in a pure democracy, you can elect anybody. The US is currently trying to debate whether or not you can elect someone like trump or not, but it seems like the answer is yes mostly because of stalling. We have also had cases of people putting themselves on the ballot from prison/jail which does happen.
This shit’s weird, it’s never happened before and we don’t know what to do about it lol.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The point here is that democratic nations can have imposed reasonable limits on who is and who isn’t a legitimate candidate. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t a legitimate candidate, because he wasn’t born in the US.
The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
Other countries have different requirements. Usually there’s a bit more, but still vague, like “be of good standing” or something like that.
well yeah, it’s a democratic republic, it’s in the name, dunno if you ever noticed in between bouts of staring ICJ proceedings and human rights group watches.
also curious how i never referred to the US as a pure democracy, and even gave an example counter to that, but apparently your dumbass forgot to block my account. That or you like stalking me.
You’re implying the Cambridge study doesn’t actually mean what it means, because “the US is a republic”, not realising a republic is a type of democracy. The Cambridge study concludes:
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Is that too hard to understand? I can try to simplify it if you like.
Also, you said “I never referred to a pure democracy”, when you said that verbatim.
Thirdly, what the fuck is this about “stalking”? You replied to me replying to some other dude?
So you think a traitorous person can be a legitimate candidate?
as far as democracy goes, if people want to elect a hitler, they elect a hitler.
Valid sentence, yes.
I’d still like an answer though.
The answer is yes, if the peoples want to destroy democracy
in a pure democracy, you can elect anybody. The US is currently trying to debate whether or not you can elect someone like trump or not, but it seems like the answer is yes mostly because of stalling. We have also had cases of people putting themselves on the ballot from prison/jail which does happen.
This shit’s weird, it’s never happened before and we don’t know what to do about it lol.
Unfortunately, the US is not a pure democracy. It’s not even a democracy, arguably.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The point here is that democratic nations can have imposed reasonable limits on who is and who isn’t a legitimate candidate. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t a legitimate candidate, because he wasn’t born in the US.
Other countries have different requirements. Usually there’s a bit more, but still vague, like “be of good standing” or something like that.
well yeah, it’s a democratic republic, it’s in the name, dunno if you ever noticed in between bouts of staring ICJ proceedings and human rights group watches.
also curious how i never referred to the US as a pure democracy, and even gave an example counter to that, but apparently your dumbass forgot to block my account. That or you like stalking me.
You said
Just one comment above this.
Here:
And we clearly were discussing the US. And whether a treasonous person would be a legitimate choice for president.
I’ve no idea what the rest of your comment means. How could I be stalking you if you replied to my comment? And why would I be stalking some random?
Edit also a “democratic Republic” is a democracy, and that study specifically says there’s no evidence of democracy, but a ton for oligarchy
uh huh
Are you high or something?
You’re implying the Cambridge study doesn’t actually mean what it means, because “the US is a republic”, not realising a republic is a type of democracy. The Cambridge study concludes:
Is that too hard to understand? I can try to simplify it if you like.
Also, you said “I never referred to a pure democracy”, when you said that verbatim.
Thirdly, what the fuck is this about “stalking”? You replied to me replying to some other dude?