In the US the law is currently where you don't have to identify yourself in order to vote. In fact one time I voted I just walked in and handed the lady my license (I do that a lot because I have a long last name and I get tired of repeating the spelling half a dozen times) and the lady shoved it back at me saying "I don't need to see that! What's your name?"
I could have said John Smith on Main Street and surely gotten a match.
Maybe mandatory voting could fix that? Who knows.
We have mandatory voting in oz. I think it's essential for a proper democracy. Democracy doesn't come free.
Here you don't have to show ID, but you have to tell them your name and address and they tick it off in the huge electoral role books.
It wouldn't be hard to simply say a common name and then lean over and read the book and say the street name. But when the real Dave Jones comes along presumably they wouldn't let you vote, so it kinda evens out. Never heard reports of people trying to rort the system here, but it probably happens on some insignificant scale.
Yes, however the US is not technically democracy , which I think was in part of the separate colonies wanting unification under a national government but also a certain level of autonomy. A populous state like New York couldn't repeatedly throw its weight around and infringe on the rights of the smaller states. So we became a republic. Mexico, Russia, Germany, Austria, Brazil, and India are some other examples.
And yes there are some people in the US which strongly believe the right to "not vote" is an essential form of free speech.
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.
A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.
Like they say, a democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
For a PhD ,he draws rather a long bow!
Democracy & Republic are simply the Greek & Latin words for the same thing!
The Ancient Greek Democracy & the Roman Republic would not be regarded as "democracies" in the modern sense,as they allowed such things as limited franchise,slavery,etc.
True democracy,of the "Village Council" variety,is obviously too unwieldy for use in a Country with millions of inhabitants,so all so-called"Democracies" are of the Representational kind.
(except of course for those Dictatorships who call themselves "Democratic Republics",but we aren't speaking about liars here!)
Inherent in this,is the recognition of possible threats to minority (& majority) freedoms by such "disconnection " between the people & the business of Government.
The answer to this is in written Constitutions,such as in the USA,& Australia,& "implied" Constitutions from the body of Common Law in others,.
Actually,Australia has both!
I can simply copy his last paragraph changing a few words ,thus:
A Constitutional Monarchy,such as Australia uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc.
A Constitutional Monarchy usually has both a Constitution & a body of Common Law which limit the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches."
Sound very different,now?
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
