Strong democracy or strong constitution ?

[bitsmichel]

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%

[Balthazar]

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%

All this democracy games during 1932-1933 seems like a poor joke, and very similar to some recent events in well known country 

For countryfree:

Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.

This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.

[Daniel91]

Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.

[countryfree]

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%

All this democracy games during 1932-1933 seems like a poor joke, and very similar to some recent events in well known country 

For countryfree:

Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.

This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.

I know all that. It wasn't smart tactics but democracy's always like that. Nothing has changed. In today's democracy, the winner is the one who spends the most in advertising. I shall also remind you of the Bush vs Gore battle for the U.S. 2000 presidential election. Gore had half a million more votes than Bush, but the latter got elected. Democracy may be the best system, but it's far from perfect.

[herzmeister]

Between the two, a strong constitution is the most direct form of democracy, since the democratic process here primarily takes place in the economy: the number of votes you get is directly equivalent to how much you contribute to that economy; nothing could be more fair.

Not exactly, the purported dichotomy is if capital votes or if people vote, i.e. is one dollar bill == one vote, or is one person == one vote. That's a difference. A pauper would practically have zero voice in such a purely capitalistic society, while in a democracy he would (theoretically) have one vote.

But either way, theoretically we have democracy in most parts of the world, but we all know in practice both approaches kinda fail.

[Balthazar]

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%

All this democracy games during 1932-1933 seems like a poor joke, and very similar to some recent events in well known country  

For countryfree:

Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.

This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.

I know all that. It wasn't smart tactics but democracy's always like that. Nothing has changed. In today's democracy, the winner is the one who spends the most in advertising. I shall also remind you of the Bush vs Gore battle for the U.S. 2000 presidential election. Gore had half a million more votes than Bush, but the latter got elected. Democracy may be the best system, but it's far from perfect.

Hell, who cares about Bush and electoral college...

Successfully blackmail the president to get a post isn't equal to be democratically elected. Isn't that clear enough? %)

[hologram]

Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.

Have you even heard about Switzerland ?

[Daniel91]

Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.

Have you even heard about Switzerland ?

Yes, I heard about Switzerland and I know what you mean.
People there have right to ask for national referendum about any issue in their lives, but still they need their political Representatives, parliament, government etc.

[ObscureBean]

I don't know much about politics but isn't constitution a product of democracy?
Also it seems to me that democracy is more dynamic and constitution is more rigid. They are both flawed.
Constitution could work if it were perfect but that's impossible to achieve.

[DavidHume]

Law to protect individual and privacy are needed via strong constitution.

Strong democracy implies mob rules.

[21M Bitcoin]

Hi,

Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?

i dont care about thats all . i just want to be rich and  life freedom with sexy gir until i ddie ...

[counter]

Strong Constitution would be my choice without question.  They say a democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner. 

[crazyALT47]

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Hitler did a lot to manulipate the system. He made empty promises and was elected when the economy in Germany was doing very bad. Does this sound familar?

[Brewins]

democracy is not when the majority can do wharever they want, but it is when all the powers are more or less balanced, and we have the empire of the law and the fundamentals values above all.

Then the correct would be strong consensus or strong democracy.

[Balthazar]

The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected

No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.

Hitler did a lot to manulipate the system. He made empty promises and was elected when the economy in Germany was doing very bad. Does this sound familar?

Yeah, sound familiar with another guy who unable to read the topic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=721803.msg8181815#msg8181815

He wasn't elected, he failed to achieve majority even after triple attempt of election. He was appointed by the president.

[poisenrang]

strong constitution #1 best for everyone

[Justine]

Strong constitution that protect individual right.

[countryfree]

I repeat Hitler came to power democratically. He didn't have a majority in 1933, that's very true, but that doesn't change anything. In Italy, the Netherlands, Austria or Belgium and plenty of other countries, the political leaders, today, don't have a majority either. A 51% majority is just impossible as there are too many candidates at each election. So there's got to be a coalition, and the best man to achieve that is appointed.

Saying Hitler didn't came to power democratically is saying there's no democracy in Italy, the Netherlands, nor in all the countries which have the same constitutional system as Germany in the 1930's. And all Germans agree on this: Hitler had the support of a majority of the German people for many years. Just ask a German!

[Divinespark]

Strong democracy
The choice of the people should generally prevail

[herzmeister]

And all Germans agree on this: Hitler had the support of a majority of the German people for many years. Just ask a German!

(I am German, but I know either way that) Markets can be manipulated, just as people can be manipulated. Nothing new under the sun, an unsolved problem for mankind.