Democracies are better

[fuji]

Even in Canada where any Canadian citizen, unlike the US, can be Prime Minister, the democratic system is where representatives are elected, some get there as a result of being parachuted in, by others outside the community, in ridings where therefore the people's favorite have little or no chance, so the vote is flawed.

You are advancing a stupid argument. You are attempting to say that because Canadian democracy has some fairly minor flaws, that it's just like a completely undemocratic system that hasn't even got elections at all. That is just dumb.

Sure our democracy has imperfections but it is a HELL of a lot better than no democracy at all. There is NO democracy at the UN, non whatsoever, save the 40 odd votes from democratic countries which are absolutely overwhelmed by the undemocratic rest of world.

 

[fuji]

The US ambassador is not a representative elected by the people, nor is the guy who chose him.

Are you making stuff up as you go along now. US ambassadors are ultimately chosen by the President, or by those the President has chosen to delegate the decision to. The President is elected.

 

[blackrock13]

Are you making stuff up as you go along now. US ambassadors are ultimately chosen by the President, or by those the President has chosen to delegate the decision to. The President is elected.

Not by the people, certainlly not by Joe the plumber.

I don't make stuff up. If I did there would be a line up telling me so. At this point it's a line up of one and that one it you, with almost next to zero credibility. From what you wrote it's clear the ambassadors aren't elected by the citizenry either.

 

[blackrock13]

You are advancing a stupid argument. You are attempting to say that because Canadian democracy has some fairly minor flaws, that it's just like a completely undemocratic system that hasn't even got elections at all. That is just dumb.

Sure our democracy has imperfections but it is a HELL of a lot better than no democracy at all. There is NO democracy at the UN, non whatsoever, save the 40 odd votes from democratic countries which are absolutely overwhelmed by the undemocratic rest of world.

That's not what I said at all.

 

[fuji]

You wrote "Not every single aspect of the way the UN is run is democratic, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable attempt at a democratic institute."

The UN makes no attempt at democracy WHATSOEVER.

You are thoroughly confused if you think voting at the General Assembly, or the CPC Central Committee, makes either body in any way democratic. The members aren't democratically selected and that's the crux of democracy.

 

[fuji]

Not by the people, certainlly not by Joe the plumber.

I don't make stuff up. If I did there would be a line up telling me so. At this point it's a line up of one and that one it you, with almost next to zero credibility. From what you wrote it's clear the ambassadors aren't elected by the citizenry either.

The entire executive branch of the US government is answerable directly to the elected President.

 

[Asterix]

So now we have degrees of veto powers; that not very democratic, or is it? The president can be overridden, but if whatever he's signing is become law I suspect it's really hard to find the 2/3 majority to over turn it since a majority voted for it earlier. So yes it's possible, but not likely. How often does it happened? About 10% of the time.

Well, let's look at it a little further. A President can be removed from office if his conduct is egregious enough. A General Assembly member can be removed from the UN by vote of the other members, with the recommendation of the Security Council. Translation, if one of the five members of the SC objects, it dies. The permanent members are exactly that. Untouchable.

 

[blackrock13]

The entire executive branch of the US government is answerable directly to the elected President.

So they're elected by proxy, sort of.

 

[fuji]

So they're elected by proxy, sort of.

Correct. In a democracy at the top of the food chain you have officials whose power derives directly from the will of the people as expressed in some sort of election.

You do not need every flunky and bureaucrat underneath those officials to be elected, provided that the democratically elected officials have final say and ultimate authority. The fact the guy who approves your application for a driver's license isn't elected is unimportant--his ultimate bosses are elected. That gives the people recourse to correct egregious or systemic misbehavior by such flunkies, by way of their elected representatives.

If the US Ambassador to the UN does not vote the way Obama wants him to vote he will swiftly be replaced. Get it yet?

 

[rld]

First just a note--you are not disputing that the ICC is undemocratic, or that its existence erodes fundamental democratic rights and freedoms. You are, instead, trying to justify it in practical terms, saying that if we do not give up our democratic rights then we can't have something like the ICC.

Even if I agree with you, the conclusion I would draw is that it's better not to have an ICC in that case.

However I don't agree with you, I see no reason why the ICC could not be constituted strictly from democratic nations and then the bloc of democratic nations could negotiate extradition treaties with non-democratic nations. Such agreements were in place long before the ICC ever existed so I can't see ANY reason why that isn't a workable solution.

Sure some rogue states will probably not sign up, but those same rogue states would likely refuse to co-operate with the ICC if it ever did order them to turn over someone they cared about.

All in all I see no value in the ICC, yet I see considerable harm to fundamental democratic rights and freedoms.

The ICC is a court, not a government. It is neither democratic nor undemocratic. Your need to label every institution as either one or the other is infantile.

I guess you see the trial of Charles Taylor as having no value.

And why don't you name me some trial decisions from the ICC that have harmed a right or a freedom instead of throwing around useless generalities.

 

[rld]

Yes he does, but it can be overriden. The veto power of each of the five SC members is absolute.

All that means, is that when the UN was being constructed, the participants decided that on the body that could authorize the use of military force, a unanimous decision was required. That was the check and balance they decided to put on that function, and not a bad idea.

Are you saying our criminal jury system is undemocratic because you must have a unanimous jury to convict?

 

[blackrock13]

Correct. In a democracy at the top of the food chain you have officials whose power derives directly from the will of the people as expressed in some sort of election.

You do not need every flunky and bureaucrat underneath those officials to be elected, provided that the democratically elected officials have final say and ultimate authority. The fact the guy who approves your application for a driver's license isn't elected is unimportant--his ultimate bosses are elected. That gives the people recourse to correct egregious or systemic misbehavior by such flunkies, by way of their elected representatives.

If the US Ambassador to the UN does not vote the way Obama wants him to vote he will swiftly be replaced. Get it yet?

I'm not sure I'd call the ambassador to the UN a flunky bureaucrat, considering he represents the country/government on very large international stage, but why not? The American people love elections. They have one or two every couple of years. They're in election mode most of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if they elect head dog catcher in some cities.

So you've got the top two positions in the country are people who are not elected directly by the citizens, but are appointed by a a cabal of elected representatives with input from some Star Chamber called the Electoral Collage, who are beholden to whom? Doesn't sound that overly democratic to me according to your Utopian definition.

 

[oldjones]

Doesn't the US president have a veto?

And just as the Security Council at the UN is separate and not subordinate to the General Assembly, neither is PotUS (chosen by the Electoral College, not the people) subordinate to the assembled representatives of the people. One must also note that in our own country the unelected Senate can defeat a bill the elected Commons passed, effectively 'vetoing' it, although that's not a proper use of the term.

Democracy in practice is way more complicated than in theory. The pure and simple form only works in small situations. After that it's all jury-rigging to avoid the direct form, which involves everyone taking to the streets.

 

[blackrock13]

And just as the Security Council at the UN is separate and not subordinate to the General Assembly, neither is PotUS (chosen by the Electoral College, not the people) subordinate to the assembled representatives of the people. One must also note that in our own country the unelected Senate can defeat a bill the elected Commons passed, effectively 'vetoing' it, although that's not a proper use of the term.

Democracy in practice is way more complicated than in theory. The pure and simple form only works in small situations. After that it's all jury-rigging to avoid the direct form, which involves everyone taking to the streets.

Somebody gets it. It can't be black and white as Fuji would like it.

 

[fuji]

The ICC is a court, not a government. It is neither democratic nor undemocratic.

Clearly you don't understand the governing structure of the ICC.

 

[fuji]

I'm not sure I'd call the ambassador to the UN a flunky bureaucrat, considering he represents the country/government on very large international stage, but why not?

He serves at the whim of the President. You aren't disputing anything here just rambling.

Your claim that the electoral college in the US means that the US is not a democracy is equally as bizarre as your notion that the UN is one.

 

[fuji]

Somebody gets it. It can't be black and white as Fuji would like it.

This is black and white: The UN is not a democracy.

The minor flaws, complexities, and intricacies of the 40 or so states that are does not alter that the UN does not even make an attempt to be democratic, but ramble away, say things to make yourself feel clever if you like.

 

[flubadub]

The UN makes no attempt at democracy WHATSOEVER.

You are thoroughly confused if you think voting at the General Assembly, or the CPC Central Committee, makes either body in any way democratic. The members aren't democratically selected and that's the crux of democracy.

Either are the citizens in a democracy.
Its considered a democracy if each participant gets a vote, as is the case in the UN.

 

[Asterix]

All that means, is that when the UN was being constructed, the participants decided that on the body that could authorize the use of military force, a unanimous decision was required. That was the check and balance they decided to put on that function, and not a bad idea.

Are you saying our criminal jury system is undemocratic because you must have a unanimous jury to convict?

Than you don't understand how the veto can and has been used. Here is a list of the more than 70 US vetos since 1971 and how the rest of the world voted in most cases. The overwhelming lot of the resolutions had nothing to do with authorizing military force.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

 

[rld]

Than you don't understand how the veto can and has been used. Here is a list of the more than 70 US vetos since 1971 and how the rest of the world voted in most cases. The overwhelming lot of the resolutions had nothing to do with authorizing military force.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

I have a very good understanding about the veto and how it is used.

But the key feature that separates the SC from the GA is the "use of force" power and the nations who entered into the UN agreed that the veto was the right mechanism in their eyes.

But do you feel that juries are undemocratic because one juror can prevent a conviction?