CaelonLafferty

If the power is still in the hands of the people, then yes, they are voting for that one party to stay in power. However, I would be wary of this situation because many times the majority party may be influencing the vote of the electoral college.

Also, the two party system can be flawed. A lot of times the only reason the majority stays in power is because there isn't a suitable alternative. It's one on one and a lot of times you have to choose the lesser evil.

Truth-Bringer

And that's part of a good argument why voting confers no right to politicians to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary behavior of adult citizens:

As Lysander Spooner correctly noted -

1. The act of voting can bind only those who vote, and who win the vote.
2. Most people do not vote in any given election; many people never vote. Therefore, they have not consented.
3. To be binding, a vote must be “perfectly voluntary” yet a “very large number” vote in self-defense.
4. Taxation is compulsory and many vote only to prevent their money from being used against them.
5. Votes for unsuccessful candidates cannot be binding.
6. A secret vote provides no legal evidence by which to bind any particular voter to the alleged "social contract" or Constitution.

CaelonLafferty

These two are interesting points I haven't researched yet.
give me some time to study up before I come back and say something stupid.

defenderofthesmall

decomcry still exist but it is running out, zimbabway is a prime exsample of this

__________________
If it can happen it will

bill broome

'representative democracy' is not democracy, since the activities of the state do not reflect the wishes of the people. commonly the rich buy the parliament, or the army 'directs' it. so party rule is not democracy, whether one party enjoys long rule, or short.

democracy is possible. switzerland comes close enough for practical purposes since the citizens have an automatic consultation for any large use of tax money. just as important, the military power there is the citizen through participation in the national militia. no military coups possible.

in the united states, some states are quite democratic, recently california fired a governor they thought was not performing well. but most americans live in states where the rich and well-connected run things through their control of the politicians, and this was the goal of the people who wrote the american federal constitution. that's why america remains a monarchy of sorts, with an elected king, and elected aristocracy.

there's not much real democracy in the world, don't be fooled by the 'newspeak' of politicians.

klapa1

Well - it's a "loaded question" because certainly one party rule for an extended time would not invalidate a county's "democratic" status - but only so long as free speech, the right of assembly, and open elections were preserved for the other aspiring parties.

billy_bonney

I would have to say no.

This is the reason I did not vote for Bush in 2000. It is the same reason that Electing Hillary would have been equally wrong. Both the Clintons and the Bushs have established a political dynasty. Neither one has furthered the interests of Democracy IMHO.


Billy