|This is true. I think another illustrative point is that, OK, obviously the old iraqi elections did not constitute democracy (no choice), but the latest election had 250 parties, 750 candidates, the ballot was (aledgedly) one meter by 50 centimeters, most candidates were afraid to publicly admit their campains, and in adition to saddam's old soviet tanks rumbling again throught the streets there were plainclothsed men in SUVs, wearing Balaclavas and carying machine guns. Were they terrorists? No, elections oficials.|
Meanwhile, the US election has 2 candidates (who can be seriously considered. Lenord Peltier ran from prison, Jello Biafra has run before, I think, but even the greens are too marginalized to be considered). does that mean they're twice as democratic as Iraq under Saddam? Canada has 4 1/2 parties (the PQ seperatists only run in Quebec, where they do fairly well). I just joined the Aboriginal party, who are trying to reach 250 registered members to be officially recognized by electiona canada. So we're 5 times as democratic as saddam?
That's how i prefer to frame the issue. Not: are we democratic or not; but: how democratic are we?
asking: What kind of democracy do we have here? makes it way more complex, and really subjective, but it's important to ask too, despite the lack of any firm answers once we plunge off the deep end into this area.
the real question is: what criteria do we judge democracy by? The greek's system was based on slaves doing all the worst jobs, and limiting voting citizens to 5000 elite white males. they had fewer voters than we have appointed goverment officials. what is the standard?
The Iriquoi round table of tribal councils bears more attention, if you ask me.
Also, India has 600 million adult voters, but every balot can be traced from when it's cast untill its counted. How?
We don't do that. How come?