Have you ever arrived somewhere and wondered how you got there? Scientists at the University of Leeds believe they may have found the answer, with research that shows that humans flock like sheep and birds, subconsciously following a minority of individuals.
Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it.
“There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect,” says Professor Jens Krause of the University’s Faculty of Biological Sciences. “At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organising pedestrian flow in busy areas.”
Or we can just continue to use it to shape elections.
So if 5% jumped off a cliff…
Baaa
Old news concerning the Sheeple of the US…about to get flocked by a wolf in Obama clothing.
Weaaaapons of Maaaaas destruction…
The fear mongers figured this out years ago. I won’t name names.
Moo!
All you have to do is watch a High school fire drill. I remember people only using e door of a double door to exit causing jams in the hallways. Of course actually being aware of the situation, I would move to the other door and start flow in that door. The scary part was that I was invariably the one to do that.
Sinn Fein, it is funny that you didn’t call him by his proper right-wing talk radio name. You know, Barack Hussein Obama. From what I understand (rumors), the heavily medicated and former racist radio talk show host Bill Cunningham has been ranting like a former alcoholic or drug user without a fix about Hussein Obama trying to entice the poor whites folks with his liberal ways.
Thus, the reason we have the electoral college and a republic instead of a democracy.
Pay, pray and OBEY!!!!
SUCKERS!
You might want to go lookup what it means to be a democracy again. I am pretty sure every country believes it is a democracy (former USSR, China). Democracy, is simply a set of ideals. The only true democracy is a direct democracy (one person, one vote).
The principle of liberal democracy is the institutional system we adhere to. The very same democratic peace theory that was used as an underlining basis for the invasion of Iraq by GWB.
Second, we are not a republic. Rather we are a constitutional republic based on the principles of federalism (vertical check), which relies on the presidential system as a horizontal check and balance.
So, in the end we are a constitutional republic and a liberal, contemporary representative democracy. If you don’t believe me, look up international and foreign case law.
Finally, delegates usually vote for the candidate that their constituents select. It is based on the weight of the state and that is a very democratic principle (though not always proportional)
hmmmm I hope this tidbit inspires some more mayhem with the folks over at Improv Everywhere.
#10
One of the most confusing posts I have read. You jumped between talking about general political philosophy (“Democracy is simply a set of ideals”) to talking about systems of government (“The only true democracy is a direct democracy.”) In addition, saying, “Second, we are not a republic. We are a constitutional republic” is to simply refine your first premise. That is like saying, “That is not a dog. It is a pit bull.”
If we are, as a friend of mine once said, getting into Talmudic discourse, we can state the following:
1. Almost no system of government is of a “pure” form.
2. The US Federal system of government is not a democracy since the people cannot vote on policy directly. Some States however, contain elements of democracies in that the people *can* vote on law directly (e.g. CA’s propositions).
3. The US Federal system of government is a federation of republics (of a variety of forms) in that groups (i.e. States) have representation and power.
4. The US Federal government as well as the State governments are bound by a constitution.
However, even with all that, the more succinct version, “We are a republic, not a democracy.” is still quite valid even if not 100% precise.
It is true that America is a republic… that has a Constitution and lesser constitutions, believes in the principle of federalism (when convenient) and is led by the executive in matters of foreign policy.
My basic point was that the term republic was a bit vague and that a constitutional republic or a representative democracy was a better word choice.
1). True
2). Contemporary representative democracies rely on election bodies… it might be unfair to not call them a democracy if they follow the general principles of a democracy. If one were to follow the classical definition of a democracy, than we are not one. It is important to remember that not only were the Founders concerned about the tyranny of the masses, but
implementing a one person-one vote system was not possible given the technology until at least the industrial revolution.
3). True (vertical check and balance)
4). They are bound by the Constitution though the Supremacy Clause. Even with a weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause under the Rehnquist Court the fact has changed little that the Tenth Amendment is very limited in application (when it matters).
I think the real miscommunication seems to be in what the definition of a democracy is. You hold a hard line perspective that it is only when the power is placed directly in the hands of the people (direct democracy) and I do not. I am willing to believe that casting your vote to individuals who of their own goodwill vote for the candidate you selected (hopefully) is still a democratic process, because it involves the people directly in the decision process even if they do not cast the final “ballot.”
This thread is about sheep? I recall that most people will try to go out of a burning building the same way they came in? Always good to look around once you get seated and have a plan.
Why can’t we say “nothing is pure” and that any evaluation finding same is a measurement of the evaluation tool, not the thing being measured?
CONGRESS is in charge of foreign policy, absent its voluntary default, in which case international corporations carry out that function.
No, according to the Court the president has the authority in the arena of international affairs because the reigns were passed down to him/her when we broke away from England.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp
The Bricker amendments would have placed limits on his/her authority when they were purposed in the late 50s, they never passed… falling by essentially a single vote in the Senate.
The reason for the Bricker amendment was:
Missouri v. Holland (1920), this case essentially allowed the federal government to amend the Constitution and lock states out of issues by creating treaties with foreign countries.
Funny that the topic is about how a small percent of a group can influence the direction of that group.
And with one post the thread went from sheep to politics.
5 Percenters for Ron Paul!
#15–Jeff==no.
#16–Man==didn’t read the last sentence of the OP?
#bobbo==yes.
#19–Jeff==no. Been a lot of news about that just last week that Bushieboy was off the tracks again trying to usurpt Congressional authority. Did you work for Gonzales?
From the cited case: “We deem it unnecessary to consider, seriatim, the several clauses which are said to evidence the unconstitutionality of the Joint Resolution as involving an unlawful delegation of legislative power. It is enough to summarize by saying that, both upon principle and in accordance with precedent, we conclude there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the re-establishment of peace in the affected countries; whether he shall make proclamation to bring the resolution into operation; whether and when the resolution shall cease to operate and to make proclamation accordingly; and to prescribe limitations and exceptions to which the enforcement of the resolution shall be subject.”
The president can act within the authority granted by Congress but cannot make treaties and such by himself. Pretend ambiguities will not ocassion an expansion of presidential powers==unless no one objects. Might be a close call?