It's been an oft discussed topic, but how much do you think 'democracy' today (in the Western world, particularly the US) differs from the original ideas on democracy? I.e. how has it mutated (for better or worse)? Would the Founding fathers be satisfied (or appaled) with the current system? I mean, is the Constitution really being followed, or is it just a piece of paper?

I think one of the things they would be shocked by is the Elitist class of Career Politicians that have developed.

George Washington was a firm believer in a "Working Class Democracy".  This is where working class individuals took office for a few years, then returned to private life.  This is exactly what he did as President.  He served for 2 terms, then stepped aside.  This was ovbious when you consider one of his heroes was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

Cincinnatus was a Senator in the Roman Republic, who was also a farmer.  2 times (458 and 439 BCE) he was appointed Dictator of the Roman Republic, during invasion and civil unrest.  Both times, once the situation was resolved, he stepped down and returned to quiet civilian life.

I think they would be shocked to see Congressmen and Senators serving for 40+ years.  They are nothing but a political aristocracy, something they fought hard to eliminate.

You are right that they would be appalled at the career politicians,  but, they weren't really opposed to elitism.  They believed only white male property owners should have the right to vote.  It wasn't until 1820 that the property restriction was lifted(for white males). Rights were fought for, but it wasn't really until the voters rights movement of the 60's that enfranchisement was expanded to allow all US citizens the right to vote. So "Working Class Democracy" was not what they had in mind. 

You are right that they would be appalled at the career politicians,  but, they weren't really opposed to elitism.  They believed only white male property owners should have the right to vote.  It wasn't until 1820 that the property restriction was lifted(for white males). Rights were fought for, but it wasn't really until the voters rights movement of the 60's that enfranchisement was expanded to allow all US citizens the right to vote. So "Working Class Democracy" was not what they had in mind. 


Right on.  During the debates over the Constitution Al Hamilton said "all societies are divided into 2 classes, the rich and well born and the masses of the people.  Give to the first class a perminant share of government."  Also see Madison's The Federalist # 10.  So I think most of them would be shocked that there are no longer property qualification for voting, and that working people have made some advances in terms of protective legislation (now under assault).

You are right that they would be appalled at the career politicians,  but, they weren't really opposed to elitism.  They believed only white male property owners should have the right to vote.  It wasn't until 1820 that the property restriction was lifted(for white males). Rights were fought for, but it wasn't really until the voters rights movement of the 60's that enfranchisement was expanded to allow all US citizens the right to vote. So "Working Class Democracy" was not what they had in mind. 


Both Jefferson and Monroe had written about the eventual expansion of the Franchise to more citizens.  But at the time, they wanted to enforce tight controls, in order to prevent a form of Aristocratic rule setting in.  This is why in the earliest elections, the popular vote meant nothing at all.  This was eventually loosened, in order to form the Electoral College system we use today.  The idea was to slowly ease the nation into full self rule.  Otherwise, there was nothing to prevent a charismatic leader from basically appointing himself Dictator (like Adolph Hitler did).  The idea was that if the Citizenship did something that was destructive to the nation, they could step in and correct it.

The first voters were basically the same people who had the right to vote in England.  Then as time went on, that was expanded until it was all White Men over 21, then all men, all men and women over 21, and finally all men and women over 18.

Both Jefferson and Monroe had written about the eventual expansion of the Franchise to more citizens.  But at the time, they wanted to enforce tight controls, in order to prevent a form of Aristocratic rule setting in.
WTF? They didn't expand the franchise to anyone but male WASP landowners because they wanted to enforce tight controls over the distribution of wealth and property.  Every group of people who has since gotten the franchise in the USA has had to wrest it away from a resistant overclass.  Do you think the Bush crime family would let YOU--a member of the working class--vote if they had their way? No forking way! 
::)

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/feb03/images/photo02-film.jpg

WTF? They didn't expand the franchise to anyone but male WASP landowners because they wanted to enforce tight controls over the distribution of wealth and property.  Every group of people who has since gotten the franchise in the USA has had to wrest it away from a resistant overclass.  Do you think the Bush crime family would let YOU--a member of the working class--vote if they had their way? No forking way! 
::)


I must agree with Max on this.  The planters were, at that time, an aristocracy, with their northern cousins the industrialists. The timeline
for enfranchisement, and the struggle to enforce the right to vote shows that those with the power were loathe to give the right to
others, which is why I sometime have to physically restrain myself from slapping nonvoters into tomorrow.

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/feb03/images/photo02-film.jpg

nonvoters

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/feb03/images/photo02-film.jpg
nonvoters


Of course, in this country, the right to vote basically means nothing.

The last time I checked, less then half of the people who are allowed to vote even bother to do so.  I believe that far more people disenfranchise themselves then the Government does.

Of course, in this country, the right to vote basically means nothing.

The last time I checked, less then half of the people who are allowed to vote even bother to do so.  I believe that far more people disenfranchise themselves then the Government does.

The government-corporate complex only disenfranchises just enough voters to keep the fascists in power.  We saw that in Florida and Ohio in the last two Presidental elections.  The vast majority of eligable voters who don't vote don't vote out of ignorance and apathy.  It is in the interest of the GOP to keep the nonvoters ignorant and apathetic.  It helps to keep sending the message that governemnt is inept, incompetent, and corrupt (and govern as such).  The more citizens who previously did not vote register to vote, the more the GOP will ratchet up their disenfranchising efforts.  They know the demographics of nonvoters, and nonvoters ain't gonna vote Republican if they do vote!

Both Jefferson and Monroe had written about the eventual expansion of the Franchise to more citizens.  But at the time, they wanted to enforce tight controls, in order to prevent a form of Aristocratic rule setting in.  This is why in the earliest elections, the popular vote meant nothing at all.  This was eventually loosened, in order to form the Electoral College system we use today.  The idea was to slowly ease the nation into full self rule.  Otherwise, there was nothing to prevent a charismatic leader from basically appointing himself Dictator (like Adolph Hitler did).  The idea was that if the Citizenship did something that was destructive to the nation, they could step in and correct it.

The first voters were basically the same people who had the right to vote in England.  Then as time went on, that was expanded until it was all White Men over 21, then all men, all men and women over 21, and finally all men and women over 18.


Actually, the electoral college was established under the constitution, so there is no "eventually" about it.  That was before the emergance of political parties, and the idea was that electors could vote for whoever they wanted (as is still the case today - although party discipline prevents it from happening), so it was not an expansion of the franchize, but the check on the popular will that made the vote more or less relevant.

While the constitution does deal with voting (citizenship and age), it was the states that determined the property qualifications.  NY for example had three tests, 1 for local, a higher for state, and an even higher for congress/president.  They remained in place there until the 1820's. 

Expansion of the franchise has always been won through struggle.

The vast majority of eligable voters who don't vote don't vote out of ignorance and apathy.


And that is exactly my point.  Since most people who are eligable to vote do not even bother, why should I get all bent out of shape?

I have little concern for people who simply want to grandstand or do nothing and want everything done for them.

And that is exactly my point.  Since most people who are eligable to vote do not even bother, why should I get all bent out of shape?

I have little concern for people who simply want to grandstand or do nothing and want everything done for them.


I think alot of the reason people don't vote is because of the electoral college.  I do vote, although particuarly in presidential elections, I feel that it is a complete waste of time because our "state color" is already decided long before the polling begins... so unless you're a "?" state, voting is really just going through motions... I know my vote doesn't really count.

And that is exactly my point.  Since most people who are eligable to vote do not even bother, why should I get all bent out of shape?

I have little concern for people who simply want to grandstand or do nothing and want everything done for them.

It's presumptuous to say they want "want everything done for them."  I mean, come on!

I think a lot lot of the apathetic non-voters feel "there's no real difference between the candidates/parties," and "my vote doesn't matter anyway."  There is truth and fallacy in both statements. In a national election, one's vote generally doesn't make a difference AS A SINGLE VOTE, but it matters a great deal as part of the aggregate.  There is certainly a difference between the two major parties, but not nearly enough!  Right now, there is a BIG difference in that the Republicans have been utterly co-opted by greedy crooks and religious kooks!
:o

It's always conservatives who don't care about getting these nonvoters to voete, ever notice that?

It's presumptuous to say they want "want everything done for them."  I mean, come on!

I think a lot lot of the apathetic non-voters feel "there's no real difference between the candidates/parties," and "my vote doesn't matter anyway."  There is truth and fallacy in both statements. In a national election, one's vote generally doesn't make a difference AS A SINGLE VOTE, but it matters a great deal as part of the aggregate.  There is certainly a difference between the two major parties, but not nearly enough!  Right now, there is a BIG difference in that the Republicans have been utterly co-opted by greedy crooks and religious kooks!
:o

It's always conservatives who don't care about getting these nonvoters to voete, ever notice that?


Mostly poor and young people don't vote, so naturally conservatives don't encourage participation.

I agree that there isn't enough differance between the parties, although there is a greater differance now than any time I remember.