. or 2.Things are so good that no one cares to change the status quo.(highly unlikely IMO :) ) I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) that forced a new election with neither incumbent nor previous challengers allowed to stand for election).
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: What if only 1% of the people turned out to vote? You might argue that if only 1% of the people cared enough to get off their asses and vote then that 1% will have the privilege of determining where the country goes. I would say there's something seriously wrong somewhere if only 1% cared enough to show up on the day. There are at least two possibilities here: 1.Either things are so screwed up that no one believes it is even worth the attempt to change. or 2.Things are so good that no one cares to change the status quo.(highly unlikely IMO :) ) I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) that forced a new election with neither incumbent nor previous challengers allowed to stand for election).
OldRob wrote: I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) So it's just a question of degree. For me, 40% (somebody correct me if that figure is wrong) is worryingly low. One thing I forgot to respond to in your previous post: limiting terms for the president is a Good Thing but the same old games will be played by the political parties trying to get re-elected. This is probably shockingly naive of me but what would happen if we outlawed parties and everyone had to stand as an independent? It would be much more chaotic trying to push things through but seems to me to be more "democratic" and representative i.e. we, the people, convey to our representative our wishes who then votes on our behalf in the government.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
-
Colin Davies wrote: IMHO: I don't believe all citizens should have the right to vote. So who gets to decide who's allowde to vote? And is the moron not as much a citizen as the genius? Moronicity is in the eye of the beholder :-) I'm re-reading a book by a favourite author of mine (John Holt) in which he argues that children of any age should be afforded the rights that we normally make then wait until they're 16/18/21 before they can get as long as they accept the responsibility that goes along with it. Probably a bit radical for most people but an interesting idea. If a 12-year can demonstrate that they understand the issues and have thought about them, why not let them vote?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: So who gets to decide who's allowde to vote? And is the moron not as much a citizen as the genius? Moronicity is in the eye of the beholder I won't even suggest that I know the perfect answer to this. I consider that everyone should have the ability to become a voter, and it shouldn't be restricted by birthright. Arbitrarily drawing the line on suffrage at a certain age is just as bad. Why should it be 16/18/21 and not 35. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
OK, then. Let's turn this in a boobies thread. You asked for it! (Warning: Nudity)http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg[^] Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
Brad Jennings wrote: _You asked for it! (Warning: Nudity)http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg\[^\]_ Holy mackarel. You see why I bought a nice camera now don't you? :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
There are some who are there for what they can put in, but sadly many are there for what they can take out :(( Elaine (fluffy tigress emoticon) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. Yeah, that's one thing I've often said - true communism would be a wonderful thing, but pretty much the only communism the world's ever seen has suffered from utterly corrupt leadership -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
That dubyadubyadubya.com link cracks me up. People are blowing this way out of proportion.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. Using just your definition, there is probably agreement for you opinion. But perhaps you should think about some other 'measurements' before you come to your conclusion. Even more so, what is it that you think needs to be fixed? I care very little about the petty politics of the day and of whom is involved in them. Of much greater importance is the well being of my family and friends. And from my view point there is very little correlation between the two. Chris Meech "what makes CP different is the people and sense of community, things people will only discover if they join up and join in." Christian Graus Nov 14, 2002. "AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! Those leaks are driving me crazy! How does one finds a memory leak in a garbage collected environment ??! Daniel Turini Nov. 2, 2002.
-
That dubyadubyadubya.com link cracks me up. People are blowing this way out of proportion.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *http://dubyadubyadubya.com [^] you have fined 1 CP level by the order of the masses
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02 -
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Quick, get under that door frame fast! I haven't voted in a long time. I get into a lot of interesting discussions on this issue, but I simply refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils". When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections I, probably like others, don't feel a sense of "ownership" or "pride" in our government anymore. This contributes to my lack of interest in any election process. I feel that I have no control over what happens. Here's an example, using recent events. The Republicans added a rider to the homeland security bill (I won't even touch that) that prevents people from being able to sue for injury/death related to vaccinations (and I won't even get into my issues with vaccinations!) Then, Bush mandates that military and health care workers must take the smallpox vaccine, in which 1 out of 3 people will get sick, nobody has figured out how those sick people will be compensated (and do they take vacation time or sick leave time), and I don't know the statistic on 1 out of x people will die, but the reason their not giving it to the general public is because there is a risk of death. Furthermore, anyone with a compromised immune system (this includes people with simple disorders like skin exema [sp?]), will need to be screened out because the vaccine WILL probably kill YOU. Now, another little known fact is that there is a government agency so specifically help parents whose children have been injured by vaccinations. The most common injury is some form of brain damage (including autism) resulting from the ensuing fever. Does any of this make sense? Did I have any choice in this process? NO! OK, enough of that. Now on to my other issue. When this country was founded, you needed to be a land owner and literate to vote. It demonstrated that you have the ability to succeed in business, that you are a working, contributing member of the society, and that you (hopefully) have read different views and perhaps written your own on various election issues. Now, any crackhead lying in the gutters of New Haven CT can vote. I feel helpess because their are IDIOTS that are making choices FOR ME. And some of these IDIOTS post articles on CP, as has been recently demonstrated (there. I snuck that one in!) We need to return to non-politically correct, racist, and prejudiced ways, I say! People need to be responsible for themselves, and not expect the government to be responsible for THEM. I pay higher car insurance rates because there are idiots out
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: So who gets to decide who's allowde to vote? And is the moron not as much a citizen as the genius? Moronicity is in the eye of the beholder I won't even suggest that I know the perfect answer to this. I consider that everyone should have the ability to become a voter, and it shouldn't be restricted by birthright. Arbitrarily drawing the line on suffrage at a certain age is just as bad. Why should it be 16/18/21 and not 35. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Why should it be 16/18/21 and not 35. Good point! The responsible exercise of franchise requires more than intelligence; many very intelligent people are entirely clueless about the world around them. Older voters, having already passed through the throes of youth, the busy times of getting through school, becoming established in a career, and starting a family, have the time and interest to pay attention to world affairs. Thus they are far better informed and less inclined to trivial decisions. One view I rather like was expressed by Robert Heinlein in one of his early books. I don't recall the title at the moment, but in it a group of students are dropped off on a raw planet and lost for a time. One of the basic features of the planetary government was that only those citizens who had completed a term of military service were entitled to vote. Whether in time of peace or war, those citizens had demonstrated a willingness to give their lives to protect their society; they alone could therefore be depended upon to make the hard choices that affect the survival of their people. There are many ways that we could use to decide who gets to have a voice in the shaping of society, all are imperfect. The use of an arbitrary age is probably the least valid of any of the criteria available, but we're kinda stuck with it for now. I have a strong objection to permitting people who don't understand the primary language of a country to vote, a major problem in this country. An individual so handicapped is incapable of understanding the issues, of reading and listening to the debates or judging the relative merits of the legislation proposed. Unfortunately there's a strong egalitarian bent here that prevents blocking voting rights for such critical reasons, so the problem is only going to get worse. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
Quick, get under that door frame fast! I haven't voted in a long time. I get into a lot of interesting discussions on this issue, but I simply refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils". When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections I, probably like others, don't feel a sense of "ownership" or "pride" in our government anymore. This contributes to my lack of interest in any election process. I feel that I have no control over what happens. Here's an example, using recent events. The Republicans added a rider to the homeland security bill (I won't even touch that) that prevents people from being able to sue for injury/death related to vaccinations (and I won't even get into my issues with vaccinations!) Then, Bush mandates that military and health care workers must take the smallpox vaccine, in which 1 out of 3 people will get sick, nobody has figured out how those sick people will be compensated (and do they take vacation time or sick leave time), and I don't know the statistic on 1 out of x people will die, but the reason their not giving it to the general public is because there is a risk of death. Furthermore, anyone with a compromised immune system (this includes people with simple disorders like skin exema [sp?]), will need to be screened out because the vaccine WILL probably kill YOU. Now, another little known fact is that there is a government agency so specifically help parents whose children have been injured by vaccinations. The most common injury is some form of brain damage (including autism) resulting from the ensuing fever. Does any of this make sense? Did I have any choice in this process? NO! OK, enough of that. Now on to my other issue. When this country was founded, you needed to be a land owner and literate to vote. It demonstrated that you have the ability to succeed in business, that you are a working, contributing member of the society, and that you (hopefully) have read different views and perhaps written your own on various election issues. Now, any crackhead lying in the gutters of New Haven CT can vote. I feel helpess because their are IDIOTS that are making choices FOR ME. And some of these IDIOTS post articles on CP, as has been recently demonstrated (there. I snuck that one in!) We need to return to non-politically correct, racist, and prejudiced ways, I say! People need to be responsible for themselves, and not expect the government to be responsible for THEM. I pay higher car insurance rates because there are idiots out
Marc Clifton wrote: There's just nothing I can DO about it Thats really the problem right there. We poor helpless citizens. :(( It isn't that we can't change, it just more work than anyone is willing but forth. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
OldRob wrote: I would certainly support a "No contest" result in this case (maybe even at a 20% low limit) So it's just a question of degree. For me, 40% (somebody correct me if that figure is wrong) is worryingly low. One thing I forgot to respond to in your previous post: limiting terms for the president is a Good Thing but the same old games will be played by the political parties trying to get re-elected. This is probably shockingly naive of me but what would happen if we outlawed parties and everyone had to stand as an independent? It would be much more chaotic trying to push things through but seems to me to be more "democratic" and representative i.e. we, the people, convey to our representative our wishes who then votes on our behalf in the government.
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: So it's just a question of degree. For me, 40% (somebody correct me if that figure is wrong) is worryingly low. Yes, I agree that it is just a matter of degree, With 40% of the eligible voters casting ballots, choice is the favorite of just 20+%... and ^0% are casitn (effectively) "I don't care" votes. I guess the question is how to interpret the missing 60% of the electorate. What part of this represents a "None of the above" vote? Would we get more paticipation if "None of the Above" were a choice? Since 24% of the eligible population doesn't even bother to register to vote, I would guess that possibly as much as 36% of the electorate actually voted "none of the above"... BTW, The only "unofficial" results I could find for 2002 US election was that 39.7% of Voting Age Population voted. This was an increase from 37.2% in the previous midterm (1998) election. The last "official" figures are for 2000 presidential election: 51.3% of Voting Age Population participated. 76% of Voting Age Population was registered to vote 67.5% of those registered to vote actually voted .... http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm[^] Between 1924 and 2000 the turnout for Presidential elections has varied between a low of 48.9% (1924) and a high of 62.8% (1960) http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm[^]
-
democracy is fine. so is (pure) communism and even (benevolent) dictatorship - all in theory. in practice though, youu run into human nature. even in the most well-planned and well-meaning of political systems, human greed, ego, corruption and short-sightedness will take over and turn it into nepotism, cronyism, despotism and profiteering. the people who wrote the US constitution certainly wrote it with the best of intentions, but after 200 years of being massaged by greed, the system is a mess. it's a simple matter of Power corrupting. humans talk a good game. but when they actually try to implement something, Me-My-Mine takes over and turns it to shit. -c
Thomas Jefferson said that, in spite of their best efforts, he felt we would need another revolution in about 200 years in order put things back on course. A wise man, Mr. Jefferson.
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: So who gets to decide who's allowde to vote? And is the moron not as much a citizen as the genius? Moronicity is in the eye of the beholder I won't even suggest that I know the perfect answer to this. I consider that everyone should have the ability to become a voter, and it shouldn't be restricted by birthright. Arbitrarily drawing the line on suffrage at a certain age is just as bad. Why should it be 16/18/21 and not 35. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Why should it be 16/18/21 and not 35. because 18 yr olds can be sent to die to prop up the financial interests of 35 yr olds, 18 yr olds deserve the vote. -c
-
Western countries often talk about spreading democracy around the world as if it were a given that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I sometimes wonder if that is really the case. When you have less than 50% turn-out in US elections, the political process hijacked by special interests and our leaders seemingly incapable of planning beyond the next election, something is clearly not working. BTW, voting is *compulsory* in Australia - who knows what the turnout would be if that were not the case. So my question is this: is democracy broken? Is it just a problem of scale i.e. it might work with a few hundred villagers but has problems when applied to millions of Americans or Australians. Is it a problem with people feeling disenfranchised? I've heard ideas floated where goverments could use technology to hold frequent referendums on issues that people can then vote on but I'm not sure how well that would work. Or are people so turned off by what happens in the political world that they just don't want to get involved. Or do they just not care?
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
A very provocative analysis of the subject of voter turnout in "democracies" world-wide is available here:http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/voter_turnout.html[^] 62-68% turnout seems to be the historical world-wide norm, and this is slightly skewed by inclusion of all the mandatory vote countries.
-
Thomas Jefferson said that, in spite of their best efforts, he felt we would need another revolution in about 200 years in order put things back on course. A wise man, Mr. Jefferson.
OldRob wrote: A wise man, Mr. Jefferson he was right about the need for revolution, but wrong in assuming that it could happen. the American revolution was a breeze compared to what it would take for a revolution large enough to re-start the US govt these days. just as speculation, the US civil war killed somewhere around 600,000, took many years, and failed (if you assume the south's goal was to start a new government that fixed the problems with the federal govt.). in 1860, the popluation of the US was 31,000,000. so that 600K was 2% of the population. these days, that would work out to about 5.6 million deaths (making many wild assumptions - like that weapons haven't improved). IMO, there's no way a revolution could happen in the US these days without completely destroying the country. -c
-
OldRob wrote: A wise man, Mr. Jefferson he was right about the need for revolution, but wrong in assuming that it could happen. the American revolution was a breeze compared to what it would take for a revolution large enough to re-start the US govt these days. just as speculation, the US civil war killed somewhere around 600,000, took many years, and failed (if you assume the south's goal was to start a new government that fixed the problems with the federal govt.). in 1860, the popluation of the US was 31,000,000. so that 600K was 2% of the population. these days, that would work out to about 5.6 million deaths (making many wild assumptions - like that weapons haven't improved). IMO, there's no way a revolution could happen in the US these days without completely destroying the country. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: IMO, there's no way a revolution could happen in the US these days without completely destroying the country. Sadly, I would have to agree...:rose:
![http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg\[^\]_](http://www.hegre-archives.com/tour/pages/page47/big.jpg%5C%5B%5E%5C%5D_){kind=link}