icnif77:

Why you were 'harmonized'? Was it because of my c&p  or was it entirely your fault?

I just saw 'Shining' gave me '+1' for my 'deep' reply, but I couldn't read his comment.

earthizen:

You obviously didn't read my title question, which was answered to my satisfaction. No worries, whatever you c&p was invalid. Whoever abused you did an excellent job. Don't give up healing yourself!  

Shining_brow:

A) I don't equate the two - and certainly not enough to have to 'stop'. China back in the 1950's could arguably be called 'communist', and as far as the present regime it is communism (with Chinese characteristics).

B) I think it's rather interesting (and telling) that I didn't even use the word 'America' anywhere in my OP...

And C) only a twat would say that the USA isn't a democracy. Of course it it. An ineffective and corrupt democracy, but yes, the people do have the opportunity to vote for certain leaders... just as in other democracies around the world.

Englteachted:

The political parties are not Democratic, they're chosen by delegates not the voters of the party. The actual election is decided by the electorate (electoral college) .  Ask youself this question Shining, if 52% of the people vote for Trump is it possible for Hilary to still win? Yes, I believe Bush vs Gore ended this way. Yes the people can choose but it is possible for their choice to be ignored.

Shining_brow:

Hence, seriously flawed democracy..

In Australia, it may be possible for someone to get 52% of the vote, and still not be the elected official (albeit, this isn't likely to happen at that level of stats...).

Why? Because out of 6 candidates, one can get 52% first choice, but maybe none of 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice. But the person who comes in second at, say 40%, could get 90% of second choice votes... and thus, it technically more preferred.

Yeah, I know the US doesn't work like that.... but, there's still a general election in which eligible citizens do get to vote for nominated officials...

earthizen:

@Englteachted   I was inspired by your comment to look into that election. You were correct, the year was 2000 and it was Bush vs Gore, the then Vice President.  It looked like it wasn't that bad, Gore's kind of losing was uncommon in the history of US Presidential election. Below is what I found.....fyi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

"The 2000 presidential election was the fourth election in U.S. history and the first in 112 years in which the eventual winner failed to win the popular vote (after the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888)."

Englteachted:

Not only that, the electoral college can vote anyway they want. My guess is if the people elected a real leader that wasn't corrupt the electoral college would choose a crook instead.

earthizen:

I have always been curious as to why this "double election" was setup in the first place. Thanks to you I finally dug it up. Interesting, if this is the main reason then this Electoral College process should long be dismantled, how long was it since the liberation of slaves!!! But, 4 fishy elections out of 54 (US Presidential elections) is 7.4%, meaning, 92.6% is the people's will (electoral vote aligning popular vote). Realistically and relative to other developed countries, it really isn't bad at all.  See below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

"Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[16]"

retiredinchina:

A serious serious flaw you are forgetting is elections before women voted around 1912 to 1918 were voters that were property owners only, regardless of race or sex, but after women got the vote and non productive dead beats got to vote, everything changed and debts started piling up. Most women were housewives not working and the non productive become a power to take away money and taxes from the productive to give the non productive. While this is a noble goal to fight hunger and poverty, I don't think free housing and cell phones were part of the compassionate argument at the time, but here we are 92 million adults over 18 not working but surviving off the productive workers of society, slippery slope worked real well in a 100 years. In fact, women demanding government spending also led to the IRS and income taxes as well, 1913, unintended consequences are so wonderful. The great leader at the time, the bigot racist warmonger democrat Woodrow Wilson, America invaded 13 countries including Russia while he was president and his war mongering and racism was overlooked because people were promised free stuff from the productive. Funny how history repeats itself so much and since he was a democrat, history books don't even mention the 18000 marines he sent to Russia, sort of like Bill Clinton bombing Christians in Bosnia to support Muslims from the air with no way to defend themselves, of course when Japan did this to Shanghai it was a war crime but Bill is a God in the democratic party.