SaltSong

Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.

I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?

For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.

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.

One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.

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.

I don't think something can rotate relevant to itself. If all of reality was the earth, and nothing else, how can you tell if it's spinning or not?

Please use small words if you try to answer this. I know a decent bit of applied physics, but once it turns to pure math, my head starts to swim.

Carefully trimmed sticker?

EDIT: Ah, I see you've handled it. Carry on, then.

Should be possible to just not plug them in.

But I have no idea why they are there in the first place.

This depend very much on how you define "fair," and how it is used in context.

So, I would say a system that only let's white male landowners vote is not "fair" because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is "fair," and it's a democracy.

On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably "fair." But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not "fair," and you don't have a democracy.

To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.

Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.

-Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

He had such a way with words, he did.

Yea. If we counted popular vote, rather than EC, that would not qualify him for president.

I'm not actually sure what happens if no candidate gets a majority.

It's not a good democracy, no. The fact that Trump is not following the rules suggests that it isn't a democracy at all, since we are voting for stick figures, not leaders. But he was elected fair and square, at least until we find evidence otherwise.

And again, "democracy" doesn't mean "good," or "fair" or "virtuous." We are none of those things right now, weather we are a democracy or not.

I'm prepared to argue that fake voting doesn't count.

we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don't we?

Last I checked, democracy didn't mean "fair," it ment that the leaders were voted into power.

I'm not suggesting that America before Trump was a paragon of virtue. But our corrupt leaders and wealthy oligarchs made America powerful to serve their own ends.

Trump is not serving the ends of American oligarchs. He's serving the ends of Russian oligarchs.