Our system is not democratic

[CreekDog]

"Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern or sovereignty is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government","

the majority of citizens do not elect the majority of senators.

the majority of citizens can vote for a president and not have him/her elected thanks to the electoral college.

the compromises we made to the South to allow slavery and minimize democracy are still with us in some form.

and the result of this currently is that almost all the progressive legislation is bottled up because a minority representing a still smaller minority in smaller, conservative states with 2 senators.

Undemocratic aspects of our system are preventing the majority of citizens from being fully represented. That's stopping universal health care, repeal of don't ask, don't tell, stopping more rights for workers and so forth.

:rant:

[Birthmark]

1. Not being a democracy is fine with me.

Democracy can suck rather quickly for the minority(-ies).

That said, it's the unnecessary and arcane rules of the Senate, which serve little legitimate purpose, that are bottling things up. That sucks, too.

It's a world of suckage.

And it probably only gets worse from here.

[backtoblue]

88. "It's a world of suckage"

That should go in a quote book.. :rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. The initiatives in California are an example of direct democracy, do you want more Prop H8s?

[Selatius]

3. That's because they stupidly made it so only 50% + 1 more can pass a constitutional amendment

Proposition 8 took advantage of that stupidity.

The person obviously isn't arguing for that kind of idiocy, but what he probably is arguing for is more accountability, like the power to call a referendum on a bill passed by Congress that people--I dunno--are unhappy with or find controversial or the power to recall a sitting legislator or even president.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Actually the OP is arguing for just that kind of stupidity

While I understand his objective, his proposal is seriously flawed. We all know what the tyranny of the majority can bring.

[JackRiddler]

41. Good thing there was no "tyranny of the majority" in 2000!

Luckily there was a republican institution in place to avoid a victory for the winner of the simple majority vote of US citizens, and create the opportunity for the loser to take the presidency anyway (due to arbitrary mathematics unrelated to living human agency, since no one on the Electoral College ever changes their vote, contrary to the framers' intent in creating this "safeguard" against the "mob").

I remember lots of pundits claiming the Electoral College was luckily there, helping to prevent the "tyranny of the majority," as though this meant anything in itself -- or as though they'd be equally approving if the often arbitrary functioning of the republican institutions had happened to tip the balance Gore's way.

[JackRiddler]

40. My, my, how the bullshit will fly.

DADT is an executive understanding backing a military order - no vote involved at all, but plenty of republic.

DOMA is an act of the republican (and Republican!) Congress.

For many decades, elite republicanism produced the same results with regard to gay rights.

Thus anti-gay feeling and the gay-bashing campaigns of recent years, including Prop 8, are hardly restricted to referendum politics and by no means a product thereof. As with most political phenomena, there are elite elements orchestrating the show.

And so it goes with many other examples. Republican institutions have been used to suppress and oppress minorities with even greater reliability than majoritarian institutions.

The central republican institution of the 1787 Constitution - the Senate - was a means for allowing the majority in the South to continue to enslave the minority.

[Flaneur]

84. No, but maybe more Prop 215s

Direct democracy can be a pain, but it can also be a boon. When the elected political system is unresponsive...

[Gman]

4. The United States was never intended to be a democracy

We have a representative democracy where we elect our representatives and they then do things according to their own judgement (or lack thereof).

And as someone once said or wrote, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

[Selatius]

6. This is true. A more direct form of government would be something like Switzerland.

There, people have three powers under their constitution: The power of recall, the power to call referendums on acts of the legislature, and the power to pass a law directly through the initiative process.

I wouldn't mind incorporating those powers into the US Constitution, but I would make it so that it wouldn't just take a simple majority to change the Constitution either like California's Constitution.

[Gman]

7. Everyone's at first in favor of a majority vote until they're on the losing end

In many cases giving people the right to vote on passing constitutional amendments or other initiatives with a simple majority vote is, IMHO, lunacy. It's 2 votes more than anarchy. One vote to get to 50% and one more vote to get to the majority of 50% + 1.

[Selatius]

11. Yeah, California made a mistake by allowing a simple majority to alter the state's constitution.

Although, I doubt the originator of this thread favors doing that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. There are problems with super majority requirements as well

Look at the results of the Gann Initiative

[Selatius]

91. Yes, but that's a supermajority required for passing a tax hike (Proposition 13)

The OP was not specifically arguing for such a requirement for the passage of any tax hike. Now, if we're talking about passing a constitutional amendment, then I'm fine with a 2/3rds majority requirement. Again, it depends on how you write out the powers.

If one wants to be stupid about it, one could simply require a simple majority for passage of any kind of bill, even constitutional amendments. THAT is what California did, but I do not see anywhere where the OP is arguing for the exact same thing. His position was rather nebulous.

[JackRiddler]

31. So you prefer a majority vote of the moneyed elites? Great, that's what you've got.

[CreekDog]

9. but to be Democratic a majority of citizens should be able to elect the president & half the senate

at least.

the constitution should protect from tyranny of the majority, but the majority cannot even elect people on an equal basis.

i'm in California and 37 million of us have 2 senators. wyoming with 500,000 has 2 senators. that is not democratic and it's not protecting the minority of people --it's protecting the minority of states without people!

[Selatius]

13. Also true, but this was part of the compromise that led to the creation of the US in the first place

The Senate was created to placate the small states in the original Thirteen Colonies. They feared that if there came an issue that would pit big states and small states, the small states would be outvoted in a unicameral legislature in every confrontation. Therefore, the authors of the Constitution incorporated the Senate that gave each state, regardless of size, two votes apiece.

If the Senate were radically altered, it might be a "deal breaker."

[JackRiddler]

46. "Compromise"

Among who?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. That is what the house is for, including its much shorter term length

If the House and Senate were apportioned by population, we would only need one of them and should go unicameral.

[CreekDog]

28. yup, one person one vote

:hi:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. You forget your early American history where states mattered

They were mini nations, not the administrative sub groups which they are today.

What we have is a result of those times, and it works well. The highly populated coastal state have limits placed on what they can do to those in the interior.

In California, a similar lay down stops LA and SF from running roughshod over the more rural areas. Some of us like that.

[CreekDog]

35. I didn't forget, but irrespective of our history it is not democratic

furthermore, you are completely wrong about California --HA!

court decisions required California's Assembly AND Senate districts to have the same population.

each Senate district whether in my own 8th or your own wherever has the same population.

[Midwestern Democrat]

66. Unfortunately, one person/one vote wasn't even guaranteed in the

House until well into the 20th century. Until a US Supreme Court decision banned the practice, state legislatures were completely free to design congressional districts of unequal population - and several of them did.

[Midwestern Democrat]

64. This is also why all spending bills must originate in the House - in order

to get the big states to agree to a "compromise" that seemed very lopsided in favor of the small states, they demanded that the body whose representation is determined by population control the purse strings.

[sandnsea]

5. That's right. We're a republic.

And have a system where the rights and needs of the minority are considered along with the majority. Or are supposed to be.

[CreekDog]

10. Distinguish between protecting the minority of people from a minority of states

there's a big difference.

this country has been trampling over minorities for years while protecting a minority of states' right to do that.

[sandnsea]

16. It goes back and forth

Minority rights take some steps forward, backwards states refuse to catch up. But overall it's a forward direction. Having two senators from every state allows everyone to feel like they at least have the ability to have a voice. It wouldn't be good to have direct democracy from the cities only. Sometimes it's the rural people who notice the fish dying or fight to organize miners' unions or switch to organic farming and sustainable logging. And sometimes a state like Iowa makes some of the most gigantic progress of all.

[CreekDog]

18. then some people have to have less than one full vote compared to others

that's not fairness.

[sandnsea]

19. United States, not a democracy

We are a collection of states, a republic. We send representatives of those states to make laws. That's how our government works. If it were a direct democracy the farmers and fishermen would be screaming that they're not being heard over the millions in the city. There's always problems, nothing will ever be perfect. This system works pretty well, or would if we had our media back.

[CreekDog]

27. you've practically ignored my question about protecting *states* v. protecting minorities

our system was pretty good at protecting the smaller states from the larger ones.

but that does little to help the minority of citizens have their rights protected. because we are simply overrepresenting states and not overrepresenting any minority oppressed by a tyrannical majority. in fact when we were dealing with a tyrannical majority (Jim Crow), our system with all the checks to avoid an oppressive majority, let states run roughshod over citizens.

i'm talking about protecting CITIZENS from a overly powerful majority. our electoral and legislative system protects states from the political will of the majority rather than citizens themselves.

a much fairer system to both minorities and the majority will could be created.

[JackRiddler]

33. No, no impossible!

"a much fairer system to both minorities and the majority will could be created."

Don't you know, the greatest possible system of government ever was created by 67 property-holding white men who feared the "tyranny of the mob" but who had no problems designating black people as zero in votes but 3/5 of a person in census counts.

No better system has since been devised or could be devised, and any efforts to do so trample upon the great wisdom of the 67 framers, which can never be exceeded. The system created in 1787 is so great that any effort to change the basic model of the Senate and how representatives are elected would instantly cause it to collapse into a Stalinist non-republican tyranny of the majority in which minorities are executed without mercy and we are all required to wear numbers.

[CreekDog]

36. I'm sorry. You are completely correct!

Clearly we should go back to the most democratic system that human beings can handle, that being the what the framers intended back in 1787.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :bounce: :bounce: :fistbump:

what was i thinking in that OP? :banghead: :wtf: :dunce:

[sandnsea]

43. Citizens live in states

It's why a minority of gunowners have a larger voice than the majority of city dwellers. Just because you don't agree with the rights being protected, it doesn't mean it's not happening. Certainly it isn't perfect and the country is full of racists and idiots. The solution is to organize and educate the idiots on issues you think you can get their support on, like health care. And continue to fight for the rights of minorities, like gay rights, which will continue.

Let's remember, it's direct democracy where the people voted to change State Constitutions depriving gays of their rights.

[JackRiddler]

48. More bullshit about direct democracy.

"Let's remember, it's direct democracy where the people voted to change State Constitutions depriving gays of their rights."

Let's remember it's the quasi-lifetime Senate composed almost entirely of super-rich that introduced and passed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Let's remember, it's a bunch of liftime military officers who forced Clinton into "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

Let's remember, 99% of the sodomy laws and restrictions on the rights of gay people in the United States were enacted by bureaucracies and representative chambers, not referenda.

How come only direct democracy gets hammered for this?

[sandnsea]

58. You're the one praising direct democracy

Now you ask why it was what I responded to?

[JackRiddler]

32. Oh, really? Which minorities are having their rights and needs considered, and how?

Representation goes only to the majority of voters in each election for office. Even 49% don't get representation, if 51% vote the other way. 1 in 5 people could feel strongly on an issue, they'll have no representation whatsoever. Zero. It's not that they don't get 20% of what they want, they don't even get 20% of the voice.

And that's assuming elections are free and fair and all that.

We don't choose representatives. We choose leaders by majority who then do whatever they please, and consistently drop all the commitments they made to be elected once in power. Lying breeds more lying.

And on top of that, in this majority tyranny, the majorities are for the most part constructed by how the money is spent.

[sandnsea]

42. 51%-49% is direct democracy in action

So if you don't like that, you're complaining about direct democracy.

Representative government is what allows for the relocation of 17 Uighers which the majority of US citizens wouldn't give a crap about.

[JackRiddler]

44. I'm afraid you don't seem to know what "direct democracy" is.

In direct democracy, the people vote on decisions directly. This barely exists in the United States.*

In representative democracy, the people elect representatives who then vote on decisions.

We have that only in name, because only the plurality elects a representative in a single-winner-take-all system. Thus the losers (who may be a majority) gain no representation whatsoever.

Actual representative democracies do exist. They have proportional representation systems and, not by coincidence, real social welfare states in which the people's taxes are mostly spent on the people.

Furthermore, not even the plurality (I was mistaken earlier to say majority!) necessarily have representation, because the leaders they elect are accountable to no one until the next election. In practice -- reality matters -- they don't even try to live up to their campaign commitments, because there is no control or incentive to do so (except to blame circumstances until the next time one has to make up new promises for reelection).

In a republic as they have evolved, power is divided among a variety of institutions, some with elected, some with appointed leadership, with basic guarantees of individual rights. The highest principle is that it all has to be set in law. It also doesn't exist without transparency (secret self-appointed agencies such as we tolerate in US government inevitably undermine the idea of a republic).

As for your example of the Uighurs, it is ripped laughably out of context and has nothing with democracy or representation at all. It's an administrative decision by office holders, and in this case happens to be the just one. However, who imprisoned them in the first place?! Oh, it was an (at first secret) administrative decision by office holders that set up Guantanamo and the rest of the war-on-terror gulag. Or wait, was there a vote on that? There was no vote. Not among the people, not among their elected representatives. It was a fait accompli of what came to be known as the "unitary executive," which also got to define unchallenged the bullshit story that justified these violations of human rights (and thus influenced public opinion). So your example is a joke, because democracy was never a part of it either way. They were swallowed by an undemocratic state, and seven years later they were spat out again.

Your assumptions about how a vote on Guantanamo might have gone is speculative. The fact that the prisoners were gathered in illegal actions and Guantanamo was set up as the result of executive orders (official and otherwise) is not.

It's funny that you can't find a real example of how minorities are protected, for example by the undemocratic institution of the Senate.

I'll give you an easy one: the minority of rich people who control the wealth and especially the banks are very, very well-protected by the Senate. In fact, super-rich people occupy almost 100 out of 100 Senate seats, which was how it was meant to be from the beginning.

---

* NOTE: Though referenda are a bete-noir for elitist reactionaries who would rather have the people shut up forevermore and let their betters govern them, referenda of any and every kind have had little impact relative to the usual workings of elected governments and unelected bureaucracies, good or bad. Remember, I said RELATIVE. Proposition 8, horrible as it is, was preceded by all kinds of elite attacks on the rights of gay people such as DOMA and DADT, but no one uses those as a reason to attack the very idea of letting Senators or generals make decisions.

[sandnsea]

47. blabidy blabidy bla

Yes, jackass, I do know what a direct democracy is. You were bitching about the 49% not having a voice in a vote and that's exactly what happens in a direct democracy. It's exactly what happened with state Constitutional Amendments against gays across the country. There is no form of government, where direct voting is the ONLY thing that rules, that will guarantee the rights of minorities. It's logically impossible and I can't understand why you would pretend otherwise.

The Senate is constantly passing measures that protect individuals who have been overlooked in the system. Gun rights exist because of the fight by minority population states. Farming bills. Mining environmental laws. Do I honestly have to go through the last 200 years of legislation and list the many bills that have come up through the people to the Senate because their voice was too small in the House?

[JackRiddler]

52. More straw from the reactionary's corner.

"There is no form of government, where direct voting is the ONLY thing that rules, that will guarantee the rights of minorities. It's logically impossible and I can't understand why you would pretend otherwise."

You just keep arguing with whatever figment of your imagination you think said this, since it wasn't me in my helpful clarification of all the terms you mangle. I'll watch while you argue with your preferred fictional opponent, okay? (Actually, I'm lying. I won't be watching.)

[sandnsea]

53. No response

Because you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Coward.

[JackRiddler]

54. Name-calling and macho bluster...

Also happens in female posters.

"Listen, jackass" was how you started your last post. Then you attacked things I didn't say. So what's left to discuss, o bravest of the brave? (If you had presented something credible, and concluded with the name-calling, maybe it would work.)

[sandnsea]

59. You come along with your condescending

egotistical patronizing horseshit - and think I'm not going to call you on it?

and still no response.

[JackRiddler]

61. Condescension? Like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5890735&mesg_id=5891008

[sandnsea]

62. lol, not hardly

That's a simple little statement. If you read anything into that beyond the precise words written, that's a problem with you, not me.

[beevul]

77. Uh, no.

"Gun rights exist because of the fight by minority population states."

Gun rights exist because restrictions were placed upon the governments power to infringe upon them - the resons for which are many and debatable.

Beyond that, gun rights exist because misinterpretation of those restrictions as something they aren't, rather than getting a supermajority necessary to remove those restrictions - by those whos agenda tilts in that direction - have failed.


I believe you are familiar with this.

[zagging]

82. Actually, gun rights exist as part of the natural rights of mankind

as considered in the DOI. They are an extension of one's natural right to self preservation and self government. The right to arm oneself exists a priori.

[Double T]

8. corporate america is still in charge, now more than ever.

the corporatist WH and congress do a beautiful job of enabling. Same shit, different administration. The corporatocracy is preserved.

[Odin2005]

12. Prop. H8 should remind us that direct democracy and populism are not always good.

The Founders were suspicious of direct democracy (in their time "democracy" meant direct democracy and was associated with mob rule and the tyranny of the majority) for good historical reasons.

[JackRiddler]

45. DADT, DOMA and a lot more should remind us that generals and Senators are usually worse.

Proposition 8, horrible as it is, was preceded by all kinds of elite attacks on the rights of gay people such as DOMA and DADT. But no one uses those as a reason to attack the very idea of letting Senators or generals make decisions.

Though referenda are a bete-noir for elitist reactionaries who would rather have the people shut up forevermore and let their betters govern them, referenda of any and every kind have had little impact relative to the usual workings of elected governments and unelected bureaucracies, good or bad. (Remember, I said RELATIVE.)

[Fearless]

14. FMI... I'd suggest reading the Federalist Papers.

They detail much of the argument for why we have a republican democracy and not a direct democracy, amongst other things.


EDIT: A Link...


http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

[AllentownJake]

15. The guys who built the system were pretty well read

When they weren't working they were reading.

[Fearless]

17. True, agree or disagree with the effectiveness of the system...

It really shows how much they thought about it and how many ideas they melded together.

[JackRiddler]

51. I'd suggest remembering the anti-Federalists, thanks to whom there is a Bill of Rights.

Enough romanticizing the few dozen long-dead white male property holders, majority slave-owners, who appointed themselves to write a Constitution. If they'd had their way, the most important part of that Constitution would not have even been included! There is a Bill of Rights solely because of the anti-Federalist protests that forced it as a compromise to gain approval for the Federalists' Constitution.

Your framers got a lot wrong, and we're not even halfway to correcting it.

[RoyGBiv]

67. Question ...

Are you suggesting that those opposed to the adoption of the Constitution, commonly called anti-Federalists, were not "white male property holders" and "majority slave-owners"?

The question is rhetorical. Of course they were white male property holders, and some of the most ardent anti-Federalists were Southern slave owners, e.g. Patrick Henry.

Put all the people who had a major role in the formation of the country in the same room, from all ideological angles, and you couldn't avoid standing next to a white male property holder who owned slaves. The point that this description is applicable to Federalists as a contrast to anti-Federalists is no point at all.

The anti-Federalists were largely responsible for ensuring the adoption of a bill of rights. The arguments for and against were both valid at the time, but in the modern age, the argument is moot. As the Federalists claimed, the mere adoption of the so-called Bill of Rights set the tone for the operation of the government that now requires them.

On the other hand, some elements of the anti-Federalist's complaints have not, by and large, gained full acceptance, even though we have long been in severe danger of that happening. One example is the idea of textualism and original intent in the interpretation of law. The Robert Borks and Antonin Scalias of the modern Court draw a direct line between elements of their legal philosophy and that of the anti-Federalists who claimed, among other things, that investing the Judiciary with the ability to interpret law according to its spirit, e.g. by drawing on reasoning and facts outside the specific text of the law, was the basis of tyranny. George Clinton, for example, would not have been a fan of Obama's current Supreme Court nominee and likely would have led the charge in criticizing the idea of "empathy" in any legal decision.

My point is simply that critiquing our system of government by countering the ideas of the Federalists with those of the anti-Federalists is a fraught with peril as relying on one set of ideas alone. You cannot reasonably imply that one set of ideas was pure or correct while the other was wrong, especially while basing your criticism on who these people were, since they were all of similar classes and held similar social roles. Our current system of government is based on a collection of ideas from various ideological viewpoints prevalent at the time of adoption with many alterations since.

[Fearless]

73. Bravo!

[JackRiddler]

76. Thanks for the history lesson...

(CORRECTIONS ON EDIT...)

I see you didn't write the prior post, sorry. Your post is very interesting!

I responded to a post with the usual capsule praise about the awesome untouchable wisdom of the framers. It's just too simplistic, and it's about time we acknowledged their faults and moved on to better things. There have been some changes in the last 200 years, and in the US most of them really were improvements.

While the scientific census was still in the future, clearly more of the disenfranchised and non-property holding were against the Constitution of 1787 than for it.

One significant slave-holder who was against it, for good reasons, was Thomas Jefferson. (Notwithstanding his later excitement at being president with all those cool powers.)

The framers made a document designed to allow flexibility, tolerance and secular government amongst themselves and their class, while maintaining hegemony over everyone else. The potential for a continental empire was well within their imagination.

Their constant concern was the supposed "tyranny of the mob," under which they felt they would suffer. So they created a democracy for their own kind. They had contempt for the majority, obviously the slaves and women, but also all people not of their class.

Their document was so very progressive for their time, compared to the absolutists, but not so progressive within the spectrum of Enlightenment thought. The best thing that document offers was and remains the Bill of Rights, and yes, it was forced in by elements who were among the anti-Federalists. Good for them. If I must take a symbol of worthy "founding fathers," I find the fight for a Bill of Rights to be much more worthwhile than the chaps who got together in Annapolis in 1786.

Can we be friends anyway?

[ItNerd4life]

85. I signed on just to say 'Well Said'

and thanks for all the fish...I mean history lesson.

[Fearless]

71. I suggest you read what I wrote next about how wether you agree with them or not...

that it shows that they thought about it, instead of being snarky.

[BlooInBloo]

68. Let me know if you have better luck getting people to read the Fed Papers...

than I have.

[Fearless]

72. Ditto.

I would've figured DUer's would have been easier than the 9th graders I teach it to. So far... meh.

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

74. Heh. Like most Americans, their only concern is with the end product...

The rationale(s) that led to that product, not so much. Easier just to make up that shit on the fly, or pretend that there were no competing concerns being addressed in the first place.

[Fearless]

75. If you want a complacent society tell them what they deserve...

and give them just a bit more. Of course, they deserve more, but they don't know that. So long as they're satisfied, they don't give a damn about freedoms or rights. Just a paycheck. Just maintaining their status quo. No universal health coverage; I have my own and I don't want to pay for it for others. No funding for public schools; I'm sending my kids to private schools and I don't want to pay for it for others. It's the same old argument. We're all for freedoms, but only until we have to pay for them, only until they are challenged. Then we fold like an old pair of pants in a vain attempt to maintain our positions.


Phew! :rant:

[Juche]

20. The electoral college generally reflects popular vote

If a presidential candidate wins 52% of the popular vote they are likely going to win the electoral college.

The part about the senators I do agree with, but it cuts both ways. There are small states in the south and northwest/southwest that have tiny populations and diehard GOP senators. But there are small blue states in new england that produce liberal senators. Utah vs. RI; Mississippi vs. Delaware; etc.

Roughly 75% of all senators elected in the south are republican. Roughly 25% of senators elected outside the south are republican. I think the ratios are 19/26 in the south are GOP, and 21/74 outside the south are GOP. And southerners vote GOP because the GOP opposed the civil rights movement 50 years ago. We get the democracy we deserve to be honest. People vote for the party that opposed civil rights 50 years ago, and that party is bought out by corporate interests. If we are too lazy to figure it out, we suffer.

[madville]

29. the issues in the south are abortion and guns

I can't remember hearing anybody ever say "I'm voting republican because of the civil rights movement in the early 60's"

I've heard hundreds of people say the democrats want to kill unborn babies and take their guns.

Religion is very popular around here so that means abortion is a major issue and the GOP uses that well. Guns rights are popular as well.

[Juche]

30. The south was heavily democratic before the civil rights movement

After 1865 when Lincoln and the republicans beat the south and forced reconstruction southern whites retaliated by becoming strongly democratic for 100 years. Then in the 1960s when the democrats supported civil rights, southern whites became republicans.

Racial tension has controlled southern voting for 150 years.

[JackRiddler]

49. Re: Electoral College. Four elections swung by this arbitrary device is acceptable to you?

It wasn't meant this way by the framers. They actually wanted electors to do whatever they please, so as to prevent the horrid "rule of the mob."

In practice, that never happens. So the electoral college is activated arbitrarily, by mathematical happenstance.

And after the plundering and destruction your country and world just received in the last eight years, it's kind of laughable to dismiss the effect as minor.

[Juche]

78. Which 4 elections?

The election of 2000 is the only one I can think of where it made a difference, but I am not too up to date on 19th century presidential history or earlier elections. The election of 2004 had Bush ahead by 3 million popular votes. Had Kerry won an extra 120k votes in the southwest (nevada, Colorado & NM) or an extra 120k votes in OHio he would've won the election despite losing the popular vote.

If anything the electoral college seems to work for the dems, as they have the 51%+ majority in the big states. Of the 10 biggest states I would say 5 are dem or lean dem (CA, PA, NY, IL, MI). Two are swing states (FL, OH). One is a quasi-swing state. It may not be in the future I don't know (NC). Two are republican (TX, GA).

Not only that but states like TX and possibly GA are moving leftward. There is speculation TX will be a swing state by 2016 due to higher latino voters, youth voters, old white voters dying off and more immigration from other states to the big cities. The same has been said of GA. If that happens, then the GOP has no strong red states. All the big states will be dem or swing states.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/09/nation/na-assess9

[JackRiddler]

79. There were 3 prior elections where the electoral college made a difference...

in the 19th C. At least two ended up in the House, in 1801 (Jefferson) and 1877 (Hayes). I think the other one was JQ Adams over Jackson, 1824.

A perceived advantage for the party one prefers does not justify the system. In practice, nothing will ever undo the damage of 2000, a stolen election made possible by the system. And given the constellation of media power and the unscrupulousness of the Republicans, how do you think a Democratic victory after a popular vote loss would play out? Look at what they did questioning Clinton's legitmacy after he won on a 42% plurality in 1992...

Here are the elections where it factored:

4 times officially, popular vote loser takes office (JQ Adams in 1824,* Hayes in 1877,* Harrison in 1888, Bush in 2000).

*3 times the House decides (Jefferson v. Burr in 1800, Adams over Jackson in 1824, Hayes in “Great Compromise” of 1877). 1877 was a disaster for the people in many ways.

1 time, Supreme Court intervenes to decide election (Gore v. Bush in 2000). Also a big disaster, no?

[Juche]

80. I am not sure I see your argument

Are you calling for strict popular votes? You said the framers were opposed to mob rule. I do not see why popular vote on a state by state level is destructive but a national popular vote is acceptable. Since the electoral college seems to help the democratic party while hurting the GOP, I am going to continue to support it.

Bush won in 2000 because Katherine Harris purged thousand of black voters from the rolls in Florida because black voters tend to not support republican candidates. Add in the Nader voters, the voters who wanted to vote Gore but got confused and voted Buchanan, the 200,000 democrats in florida who voted republican, etc. They all share the responsibility for 2000. Had Gore won NH he would've won the election too.

[JackRiddler]

81. Again, a perceived advantage for the Democrats is not an argument for the Electoral College...

The only recent evidence shows that the EC system gave Bush a chance to win in 2000, despite losing the popular vote and despite getting less votes in FL than Gore.

Yes, as long as we have a presidential system, the one who gets more votes should win. That's how it works in every other election: governors, senators, etc. There should not be a possibility to have the candidate with the most votes lose to someone with less votes!

This possibility exists in presidential elections only, and it exists solely because the EC was created by the framers as a way of mediating the "rule of the mob" (i.e., the will of the majority). They feared the majority because they themselves were a minority ruling elite.

However, and I hope this time it will be clear: The EC doesn't actually work the way the framers imagined. They imagined that the EC would be composed of a better class of people (in their view) who might vote their conscience, even against their initial commitment. In practice, however, the EC members are selected loyalists of each candidate and never vote against their initial commitment. (There were I believe three cases of a changed vote in this century, all of which were eccentric, symbolic protests without any chance of an impact.)

Thus, the EC does not act as an elite putting a conscious brake on "the rule of the mob." Results that deviate from the popular vote due to the EC system are arbitrary, a mathematical anomaly, and not the result of conscious decisions to stop a popular demagogue (as originally intended).

Is that clear now?

None of the factors you cite changed the results in Florida. Despite the many ways used by the Republican administration to affect the vote in Bush's favor, Gore got more votes. The recount underway of all available votes would have established his victory, as the later (irrelevant) recounts showed in 2001. Gore got more votes, even after all the Bush tricks.

The only thing that stopped the full recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision using such a questionable standard (the chance of doing irreparable harm to Bush!) that they included a caveat stating that this case was never to be used as a precedent in any future case!

Nader did not change the outcome. Butterfly ballots, false felon lists, "lost" ballots, vote suppression in black areas, etc. etc. all did not change the outcome, because the outcome was that Gore got MORE VOTES than Bush. The US Supreme Court decision allowed the Jeb Bush administration to submit a false result for the state.

None of which would have happened without the EC, because Gore had more votes in the country and that should have been the end of the story.

[Juche]

87. Yes it is

Your major argument against the EC is that you feel it cost Gore the election, then you turn around and chastize me for saying I support the EC because it helps the democratic party. I fail to see how your motives are different than mine. You want to abolish the EC because it hurt democratic candidates like Gore. I want to keep it because it helps democratic candidates like Obama and Kerry. If Kerry had won an extra 120k votes in Ohio in 2004, and still lost the popular vote by 3 million while winning the EC and presidency with 271 EVs I do not think you'd be protesting so much about the injustice of the EC system. You can talk about injustice and unfairness, but I honestly doubt you'd be protesting in 2004 if Kerry won Ohio or the southwest with an extra 120k votes but still lost the popular vote by 3 million. And like I said, the EC system uses popular vote on a state by state level rather than a nationwide level. It is still a popular vote system.

The argument against the SCOTUS intervening is valid. The one time the GOP didn't complain about activist judges.

There are other flaws with our electoral system. A state like California has as many senators as a state like Alaska, despite having over 60x more people. If you look at the 2004 senate election results 45 million people voted for democratic candidates and only 40 million voted for GOP candidates. However because the GOP did better in smaller, less populated states they picked up 4 senate seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

So more americans voted to give control of the senate to the democrats, and the republicans picked up 4 seats.

[JackRiddler]

89. No. I'm sorry, that is not what I said. (Am I a bad communicator?)

My argument against the EC is that it's wrong. Period.

First of all, it's wrong because it is undemocratic and raises the possibility of electing a candidate who lost the popular vote, as occurred recently with disastrous consequences.

That's reason enough to be against it.

Second, it does not fulfill the function the Framers foresaw for it. The EC does not serve as a deliberative body in which anyone ever changes their vote so as to counteract the "rule of the mob." In practice, the EC provides mathematical noise that can only change an election result arbitrarily, i.e. independently of human agency whether "mob" or "elite."

My emphasis on 2000 simply refers to the only empirical example we have had since the 19th century of the EC system changing an election result. This sole real-world example tends to refute your view that the EC system is good because it might confer entirely hypothetical advantages on the Democrats. (Notwithstanding that this is an unscrupulous argument. If you thought the EC advantages the Republicans, would you be against it?!)

But in terms of the overall argument, the Gore example doesn't matter. The EC system would still be wrong, even if it did advantage the Democrats, which it almost certainly does not.

[Juche]

90. I understand your point, I just don't agree with it

There is a difference. If you think it is unjust to not elect presidents by nationwide popular vote that is your belief. However since the EC uses statewide rather than nationwide popular vote I do not find one unjust and the other acceptable.

[Confusious]

21. We're a republic. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

22. The founding fathers knew there would be dumbasses...

Sometimes you have to protect a minority from the tyranny of an ignorant majority. Hence why we are a republic.

[CreekDog]

37. Thank God these Senators are protecting us from the dumbasses!

:crazy: :wtf:

[JackRiddler]

38. Can you provide empirical examples?

Please give us historic examples of times when the set-up under the Constitution of 1787 (especially the structure of the Senate with two votes for each state) served to "protect a minority from the tyranny of an ignorant majority"?

[CreekDog]

39. It stopped civil rights for a long time

protecting a minority of *states* from the tyrannical will of the majority wanting to impose civil rights on all those states citizens.

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

56. Actually, I believe that civil rights weren't that popular for a long time.

Interracial marriage was viewed as wrong up until the 1980s for fuck's sake!

[Greyhound]

70. They also knew that their new government would be dependent upon an interested

and informed population. We had it for about 30 or 40 years before we allowed what we now call special interests to take over the government and begin picking and choosing the winners and losers of the expansion.

Since that time we have become less educated and less interested to the point we are at. Less than half of eligible voters register and many of those that do register never, or rarely, bother to vote.

Maybe we should go to mandatory voting like Australia? Of course, that could be pretty scary too as so few of the sheeple have any idea what is going on at any given time.

[Kablooie]

23. But is is sort of Demoncratic, wouldn't you say? Lots of demons running it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Our system is corrupt. It is a democracy in name only.

We have a two party oligarchy supported by the capitalists that switch between "good cop" in power to "bad cop" in power.

A guy named George Washington warned against it (from his Farewell Address):

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[anonymous171]

55. The Greeks weren't democratic either. Just FYI. nt

[Cleita]

65. Technically no. An actual majority of their population weren't considered

citizens, women, slaves, and helots, but they did think of the idea even if it was only for a privileged class of male land owners. No one had considered it since we left the Stone Age and followed Chieftains and Kings, who were born into the position, or who conquered and took the throne, very undemocratically.

[anonymous171]

57. Do you really think that a majority of Americans would vote for Gay Marriage?

[JackRiddler]

60. Yes, in New York... and they will in California next time.

Do you think most elected legislatures would do so? What about judges?

It's not just "the people" who are failing, here. Why does Prop 8 get used as an argument against democracy? Why isn't DADT used as an argument against generals, or DOMA as an argument against the Senate?

[Cleita]

63. News flash, even in Civics class in school we were taught this. We are

actually Republican in format with representative government. It seems our Founding Fathers couldn't trust the people to make the right decision so they injected the middlemen or politicians that we chose to do it for us. I would like to see a true democratic form of government take place experimentally at a local level. There would be no elections. Every citizen would be appointed by lottery, like jury duty, and would be required to give two years once in his/her lifetime for civic duty. Yes, we'd get a lot of asses, but theoretically they would be balanced by saner minds. There would have to be some career professionals employed to steer the Senators or whatever we call them through the law, but they wouldn't have any power to legislate but only educate and inform. I don't know if it would work, but for one thing it would get rid of all the campaign finance and running for office issues.

[hfojvt]

69. so you blame the small states, let's look at them

Alaska - 47th 1D, 1R
Delaware - 45th 2D
Hawaii - 42nd 2D
Maine - 40th 2R
Montana - 44th 2D
New Hampshire - 41st 1D, 1R
North Dakota - 48th 2D
Rhode Island - 43rd 2D
South Dakota - 46th 1D, 1R
Vermont - 49th 2D
Wyoming - 50th 2R

total 11 smallest 15D 7R

It would seem that Democrats are benefitting from disproportional representation. Certainly those 11 at the bottom are more disproportionally represented than those in the 20-39th range.

Consider the next three smallest

Idaho - 39th 2R
Nebraska - 38th 1D, 1R
West Virginia - 37th 2D
total - 3D, 3R

the next 4

New Mexico - 36th 2D
Nevada - 35th 1D, 1R
Utah - 34th 2R
Kansas - 33rd 2R
total - 3D, 5R

tilting away from us, but the 18 smallest states still have a total of 21D to 15R, and we will pick up another one in SD in 2010.

[backtoblue]

83. We have a capitalist government

Capitalist economics rule our society, not democracy. nt

[AngryAmish]

86. Half the people have below 100 IQ

Democracy does not work.

[JackRiddler]

92. Half a percent own half of the assets. That's the problem -- not the people.

All you're saying is that in the distribution of intelligence, assuming it can be measured accurately, half the people are below the median. If you're intelligent, you can figure out why this a meaningless statement. It's like saying that half the people are shorter than 5 foot 7 (or whatever the median height is). A lot of reactionary and frankly stupid politics are justified by the observation that "people are stupid." Although a lot of them are, it doesn't follow that we're better off with an oligarchy who are only out for themselves.

If democracy does not work, then why are the most democratic nations on earth also the most prosperous and happiest for the greatest number of people? The countries with higher standards of living than the United States almost all have more democratic systems -- usually with proportional representation, parliamentary coalition politics, big social welfare states, long cumbersome lists of rights and privileges and protections for citizens and workers, national health systems and, perhaps most importantly, far more equitable distribution of wealth. These countries also tend to have far smaller militaries and arms industries, though lord knows they're well represented among the international merchants of death. They're not perfect!

That may not prove democracy works, but it certainly argues more for it than against it.

[JackRiddler]

93. shameless self-kick