Poles to bring the case for the CoFSM before the ECHR

[Valmy]

I'm not certain that CC and the rest of us are using the same definition.

One thing is for sure.  You and Valmy dont appear to have any idea what it is.  Go back and re-read what I said it was.

You are right.  I thought it was what Yi said.

[crazy canuck]

You guys honestly don't know what gerrymander means? 

It means the drawing of electoral borders (often with bizarre shapes) to maximize electoral advantage.

Well that was what I thought the definition was. 

Really? 

[crazy canuck]

I'm not certain that CC and the rest of us are using the same definition.

One thing is for sure.  You and Valmy dont appear to have any idea what it is.  Go back and re-read what I said it was.

You are right.  I thought it was what Yi said.

Then your posts make you out to be a bit silly given you defended such a practice as being democratic.

[Valmy]

Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.

You and CC have a narrower definition of democracy clearly.  You can be democratically corrupt, if the majority of the people support it...which they seem to when it comes to the way we draw our corrupt districts.

[crazy canuck]

Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.

You and CC have a narrower definition of democracy clearly.  You can be democratically corrupt.

Yeah, we like to rule out things like one party rule etc.

[Valmy]

Then your posts make you out to be a bit silly given you defended such a practice as being democratic.

I did not defend it all.  Democratic does not necessarily mean good.

[crazy canuck]

Then your posts make you out to be a bit silly given you defended such a practice as being democratic.

I did not defend it all.  Democratic does not necessarily mean good.

But it does mean democratic.  You suggested that any system created by a democratically elected goverment would itself be democratic simply by viture of the fact the decision maker was elected.  Such a notion is absurd.

Gerrymandering is an easy example that creates abuses.  Another example is the way the two party system in the US is so deeply entrenched.

But I doubt you will see that as a problem given your previous posts.

So lets use a really easy example.  A government is elected and then suspends all future elections because of one reason or another but promises that when the time is right they will hold another election.  Still going to argue that a system created by democratically elected representatives will always be democratic?  Or is your definition of democracy so pliable that any abuse is possible?

[Martinus]

Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.

You and CC have a narrower definition of democracy clearly.  You can be democratically corrupt, if the majority of the people support it...which they seem to when it comes to the way we draw our corrupt districts.

I think that democracy understood as (just) rule of the majority is very 19th century and no longer thought sufficient in today's world.

[Razgovory]

I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.

[Sheilbh]

I think that democracy understood as (just) rule of the majority is very 19th century and no longer thought sufficient in today's world.

The American system's designed to stop that though. It's arguably far more British  

[Martinus]

I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.

I guess it's semanthics but also probably comes from the fact that both CC and I are lawyers. I know that if I went to my constitutional law exam and, when asked to define democracy, I said that it is "rule of the majority" only, I could at best hope to get C-.

I think a lot of people who are not specifically educated in that area may think this is a definition, but it hasn't been valid, at least in the West, for at least half a century now. Such elements as equality under law (including equal vote), protection of fundamental rights of minorities and rule of law are all considered sine qua non elements of democracy in the modern West - a system that lacks it simply isn't democracy any more.

[dps]

I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.

I guess it's semanthics but also probably comes from the fact that both CC and I are lawyers. I know that if I went to my constitutional law exam and, when asked to define democracy, I said that it is "rule of the majority" only, I could at best hope to get C-.

I think a lot of people who are not specifically educated in that area may think this is a definition, but it hasn't been valid, at least in the West, for at least half a century now. Such elements as equality under law (including equal vote), protection of fundamental rights of minorities and rule of law are all considered sine qua non elements of democracy in the modern West - a system that lacks it simply isn't democracy any more.

I don't disagree with that.  I think the problem that Valmy has with the positions you and CC have taken in this thread is that he is looking at democracy as a process--how the system operates--while you are trying to label the outcomes of the process--the actual laws produced by the system--as either democratic or undemocratic.  The problem with that approach is it then becomes too easy to simply label outcomes you don't agree with as "undemocratic". 

I think I'm in agreement with Valmy.  If a system has free elections, rule of law, and respect for minority rights, I'll consider that system democratic, even if it produces laws that I don't agree with.

[crazy canuck]

I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.

You will note that in my very first post on the subject I said that the Rule of Law was critical to a healthy democracy.  What you seem to think of democracy is form over substance.

[crazy canuck]

I don't disagree with that.  I think the problem that Valmy has with the positions you and CC have taken in this thread is that he is looking at democracy as a process--how the system operates--while you are trying to label the outcomes of the process--the actual laws produced by the system--as either democratic or undemocratic.  The problem with that approach is it then becomes too easy to simply label outcomes you don't agree with as "undemocratic". 

I think I'm in agreement with Valmy.  If a system has free elections, rule of law, and respect for minority rights, I'll consider that system democratic, even if it produces laws that I don't agree with.

You are part right.  The debate was joined over the question of whether any system created by democratically elected governments will always be democratic.  That is a question of substance - are the rules the current government create undemocratic.  The answer to that question isnt merely semantics.  It goes to the root of the health of the democracy and in extreme cases whether one still lives in a society that could be considered democratic.   

[Razgovory]

I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.

You will note that in my very first post on the subject I said that the Rule of Law was critical to a healthy democracy.  What you seem to think of democracy is form over substance.

I'm looking at it as a political system, and not relying on a value judgment to define it.