WILL WE EVER BRING DEMOCRACY TO MASSACHUSETTS?

[ulTRAX]

Like all here I am sickened beyond belief that Bush was actually elected... with a 3 million vote lead to boot. But I can vomit, lick my wounds and bash Bush some other time. What I want to do is look at the road ahead. So I'll fall back to one of my perennial topics: where's the democracy in the Democratic Party?

If we could bring democracy to the US government, what would it look like? Presumably it would be based upon simple democratic principles such as:

* One person, one vote
* All votes are of equal weight
* Majority rules (with constitutional protections for minorities)
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and receive some representation in government.
* Citizens have the right to vote their conscience and NOT worry about the so-called "spoiler" effect.

Actual implementation of such democratic values might look like:

* All representative legislative bodies should be based upon the principle of proportional representation.
* Presidential elections based on a popular vote with some provision for a run-off to insure no one wins with less than 50% of the vote.
* A reformed constitutional amendment process so our future is not held hostage to a dwindling proportion of the US population. The 12 smallest states that can theoretically block any amendment are now down to a mere 4.5% of the population.
* Vastly increased voter-age participation (VAP) to insure an election outcome is morally legitimate. Remember that Reagan's "landslide" represented a mere 26.6% of the VAP.
* The outlawing of Gerrymandering. Members of the House should be in proportion to a percentage of vote totals. Some states might benefit from multi-seat districts.
* The Senate might become a national parliament based upon party election so that citizens who favor minority parties can finally get some official representation in government.
* Striping corporations of rights reserved for citizens. Taking Big Money out of campaigns.

What are the obstacles? I believe that it the anti-democratic and undemocratic nature of our political system that poses the biggest obstacle to enacting a Progressive agenda as have most advanced industrial democracies. But equally problematic are the lack of democratic values in the ordinary citizen. We see it here at DU where even "progressives" oppose democratic reforms.

Even the vast majority of so-called Democrats can't take off the ideological blinders and see the Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy itself. With all its defects, too many have been brought up to believe we must defer to the politics of the dead Founders rather than see this as a nation belonging to the living. How many times have you heard someone support that anti-democratic abomination called the EC because the Founders wanted X,Y & Z?

Any direct assaults on the reforming the federal government are probably doomed. One strategy I think might stand a better chance is to reform the amendment process itself. That would make other reforms easier.

But I also believe that the fight for democracy should start on the state level. It's easier to pick off one state at a time then to tackle the entire federal government. It's a process that can slowly introduce citizens to the value of democratic reforms. Neighboring states will pick up on the debate. Other states will get whiffs of the debate on the news... especially in presidential election years.

Take Massachusetts. It reflects many of the same undemocratic features as the federal government. We have two legislative chambers... both based on geographical districts. It's this districting system combined with plurality voting that perpetuates a dysfunctional 2 party system. Political minorities may make up a sizeable minority statewide but can never muster a win in any given district. Surely trying to reform the state senate so seats are based on statewide party elections is a key to introducing democratic concepts to the public. More than any other reform, it would give rise to viable third parties. This is something I favor. I hope viable Green or Progressive parties are not a threat to Democrats. The ruthless attacks on Nader, where the Dems attack Progressives, is like the proverbial circular firing squad.

Another possibility is instant run-off voting. Today it may not play a factor in state races since there's a primary system for the main parties and rarely any additional candidates. But what if a reformed senate leads to viable third parties that can finally compete for house seats or for governor? I also believe that since states control their elections for federal officials... there's no need to wait for IRV on the federal level... where we know it can't be instituted without a constitutional amendment. Maybe it's best instituted state by state. If Florida had IRV it might have solved the Nader "problem" in 2000.

Such state reforms might take decades. Reforming the Constitution even longer. Given the obstacles this might take 50 years. That proverbial journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step. I'd like to think that groups like DU have the most potential to realize we need a long term strategy and would begin to place a bigger emphasis on implementing democratic values.

But if no long range strategy is devised and followed, then we are dooming our nation to an anti-democratic future with more Election 2000's and with a Constitution that is more and more reform-proof. The Democratic Party is already AWOL on the fight for democracy. What REALLY concerns me is even those who consider themselves Progressive Democrats have no commitment to democracy. We know such reforms will NOT come from the Rights. So if Progressives can't muster the will and conviction to fight for democracy... who will?

(This post is based on one first posted to the DU back on 11-4: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860)

As long as so-called Democrats wear their ideological blinders true democratic reform is unlikely. What comes first... the chicken or the egg? So to address the ideological issues I've proposed the following I've suggested a proposal that might address this issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[Florida_Geek]

1. Me thinks his 3 million lead was Kerry votes

Just IMHO.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. kick

[ulTRAX]

3. a damning indictment of DU members

As the so-called Democratic Party is AWOL on democracy itself, so too, it seems, are DU members. When the talk turns defining REAL democratic principles and how they might be implemented... the most the MASS group can do is muster 2 words in over 2 weeks.

It is not just pathetic. It's a damning indictment.

[sniffa]

4. zzzzzzzzzzz

[ulTRAX]

5. proving my point....

sniffa wrote: "zzzzzzzzzzz"

[Lexingtonian]

6. Ok, I'll bite

Look, your argument is metaphorically a worrying about symptoms and thinking that a near-fatal malaria fever can be cured by a massive dunking in ice water.

What in the law guarantees, or supposedly guarantees, fair elections? Yes, that would be Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And if you think long and hard about it, all the issues- far beyond elections- that distinguish Republicans and Democrats fundamentally presently boil down to whether or not the plain language of the Equal Protection Clause is admitted/enforced. Indeed, whether Congress or any other body acts or Administration acts in accord with it. The EPC, if properly enforced, destroys the privileged status of all the interests aggregated (because of their privileged status) that define the present Republican Party: corporate privilege, white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, 'traditional'/colonial exploitation methods and practices principally. Insistence on its enforcement is arguably what Democrats stand for, or made to stand for, and any Third Party (Green, Reform, Libertarian, Constitution) plays only a special- pointlessly narrow and always thereby corrupt/compromised- interest role in the overall conflict.

It's really a relentless conflict between mutually unbearable things, this running fight between the privileged and the egalitarian-minded, and thus the best understanding of it is warfare. Since ~1990 there is no civility, little or no pardon given, the difference is fundamental and unavoidable. All of the Third Party stuff is hokum and all this "conscience" stuff is idiocy, is all about going AWOL.

Why should Massachusetts politicians and activists weaken their effort in the serious warfare- for a Supreme Court and Congress and Presidency that are serious and willing to realize the EPC- for an amusing side experiment in puritanical democracy? Isn't it a waste of energy and effort in the name of sanctioned amateurism? Don't we know the results we'd see, pretty much, in advance? And why isn't Vermont, with Bernie Sanders and the Socialist Party, or New York with its aggregate of wierdo Third parties, a better place for this reinventing of the wheel and Golden Amateurism olympics?

And, to be ugly-side-of-Yankee about it, this Party is the Democratic Party, not the Democracy Party. The U.S. system is representative democracy and a democratic republic, in the literal meaning of those words and their nuance (e.g. not a republican democracy and democratic representationalism, as the present GOP does/perverts/runs it). Screw Third Parties, the important thing is not parties (and the Founders objected to them) but the proper representation of interests- not opinion- by the people elected to office. The idea that they would be better represented by a Third Party is a tempting one, but ideological and rejected in practice. The People time and again prefers politicians with tenuous party loyalties to diverse parties with rigidly adherent politicians. Third Parties start off with a lower tier of politician and tend to stay that way relative to the two. The system that exists is built for competing coalitions, with progress involving the showdown of two- just like the physical warfare it replaces, replaces just barely.

There is no escaping history, or the historical meaning and extent of this present conflict. Third Parties are the Union Men and Copperheads of this Civil War- the useless, the irrelevant, the contrarian escapists, the people who misunderstand the essential problem or feel incompetent at it but feel compelled to meddle in the favor of minor interests.

Thus opineth this liberal Massachusetts resident.

[ulTRAX]

7. Thanks for responding.

Let me just preface my response by saying I'm not concerned about the history or laws of the US that created and maintain us as an anti-democratic nation. I'm interested in democratic principles as an essential element in morally legitimate self-government. I'm using the spectrum of democratic alternatives we see in the other advanced industrial nation as my guide.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "What in the law guarantees, or supposedly guarantees, fair elections? Yes, that would be Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ulTRAX: Are you seriously looking to the EPC to provide fair elections? The EPC is can not provide such protection because it protects a system of anti-democratic vote weighing schemes on the federal level. That system is one of differential rights based upon state residence. So, for example, the EPC protects a system where a citizen voting for president in Wyoming has a vote that weighs 3.5x that of a citizen in California. The USSC in REYNOLDS v. SIMS (1964) ruled such vote weighing schemes are illegal at all OTHER levels of government. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533 "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable."

There is a deeply moral argument here that we must examine. Anyone who believes in principle that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed has to confront the schizophrenic attitude the US has towards democratic principles.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "The EPC, if properly enforced, destroys the privileged status of all the interests aggregated (because of their privileged status) that define the present Republican Party: corporate privilege, white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, 'traditional'/colonial exploitation methods and practices principally. Insistence on its enforcement is arguably what Democrats stand for, or made to stand for, and any Third Party (Green, Reform, Libertarian, Constitution) plays only a special- pointlessly narrow and always thereby corrupt/compromised- interest role in the overall conflict."

ulTRAX: Again, your analysis is flawed. The EPC can not do as you claim. The Constitution hands out extra power and privilege to some citizens based upon state residence at the expense of others. See my example about the EC above. In the Senate 15% of the population gets 50% of the seats. I maintain that the last constitutionally disenfranchised group are those citizens who chose to live in the large population states. They must pay equal rates of federal taxation as those who chose to live in small population states.... yet are not equally represented. The EPC is powerless reform this anti-democratic system.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "It's really a relentless conflict between mutually unbearable things, this running fight between the privileged and the egalitarian-minded, and thus the best understanding of it is warfare. Since ~1990 there is no civility, little or no pardon given, the difference is fundamental and unavoidable. All of the Third Party stuff is hokum and all this "conscience" stuff is idiocy, is all about going AWOL."

ulTRAX: As I said above... if one believes that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, they see the world quite differently than one mired in the ideology of our anti-democratic federal government and the dysfunctional 2 party system which it spawned. I belong to the first category.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "Why should Massachusetts politicians and activists weaken their effort in the serious warfare- for a Supreme Court and Congress and Presidency that are serious and willing to realize the EPC- for an amusing side experiment in puritanical democracy?"

ulTRAX: As I said I believe your faith in the EPC as the best hope for democratic reform is misplaced. It can NOT do what you claim. All efforts to see it as some magic bullet will only blind you to another level of analyses.. that of critiquing the system from the vantage point of democratic principles. You're operating within the limits of dysfunctional and anti-democratic law. Fortunately generations past who took on the other deep flaws of the Constitution did not place immoral law before principle. If they had we'd still have slavery and all but white men with property could vote. That you consider the fight for morally legitimate government... where citizens can vote their conscience and actually get representation... and where the minority is never allowed to govern... as "amusing side experiment in puritanical democracy" is shocking.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "Isn't it a waste of energy and effort in the name of sanctioned amateurism? Don't we know the results we'd see, pretty much, in advance? And why isn't Vermont, with Bernie Sanders and the Socialist Party, or New York with its aggregate of wierdo Third parties, a better place for this reinventing of the wheel and Golden Amateurism olympics?"

ulTRAX: Is that what you actually believe? That fighting for democratic principles is only done by weirdos? That we need not even think about the flaws in our political system? Perhaps you do.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "And, to be ugly-side-of-Yankee about it, this Party is the Democratic Party, not the Democracy Party. The U.S. system is representative democracy and a democratic republic, in the literal meaning of those words and their nuance (e.g. not a republican democracy and democratic representationalism, as the present GOP does/perverts/runs it). Screw Third Parties, the important thing is not parties (and the Founders objected to them) but the proper representation of interests- not opinion- by the people elected to office."

ulTRAX: I'm well aware that the Democratic Party is not the Democracy Party. But that should not blind up to its moral failings in the fight for morally legitimate government. As for your belief that interests are more important than opinions.... first of all there's plenty of overlap. Second that's a slippery slope that leads to depriving citizens of civic equality. See Reynolds v Simms. "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system."

Unfortunately Reynold v Simms did not apply to the Constitution itself.... so state interests continued to be protected.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "The idea that they would be better represented by a Third Party is a tempting one, but ideological and rejected in practice. The People time and again prefers politicians with tenuous party loyalties to diverse parties with rigidly adherent politicians. Third Parties start off with a lower tier of politician and tend to stay that way relative to the two. The system that exists is built for competing coalitions, with progress involving the showdown of two- just like the physical warfare it replaces, replaces just barely."

ulTRAX: Yes, third parties are at a perpetual disadvantage in OUR system. But our system is dysfunctional from the standpoint of democratic principles. So what do you suggest... give into to the dysfunctionality and oppose all attempts to ever reform it? That's a sure formula for never proposing or working towards reform.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote "There is no escaping history, or the historical meaning and extent of this present conflict. Third Parties are the Union Men and Copperheads of this Civil War- the useless, the irrelevant, the contrarian escapists, the people who misunderstand the essential problem or feel incompetent at it but feel compelled to meddle in the favor of minor interests."

ulTRAX: As I said elsewhere... fortunately other generations of American had a strong enough moral compass to place their humanity and deep belief in democratic principles over a blind belief that the Framers had some monopoly on truth. They didn't. Placing history over principle just blinds one to this simple truth. There's a whole 'nother world out there of political realities if you just make the decision to remove your self-imposed ideological blinders

[ulTRAX]

8. an elaboration

I wrote: "Unfortunately Reynold v Simms did not apply to the Constitution itself.... so state interests continued to be protected."

We in the US have been brought up to believe that this is still 1787... that there is still some competition between the states that we must guard against and those US citizens who choose to live in small population states deserve a bigger vote/more power than other citizens.

Yet the fallacy of this "logic" should be self evident. States are not conscious entities. Their "will" is merely that of the citizens who live within. That has always been true and the 17th amendment only makes that more apparent.

The notion that these citizens deserve special protection because of their choice of residence must be reexamined. Why? Because as we saw in 2000.... these vote weighing schemes can give a minority the ability to rule the majority. The entire course of US history... if not world history... has been changed for the worst... and who's to blame? Some unaccountable star chamber called the EC?

[Lexingtonian]

9. Well, it's not that easy

You make the facile claim that the states of the U.S. are essentially geographic accidents and that the societies they represent are not meaningfully distinct. That is not the case, even if there has been substantial levelling via e.g. TV and federal government standards.

The Founders' essential idea was that the different colonies meaningfully represented different, well, tribes. The idea of a federation is commonality of ideals or positive endeavor; eradication or accentuation of differences is not a deliberate one. The EC ratios and the Senate give small states some measure of protection or counter to the tyranny of the majority created by the delegations from the large states. In short, the Constitution gives small states aka subsocieties a bit of extra leverage, which compensates a little for the way they get bullied and trampled in general ways, extragovernmentally as well as inside national government. If you've ever lived in Delaware or Rhode Island, or DC as a extreme example, you might not see small states getting some extra leverage against their socially/culturally/economically overwhelming neighbors as an injustice. These days states don't represent populations that marry only inside the state borders, as was largely the case for a long time, but they do reflect politically that there are substantial cultural differences and diversity and give many kinds a concrete voice and set of representatives. We tolerate the slight injustices in power distribution for the sake of having a diversity of representative voices and representation of the widest possible range of serious views.

As for the rest of your passionate arguing, I don't want to dissuade you from your ideal. But this country has never thought people to be strictly equal- equal and fair treatment in the enforcement of laws, such as they are, is where the thought of equality begins and ends. How could it be otherwise? Why a fool's vote should count for as much as a wise man's, or an invalid's as much as an athlete's- the only rationale there is that no one knows how to adequately justify doing it any other particular way. Making them all equal is a practical matter and a convention, rational but not strictly speaking logical or proveable. (Why not assign people social 'merit' scores and weight votes according to those, like a stockholder meeting?) And in the end voting is not an end in itself- it's the putting of some person into an office and necessarily a gamble that s/he will do as s/he says or intends, or not. If you're going to dwelve into the perfectibility of democracy, you have to admit that its foundations in theories of human dignity are pretty shaky and flimsy stuff. How do you account for the voter who adamantly and knowingly votes against democracy and for tyranny?

[ulTRAX]

10. your contradictions are showing

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "The Founders' essential idea was that the different colonies meaningfully represented different, well, tribes. The idea of a federation is commonality of ideals or positive endeavor; eradication or accentuation of differences is not a deliberate one. The EC ratios and the Senate give small states some measure of protection or counter to the tyranny of the majority created by the delegations from the large states. In short, the Constitution gives small states aka subsocieties a bit of extra leverage, which compensates a little for the way they get bullied and trampled in general ways, extragovernmentally as well as inside national government."

ulTRAX: Thanks for a demonstration that some remain mired in the politics of 1787. Much of what was written into the Constitution was the compromising away of moral principle for political reasons. You seem to believe we must cease all attempts to revisit their decisions and live by the will of the dead. Well, the Constitution was not handed down on a slab. It is the work of mere men. While they may have been the best and brightest of their time, they were not infallible nor did they have the benefits of all the development of political theory that followed the next 2 centuries. This is not a matter of religion. I believe the living have an obligation to continue to improve the nation. The way to start is to get back to basic principles.

Yes, federations are at times required to unite divergent groups. But there's a key question that has to be asked. Will the formula for that federation work to reduce the differences over time or perpetuate them. What the Constitutional formula did was perpetuate the politics of 1787 into the modern era.

It doesn't take an Einstein to realize there's other ways to protect minority groups WITHOUT giving them weighted votes which may lead to minority rule. So what if EVERY sub-grouping of citizens insisted that if a weighted vote is justified for citizens in small population states... then they deserve the same "right"? What is the moral justification for ONE group to be so protected and to deprive all others... especially since the two-party system often deprives minorities of representation? Oh, that's right. We're back to the politics of the Constitutional Convention. Yes, the delegates accomplished what they had to.... the placed the nation on a firmer footing but did so in a manner that protected the interests of those groups who attended. Others were left out in the cold. Since you seem to place the Framers' intent higher than moral principle, I suppose you consider that admirable. And I can not help but notice that you have not addressed the issues of slavery and universal suffrage. Despite the ideological blinders we're all raised to wear, we need to all look back at all the inherently desirable ideas that were compromised away at the Constitutional Convention. I can do that... but it's painfully clear you are unable to stray from the narrative of historical apologetics history. As I said earlier, we should all be thankful that previous generations placed their humanity and moral principles above a slavish adherence to the flawed intent of the Framers.

As for the other possible ways to protect minorities without giving them a weighted vote... just look at the Bill of Rights... something the majority of the Framers did NOT want but was forced upon them by the states as a condition of ratification. In fact I'd argue the BoR approach provides BETTER protection because we know that even with a weighted vote, those small states can be outvoted.


LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "As for the rest of your passionate arguing, I don't want to dissuade you from your ideal. But this country has never thought people to be strictly equal- equal and fair treatment in the enforcement of laws, such as they are, is where the thought of equality begins and ends. How could it be otherwise?

ulTRAX: Your contradictions are showing. You are actually opposed to the idea of such civic equality in your support for weighted voting.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "If you're going to dwelve into the perfectibility of democracy, you have to admit that its foundations in theories of human dignity are pretty shaky and flimsy stuff. How do you account for the voter who adamantly and knowingly votes against democracy and for tyranny?"

ulTRAX: You continue to avoid the issue of what constitutes morally legitimate government. It seems to you that matter was settled 230 years ago and there's no reason to rethink the matter. You're also sweeping under the rug moral issues of civic equality and the advances other democracies have made in trying to perfect democracy... ideas such as proportional representation, multi-party systems, and run-off voting. But then since you believe that such pursuits of any democratic ideal merely an "amusing side experiment in puritanical democracy" I'd expect no more.

[Lexingtonian]

11. well, no.

I'm just not being an ideologue. You're making the ideal the enemy of the practical. As far as I can tell, I'm simply reiterating the issues of practicality. And I do admit that the solutions embodied in the Constitution strike me as good as was possible, and that not enough has changed about American society to persuade me otherwise.

The Bill of Rights is something slightly different than you imagine. The Constitution is the outlawing of and replacement for monarchy. The Second through Tenth Amendments are essentially an outlawing of explicit violations committed by/in the name of the British monarchy. The First Amendment is an outlawing of the violations committed by the various theocracies, British and Colonial, e.g. the Massachusetts Puritans and the Cromwell government. It's not some kind of explicit sub-constitution. The Founders actually meant to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights into the body proper but they decided that it would complicate ratification of the essential thing- the breakup and balance of powers. In short, the portion defining the Republic. And I'm sure you know that the 3/5 vote provision was the one thing the whole almost foundered on. Everyone involved hated the compromise involved and knew it was going to have to be settled fully at some point.

No, I don't think people are "equal" in some abstract way. I consider people concretely equal in rights that concern them immediately, but not identical in social role or in individual merit. Society reflects all three aspects. It's always apples vs. oranges, and we do the best we can. 'Civic equality'...you make the lines involved arbitrary, indeed they can only be arbitrary. Is a violation of 'civic equality' for one person to get a mortgage at 5.5%, and his neighbor has to pay 6%?

Morally legitimate government...I can't see how that revolves around how voting gets done. I subscribe to social contract theory; either you're bound to the social contract, bound but in a state of open protest against it, or no longer compliant. Morally legitimate government has no need to be democracy, or even for consent to it to exist at every moment. When we face great and serious choices we always have to question and rediscover our consent to the social contract- that's how it's always been, and likely how it will ever be. Rome handed itself over to Cincinnatus, the Union allowed Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus, and it worked out. Nothing is true by its own right.

[ulTRAX]

12. please focus

Your evasions and contradictions are getting out of hand.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "I'm just not being an ideologue. You're making the ideal the enemy of the practical. As far as I can tell, I'm simply reiterating the issues of practicality. And I do admit that the solutions embodied in the Constitution strike me as good as was possible, and that not enough has changed about American society to persuade me otherwise."

ulTRAX, yes I agree what the Framers devised was probably the best they could come up with under the circumstances. But that means their formula contains elements that have outlived their usefulness because times have changed. What would our Constitution look like if the Constitutional Convention were held in 1820... 1870 or 1910? As for your belief that nothing has changed about American society enough to make you reconsider your positions... that's probably what you consider an example of your practicality. But I ask again, what if other generations gave up their moral principles for such practicality. We'd still have slavery and all but white men with property could vote. At SOME point we on the Left have to have a vision of where we want to take this nation in 50 years. If there are injustices, then they have to remedied. If the tools don't exist to remedy them, then they have to be invented. If there's no popular support, then that support has to be developed. If we don't have morally legitimate government, then we must fight to make it morally legitimate. If we have no ideas WTF that even means, then we better start reexamining basic principles. Alas, you've given up the fight and have deluded yourself that we already have the best of all possible worlds if only the Equal Rights Clause were properly enforced.

Since the Left (ie the Dems) has no such vision, a logically consistent paradigm upon which to base policy proposals, they'll never build a constituency for it. We saw that in the last election. For example Kerry pretended to use fiscal responsibility as an issue but made no efforts to educate the public about the size of the deficits, debt or how the Right intended to sabotage the fiscal stability of the federal government. He wanted to play his own budget games. So while there was a chance to build up resistance to the Right's strangle the beast gameplan, that opportunity was lost. If the Left doesn't have a vision or plans to educate the public, the Dems default position will be to continue moving to the right.


LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "The Bill of Rights is something slightly different than you imagine."

I'm only being historically accurate. It was the states that forced what became the first 10 amendments on the First Congress. Some at the Constitutional Convention like George Mason refuse to endorse the document because it lacked such restrictions on government power. Surely you know his somewhat famous quote.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: :The Constitution is the outlawing of and replacement for monarchy. The Second through Tenth Amendments are essentially an outlawing of explicit violations committed by/in the name of the British monarchy. The First Amendment is an outlawing of the violations committed by the various theocracies, British and Colonial, e.g. the Massachusetts Puritans and the Cromwell government. It's not some kind of explicit sub-constitution. The Founders actually meant to incorporate all of the Bill of Rights into the body proper but they decided that it would complicate ratification of the essential thing- the breakup and balance of powers. In short, the portion defining the Republic. And I'm sure you know that the 3/5 vote provision was the one thing the whole almost foundered on. Everyone involved hated the compromise involved and knew it was going to have to be settled fully at some point.

ulTRAX: Being what I assume to be both a Massachusetts resident and one who studies the early republic you must know Massachusetts' pivotal role in ratifying the Constitution. Yet it's not as if the vote wasn't close... what was the vote: 182-168? In nearly all the statements of ratification written by the states, there's mention that a bill of rights was required.


LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "No, I don't think people are "equal" in some abstract way. I consider people concretely equal in rights that concern them immediately, but not identical in social role or in individual merit."

ulTRAX: Citizens are equal in rights that "concern them immediately"? WTF does THAT mean? That if there's no immediacy there's no need for equality of civic rights?


LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "Society reflects all three aspects. It's always apples vs. oranges, and we do the best we can. 'Civic equality'...you make the lines involved arbitrary, indeed they can only be arbitrary. Is a violation of 'civic equality' for one person to get a mortgage at 5.5%, and his neighbor has to pay 6%?"

ulTRAX: Mortgage rates are a private matter between a lender and a borrower. Why are you trying to pass that off with civil equality... where each citizen has an equal voice in the direction of government? I'm in favor of each citizen's vote weighing the same. You support a system of vote weighing on the federal level because 230 years ago the nation was falling apart and small states held the Constitutional Convention hostage. I'm not the one being arbitrary. I'm still waiting for you to explain your moral justification is to continue allowing ONE interest group a weighted vote and not others.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "Morally legitimate government...I can't see how that revolves around how voting gets done.

ulTRAX: That's an odd stance given the ideals of our founding document... the Declaration of Independence. Shall we revisit the relevant section?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

ulTRAX: Uh? What was that? The nation was founded on the principle that the People have the right to alter or abolish government that is destructive to the concept that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.." Whoa Nelly!

I agree with the above which is why I can never confer any moral legitimacy to a body such as the Electoral College that gave George W. Bush the presidency 2000. Nor can I confer any moral legitimacy to the other anti-democratic provisions of the Constitution.

LEXINGTONIAN wrote: "I subscribe to social contract theory; either you're bound to the social contract, bound but in a state of open protest against it, or no longer compliant. Morally legitimate government has no need to be democracy, or even for consent to it to exist at every moment. When we face great and serious choices we always have to question and rediscover our consent to the social contract- that's how it's always been, and likely how it will ever be. Rome handed itself over to Cincinnatus, the Union allowed Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus, and it worked out. Nothing is true by its own right."

ulTRAX: Should I consider that answer an evasion? I've stated what principles I believe in. So in your universe... just what DOES constitute morally legitimate government? Or does that just blow in the wind as do your answers?

BTW... Have a great holiday!

[Lexingtonian]

13. It seems to me

that you insistently and persistently refuse to hear what I am saying, impute all kinds of dreary nonsense to anything I do say, focus on trivia, and refuse to question- let alone justify- your deficient assumptions, and unfortunately never actually prove what you need to. As for the implicit ad hominems, they simply add to the spuriousness of your arguments.

It's not dialogue that's going on here, sadly enough, and you're certainly not taking the chances I've given you to improve your points. Your logic has no substantive underpinnings in the way things work in the public arena and your dogmatic literalism blinds you to the functions and constraints things must satisfy in practice.

If you'd like to actually help me understand why you believe what you do, why not start at what you think the axioms are on which your theory is based. For example, what you think the social contract we live under really is and where it is properly written down. And what the election law is that it justifies. (And, just as a note, the Declaration of Independence is not a binding document- it's a one time list of excuses and ideals that justify rebellion and warfare 230 years ago.)

[ulTRAX]

14. was that post to be taken seriously?

LEXINGTONAIN wrote: "It seems to me that you insistently and persistently refuse to hear what I am saying, impute all kinds of dreary nonsense to anything I do say, focus on trivia, and refuse to question- let alone justify- your deficient assumptions, and unfortunately never actually prove what you need to. As for the implicit ad hominems, they simply add to the spuriousness of your arguments.

ulTRAX: That's a curious perception. What you call ad hominems is merely an accurate reflection of the historical record here that shows that I pretty much quote you in full and try to responding to most if not all of your points. Alas, you have not repaid the courtesy. Trying to make it personal is usually a sure sign that despite one's eloquence, their arguments are probably on shaky ground.

In your very first post you claimed the EPC was the cure all, then when I presented the evidence that it was essentially irrelevant to this discussion and could not reform our anti-democratic system, you neither conceded the point nor elaborated You just never brought up the issue again.

You repeatedly refuse to answer on what moral grounds some US citizens should be granted a weighted vote in the federal system based upon state residence.... yet you have not said whether you support other groups from also having weighted voted to protect their interests.

You made claims about third parties being useless... that they are not being worth voting for because they don't have the political talent. Yet you ignore the fact that most industrial democracies have multi-party systems. The problem is not the concept, it's the dysfunctionality of our system. Our system perpetually puts third parties at a disadvantage where they can't develop. Yet you neither conceded or elaborated on your point. Again you just dropped the topic.

I've repeatedly asked you to explain your position how minority rule is morally legitimate. You have not responded.

I suggested other ways to protect the small states without resorting to anti-democratic vote-weighing schemes. You have not responded.

These questions are hardly a "focus on trivia" on my part. They challenge the core of your defense of civic inequality and minority government... which, when put in that light, most might agree is pretty indefensible.

LEXINGTONAIN wrote: It's not dialogue that's going on here, sadly enough, and you're certainly not taking the chances I've given you to improve your points. Your logic has no substantive underpinnings in the way things work in the public arena and your dogmatic literalism blinds you to the functions and constraints things must satisfy in practice.

ulTRAX: If my arguments had no substantive underpinnings you'd be rushing to go for some TKO. Instead you are avoiding the issues. So if you TRULY want to discuss the issues... then it's as simple as just discussing them. Try it.

I'm not about to bow to your god of pragmatism. I know how the real world works but unlike others it doesn't blind me to how dysfunctional it is.... nor does it discourage me from wanting to change it. I suspect we part company on those last two points. Part of this effort must be to understand what forces are at work which prevent reform. You are proving my case that the obstacles are not just legal but ideological. In the name of pragmatism, you spend too much time justifying the dysfunctionality instead of challenging it. I find that rather sad.

I'd like to believe that politics is better off free of the dynamics that make religions self-justifying ideological systems. Those trapped in those systems deprive themselves of the intellectual tools to challenge the system so they become self-perpetuating. But I fully understand that our culture raises us to understand why the Framers did what they did. We're brought up to place these men on a pedestal. We're rarely encouraged to think critically about the Constitution.It has all the earmarks of a secular religion.

Yet if we don't start thinking clearly about reforming this document, we're setting the nation up for another crisis. Demographic trends are making the Constitution more and more anti-democratic and reform-proof. Currently states with as little as 4.5% of the population can, in theory, block all reform. Currently in the Senate 15% of the population gets 50% of the seats. Soon it will be 10%. The EC gave the presidency to Bush in 2000. He used that position to solidify GOP control of the government. An unaccountable star chamber called the EC, not the People, changed US history. It might have happened again with Kerry. The effects of anti-democratic government will only worsen. What holds this potential pressure cooker together is that the American People have learned to sweep their concerns under the rug. Don't believe me? Just read your own posts.

LEXINGTONAIN wrote: (And, just as a note, the Declaration of Independence is not a binding document- it's a one time list of excuses and ideals that justify rebellion and warfare 230 years ago.)

ulTRAX: I realize the DoI was never a not binding legal document. It's a document of moral principles. But some of its best ideals were cynically compromised away at the Constitutional Convention for political reasons. The heart of our difference seems to be that I want to revisit the concept of government's moral legitimacy while you believe those compromises have become the new moral principle.... even if it's a system that as we've seen in 2000 gives a minority the ability to rule the majority.

LEXINGTONAIN wrote: If you'd like to actually help me understand why you believe what you do, why not start at what you think the axioms are on which your theory is based. For example, what you think the social contract we live under really is and where it is properly written down. And what the election law is that it justifies.

ulTRAX: I honestly feel I'm in Bizarro Land. I DID start with a laundry list of the relevant axioms in which I believe in my very first post. How many times has ANYONE here been that clear in a post? I also wanted to how could we say we believed in those democratic principles unless there was some effort to overcome the immense ideological and legal hurdles to implement them? I outlined some strategies. Despite your claims, my arguments have logically flowed from those core principles.

You too have a logical consistency to your arguments and it seems firmly rooted in historical apologetics. You seem determined to justify our system even if it is anti-democratic and is failing to produce morally legitimate government. So why beat around the bush and not just come right out and say that? Why play games?

As for basic democratic principles. I'm not claiming my laundry list is a finished product. That's why a month ago I proposed this project: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[ulTRAX]

15. so what about Massachusetts?

My apologies for such sloppy writing. I was never my best editor.. and the last post proves that.

But I just wanted to add that the original post was about bringing democracy to Massachusetts state government. While I see such state reforms as crucial to eventual reform of the federal government, the idea also stands alone.

You have completely avoided the main topic of this thread.