[Dog Gone]

So, as long as someone who is elected still allows "elections" it doesn't matter what they do to the democracy that elected them.

Interesting.

Excuse me for thinking you could easily be swindled.

[andy_card]

So, as long as someone who is elected still allows "elections" it doesn't matter what they do to the democracy that elected them.

Of course it matters what they do. Believe me, I was no fan of Allende, and I'm sure as hell no fan of Lula. But as long as they work within the democratic process, they've given the people of their respective countries a simple method by which to remove them from office. I think Bill Clinton was a terrible President, but if anyone had tried to lead a coup against him, I'd have taken my rifle down and fought for him in the streets, if necessary (although I don't exactly relish the proposition). The means are more important than the ends when it comes to representative democracy.

[SauronOfMordor]

So, as long as someone who is elected still allows "elections" it doesn't matter what they do to the democracy that elected them.

I'm a fan of democracy only because it (usually) is a better vehicle for preserving individual rights than other systems. The important thing is individual rights (including the right to not be stripped of your property), not how elections are done

Segregation in the South was democraticly sanctioned

The stealing of farms in Zimbabwe is ordered by the democraticly-elected tyrant there

A democracy becomes unstable when there is a propertyless majority who can be convinced that they would gain financially from taking the property of an electoral minority