Except not really. Actually, the question is wrong. And I'm not talking about the US being a democratic republic. That's not the point here. The question I'd like to pursue is how do you define or more accurately, how do you identify democracy?

I maintain that no country is a democracy.

Democratic Characteristics
A country can have democratic character, I believe. And a country can have anti-democratic or tyrannical characteristics. I believe that the dominant institutions of a society determine the degree to which a society, or any structure, is democratic. The dominant institutions determine the degree of democratic character.

In the US the dominant institution, many say, is the govt. Some here may agree with that. I believe--no, I know--that corporations are the biggest donors and political contributors in this country. Therefore, it follows logically, that in a society where money talks, as the saying goes, the group or institution with the money is the controlling group or institution. Corporations control the govt.

Corporations are the dominant institution in this society.

The Democratic Nature of Corporations
There isn't one. Corporations are tyrannies. Fascist charlatans and idiots pretend, and in the case of the ignorant, believe, that shareholder meetings equal democracy in corporations. A claim that is ridiculous on its face. Corporations are tyrannical institutions.

So if the democratic nature of a society correlates with the dominant institutions of the society and if the dominant institutions are anti-democratic and tyrannical, what is the political nature of the society?

How can it not be for the most part, anti-democratic?

Phew!
Fortunately, we live here, on these forums. And its an adminocracy and a modocracy.

The U.S. is an oligarchy. Our elected representitives don't even make a pretense of actually representing you and I, anymore.

"Those on the ideological Left call it Corporate Fascism and those on the right call it State Socialism. Both are correct." -Gary Allen

Iron law of oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the middle class still has the power in this country; we just don't do very much. We seem to be content to let the corporations run the country. This country is in serious need of reform. And the only people who could possibly create it is the middle class. But we have to wake up.

Agreed.

Well, many of us believe people should be able to gain as much wealth as they can do with fair trade.(/commerce) Looks like that means that people should have the right to own corporations to me. So inherently, in that view economy should be undemocratic as in money buys 'voting power'.
But anyway, the real problem would seem to be corporations having to much influence on politics. It is as blatant as Slashdot | Google's New Lobbying Power in Washington and worse. I am convinced that US political parties get most of their money from corporate America.(or not even America) Some of lobbying is not bad, but some is manipulation.

@bns: I agree, but there is often the sentiment: voting on neither Democrats nor Republicans never gets a party in congress in a way that they can do something. It is a self-forfilling statement.
Maybe there should be a single-purpose party to reform democracy, with goals like:

• Banning corporate lobbying. There should be a single organisation that handles corporations.(not sure how to really do this, though) Other inappropriate influence must be taken out aswel.

• Political parties get enough money for their seats for their campaign. Other income should somehow be punished. (how, i do not know, best way i know, is punishment by the public, but how do you get them to do that..)

• Focus to congress, not the president. Take away power and responsibilities from the president.

• Promote new parties by granting money, based on amount of followers.

• Continuity of politicians from bottom to top. The bottom being spare-time activists/discussion groups and such, middle local politicians. This could provide a "ladder" so people have more possibilities of joining politics. Also, connecting top and bottom parts sometimes can help in that too.

Just some ideas, but in my opinion something like this will be necessary. Democrats and Republicans are pretty close in numbers, so a little party inbetween can get needed to get 50%-seat-coalition quite quickly.(is that how it works over there?) At that point, that party can set at least some demands. Of course, such a single-point party, would have to dissolve again at some point. I believe it has to a single-purpose-party, because that will not repel people with different beliefs but a desire to reform in common.

Yep. I'm beginning to think that's the only way. There are a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the current political system, but our ideals don't match. I think we need to temporarily put aside our ideals and all of us band together to peacefully overthrow the current gridlocked political system. I don't think we can get anything done as long as we keep fussing about particulars. No one is able to get any real momentum.

Lord Fu thinks its an oligarchy, bns thinks its a democracy, Lord Fu agrees with bns. This is the kind of confusion that typifies the US population. There's lots of information flowing around but no one knows what the fuck they're really saying or thinking. Seems like mumbo jumbo to me.

A single-purpose party? Reform democracy? What does any of that mean? There are things wrong with the political structure but as I said in my initial post, that's the minor problem. The major problem is the arrangement of the society. Corporations. Not bad corporations. Corporations, period. When you concentrate wealth within a system where wealth buys power, you can't have democracy. Democracy is about the distribution of power.

Capitalism is opposed to that because it is opposed to evenly distributed wealth.

How can the proposed reforms work without changes to the superstructure?

I agree that the middle class still has power but never uses it, leading to our current predicament. I wouldn't call it mumbo jumbo. Because We The People are so disengaged and apathetic, we have lost control of our government. It has become rule by the elite, oligarchy, IMO.

What do you suggest? I'm happy to discuss any alternatives, because, currently we're all getting screwed.

Well, alternatives is certainly a good discussion to have. It's also a difficult one to have because of all the confusion. That is why I started this thread. As a precursor of sorts to a discussion of the alternatives.

We need to be clear as to what we have right now before entering into discussion about where we are going.

Corporations control the US govt.
Corporations are undemocratic.
The US govt is undemocratic.
US society is undemocratic.

We could all join hands around the world and create a fair existence. While I'd like that, it's not what's happening. Something else that is not happening is the middle class exercising power in a progressive manner.

Corporate autocrats run US society. This is obvious. Let's stop kidding ourselves about the middle class and actually have a serious discussion based on the starting point reality that the US is not a very democratic society.

If one admits that Reagan was an empty-headed B-movie actor and that Bush Sr ran the country from 80-88 one begins to understand a lot more.

Bush Family Rule of the US: 1981-1992
Clinton Family Rule of the US: 1993-2000
Bush Family Rule of the US: 2001-2008
Probable Clinton Family Rule of the US: 2009-2016

This is a snapshot of the society we call a democracy. Where a handful of people rule a population of 300 million for decades. It's a sick joke.

@Fanon: Howso what does that mean? You know what a political party is, you know what purpose is, so you know what a single-purpose-party is. What that party should have as ago is roughly stated above. I even stated why it had to be single-purpose.

Trying to control/abolish corporations goes against beliefs of the political right, which i also tried to make clear in previous post. Although one could argue that corporations are not owned by any person, but large economic organisations seperate from democracy seem inevitable from a rightist point of view. Any way, the right exists, and fighting corporations defeats the one-purpose nature of the party, and turns off those rightist people who want political reform. I think government can be reformed while leaving corporations untouched. Of course, there might be resistence from those corporations.

You claim that your cause is about democracy, but it seems that you are arguing for a left government, that has corporations by the balls, or even abolishes them. Abolishing them would mean they would have to be replaced by something, it sounds like a vastly more complicated task.
The job that capitalism should be doing is IMO the following:

• Do the logistics, develop (part of)the tech.

• Allow for people to change how things are done for the better.

And not interfere with govt, of course, indeed capitalism needs to be interfered with from the outside to uphold ethics.(which is not done to a great enough extent, i think) They currently definitely do the logistics, but i am not sure wether there is enough space for other people to enter and do things in better ways. Perhaps corporate openness laws, mandating GPL-like code licences(security problem?), could help in these, but again, i think it is beyond the scope of the party. (gave some cons of (current) capitalism)
BTW i am not saying that capitalism is the only way to reach these goals. (although i do not really know different)
Does not quite cover how that fair existence is to be reached. Nor those two goals above.
Maybe this is off topic? Should i make thread?

About those presidents: that is a reason that presidents should get less power, and politics should be more accesable.
PS rightist not meant as insult (as leftist is sometimes used)

@Fanon: So what do you think? I think democracy on every level does not sound like a good idea, nor practical. After all, for many things, people simple do not have the know-how on how to decide things. It might also removes the ability for individuals to try new ways of doing things.
PS maybe i often am to aggressive in my posts?