“But over time, the executive branch grew exceedingly powerful. Two world wars emphasized the president’s commander in chief role and removed constraints on its power. By the second half of the 20th century, the republic was routinely fighting wars without its legislative branch, Congress, declaring war, as the Constitution required. With Congress often paralyzed by political conflict, presidents increasingly governed by edicts.”
One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer. There are all sorts of ways to fudge that figure via how districts are drawn and delegates are awarded. But straight up disenfranchising whole ethnic and gender groups is as explicitly “unfair” from any but the most revanchist perspective.
What you’re describing is Republicanism, in so far as decision making power is devolved to a base constituency and managed via a legal doctrine rather than the whims of a dictator. But the fundamental problem with describing democracy in this manner is that you can make the voting pool arbitrarily small without violating the constraints. Why stop at “White Male Landowners”, after all? You can shrink it to Firstborn Sons or military officers or immediate family of the preceding executive. Taken to its absurdist conclusion, it’s a single person issuing a single vote on all issues. But hey, it’s “fair” by the letter of the law, so ignore the rest of the disenfranchised population.
Not unfair to say “Democracies exist on a spectrum”. But at some point, you’re so far off the ideal that the term becomes farcical.
Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn’t guarantee fair.
To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)
But you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I’m arguing that it’s still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I’m arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn’t be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that “democracy” means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.
A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.
And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.
Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.
For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.
That stayed airborn for 12 seconds.
I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?
So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?
You’re doing exactly what I’m arguing against. You’re attributing a bunch of other qualities to “democracy,” and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.
I think we are done here. You’re arguing against things I’m not writing.