The Principles of Democracy

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

245 posts / 0 new

Comments

They don't call it "autocratic" anymore though, now its "technocratic".

My point in respect to your post, RofJ, is that technocracy and capitalism have undermined the human aspect of social and economic life. If you ask someone out of the blue what they think of the Golden Rule they will likely agree with it. But then its also likely that they will say that the fast food workers either should put up with their situation and not strike, or they will say they are neutral because they see it as just a power struggle. It would not enter their minds to ask whether the corporate management has any compassion toward their workers.

My take on the concept of "alienation of labor" is that the surplus value of labor should be available to the workers for their own personal time. Some people, for example, like to clean. Its mentally unchallenging so you can get lost in your own thoughts all while staying physically healthy by doing physical work. Others don't enjoy it so much but are not uncomfortable and are willing to do it. Both those situations are acceptable so it is not necessary for the worker to look at work as the only or primary source of self-fulfillment. We need to get back to the idea that workers should be able to fulfill their desires with a much shorter work day/week/lifetime. But that is going against capitalism for two reasons. One is that limiting the workforce increases profits from state extortion. The other is that keeping people busy serves the purpose of robbing people of leisure, in the sense in which "leisure" has been used especially in classical liberal contexts to mean the self-owning of one's time and personal development.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Since capitalists need to limit the workforce but also keep people busy, globalization is necessary to continue to drive down the workforce to greater degrees of disenfranchisement. The U.S. security state is readying itself for mass-unemployment and lack of state assistance so it can contain the fallout of fully transferring the capitalist system to the global scale. Then, since massacres and civil war are common throughout the rest of the world, this will then become the "new normal" here. And it will be orchestrated the way it is now everywhere else.

Unless people can get their act together somehow.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

Since capitalists need to limit the workforce but also keep people busy, globalization is necessary to continue to drive down the workforce to greater degrees of disenfranchisement. The U.S. security state is readying itself for mass-unemployment and lack of state assistance so it can contain the fallout of fully transferring the capitalist system to the global scale. Then, since massacres and civil war are common throughout the rest of the world, this will then become the "new normal" here. And it will be orchestrated the way it is now everywhere else.

Unless people can get their act together somehow.

ulTRAX may be right that the liberals in the US need to have a concise well defined set of progressive goals just for the sake of pragmatism and political survival; further more, my concepts of justification and the Golden Rule is way off the conventional way of thinking. Republicans dominate due to unwavering dedication to the party line, which lines up with the corporate interest, but GOP is consistent, and the message is extremely simple and easy to follow, regardless of how manipulative and counter productive it may be. It is for more effective compared to Liberals that are all over the board with no consensus on the way forward.

Conventional wisdom for liberal strategy would be trying to use existing progressive ideology to create a agreed upon set of political objectives; however, I don't know if conventional wisdom has served liberals very well for the past 40 years. Especially since the democratic party abandon the American working class during the 90's for Wall St. money. Either a consensus is built to retake the Democratic Party or independent democratic organizations need to be built to counter the entire political system. Both could be objectives, but either would require liberals to find a clear way forward, which does not currently exist.

The US system of government has devolved away from any semblance of a representative democracy into a system of politicians acting as managers for the wealth interest of the United States. The president lobbying for approval of the TPP, Congress has been reduced to selling influence for PAC money and the country's highest court acts like a firewall to protect corporate supremacy.

But your right, something has to be done or we may go from a Constant War Economy draining our tax money to living under a Authoritarian Security State Economy with corporate CEOs directly controlling our government.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

Ultrax you seem to still completely miss the point of the senate. Let me explain one more time. I doubt you will understand but here goes.

When the constitution was written the small population states knew that the large population states would be able to over run them with bad federal laws. So the compromise was this The house of Representatives is appountioned according to population. The Senate 2 seats for each state thus keeping the large population states from force the small population states to bend to their will.

I know the Senate also has other duties the house does not they where set up that way because the Senate was the upper house, to be filled with high educated people. While the house was the commoners house. This was meant to leave the complicated decision to the upper house.

If we went to a parliament style government would the Midwest get a Midwest progressive or a New York progressive? Same goes for conservative would they be from the area voting for them or appointed by the rnc commette? Would they be required to travel to all of the cities in the country and speak to their constituents or just reject calls all day as they sat in washington?

How exactly would it work if I wanted to speak to my senator?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

I understand Ultrax's view on this but Mavi is also correct. That's what makes the whole idea of the Senate so polarizing.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote mavibobo:Ultrax you seem to still completely miss the point of the senate. Let me explain one more time. I doubt you will understand but here goes.
PLEASE... FO... I know the goddamn official reason for the Senate. Spare me the 4th grade US history lesson. I simply REJECT the rationale.... as did many of the Framers. The problem here is all those principled objections have been buried and all that survived is that official version. You fail to understand that the Constitution was almost NOT ratified.

The problem here is basing decision-making on states means the Constitution has no protections against changing demographics. It's getting more and more antidemocratic... and more and more reformproof. Where once, back in 1787, the population differential between the states was something like 7:1... it's now 70:1.

I had no say in the decisions made 225 years ago so why should I respect them? It would be easier if it met the standard for a government's moral legitimacy set in the D of I... that a government derived its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.

So where is there ANY consent of the governed in our system when a candidate REJECTED by the People can be imposed on a free nation such as happened in 2000?

So where is there ANY consent of the governed in our system when the majority in the Senate represents a mere 18% of the US population?

So where is there ANY consent of the governed in our system when the House can be Gerrymandered so 70% of a states seats can go to a party that received only 51% of the votes?

So where is there ANY consent of the governed in our system when an amendment can be passed by states that only represent 40% of the US population?

I'm sorry FO... that you are so bound up in your 4th grade version of history that as an adult you still can't think for yourself... which is why you'll never understand the concept of morally legitimate government.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I understand Ultrax's view on this but Mavi is also correct. That's what makes the whole idea of the Senate so polarizing.

Seriously... there are other ways to protect LEGITIMATE regional/state rights WITHOUT resorting to an antidemocratic system. The problem with our system is once we give a 18% minority of the US population a MAJORITY in the Senate... and 40% of the US population the ability to ratify amendments... and the EC lets a candidate REJECTED by the People become president.... THE CONSTITUTION IS NO LONGER JUST PROTECTING THESE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS... IT'S MINORITY RULE OVER THE MAJORITY.

I think you really need to think about the what makes for morally legitimate government... and it's NOT allowing the possibility for minority rule.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I understand Ultrax's view on this but Mavi is also correct. That's what makes the whole idea of the Senate so polarizing.

Mavi... aka firearms owner... and 4-5 other names he's used here before he was banned for being a right wing nutcase has never been correct about anything.

I don't deny there might be legitimate regional rights that need to be protected. Say they are rural farm rights... or water rights. Why are these rights oh so special that we need to give SOME citizens a bigger vote that other citizens with legitimate rights? Should we give a bigger vote for others with legitimate rights? What about other historically oppressed minotities... women, racial minorities, gays, skinny kids with acne? If state suffrage is a morally legitimate way to protect small states rights... why not offer this power to ALL minority groups???

Of course this is insanity. And the ONLY reason some states got so much power is BECAUSE THEY WERE INVITED TO WHAT WE CALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The rights of others' were swept under the carpet.

The way to protect legitimate minority rights can be done in two ways... without affecting majority rule. One is to write these rights into constitution... OR... let these groups chair congressional committees so their interests are included in any legislation.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The Constitution was not suppose to be written in stone; it was suppose to be a living document. Jefferson thought there should be a constitutional convention ever four years because he understood what was right for society then may not be right for society in the future.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:

The Constitution was not suppose to be written in stone; it was suppose to be a living document. Jefferson thought there should be a constitutional convention ever four years because he understood what was right for society then may not be right for society in the future.

Jefferson wasn't even at the "constitutional convention" so I have to wonder what his opinion means.

There are only three ways I can think of making it more adaptable... amendments which now a mere 3.5% of the population can block, or creative supreme court decisions, or ignoring the constitution.

So we're stuck between an inability to reform the Constitution, a far right court that want to rewrite it to suit the political needs of the GOP... or ignoring it as the Framers did when they subverted the Articles.

Yikes!

Take your pick.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I've always thought, as others have, that T Jeff was deliberately excluded from the formation of the Constitution due to his radical ideas about how a democracy should function. I know of anarchist thinkers that admired some of Jefferson's rhetoric on democracy.

I've never known how cereal to take TJ, but I am Richard of Jefferson City, I even lived in Jefferson county for a while, and I've visited Jeff's penis dome in DC a couple times, so that has to mean something, right? LOL

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:

I've always thought, as others have, that T Jeff was deliberately excluded from the formation of the Constitution due to his radical ideas about how a democracy should function.

Jefferson was in France as our ambassador. He and Madison wrote to each other... but that's about it.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:

The Constitution was not suppose to be written in stone; it was suppose to be a living document. Jefferson thought there should be a constitutional convention ever four years because he understood what was right for society then may not be right for society in the future.

Jefferson wasn't even at the "constitutional convention" so I have to wonder what his opinion means.

There are only three ways I can think of making it more adaptable... amendments which now a mere 3.5% of the population can block, or creative supreme court decisions, or ignoring the constitution.

So we're stuck between an inability to reform the Constitution, a far right court that want to rewrite it to suit the political needs of the GOP... or ignoring it as the Framers did when they subverted the Articles.

Yikes!

Take your pick.

We could always move to Samolia with LysanderSpooner, and live the libertarian dream. I've always wanted to be pirate, arrrg.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am

Well ultrax, if you do not like the system the way it is you can push to have it changed.

The supreme court decision to give the election to bush had to be based on some thing if you do not agree with their decision take it up with them. Just like you still are butt hurt over the travon Martin decision.

Garrymandering is a state level decision start with your local politics to change the way the districts are set up.

The reason I go back to a 4th grade level is I am trying to get you to understand that the senate was there to protect against mob rule. We also need to get back to all important political decisions must be made at a local level. The amount of control at the federal level is completely out of control.

If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things. California and New York City would control the entire country does that really sound like a good idea to you?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:Well ultrax, if you do not like the system the way it is you can push to have it changed. The supreme court decision to give the election to bush had to be based on some thing if you do not agree with their decision take it up with them.
What part of MAJORITY RULE do you disagree with? Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Quote mavibobo:Garrymandering is a state level decision start with your local politics to change the way the districts are set up.
And if Gerrymandering is done well, 51% of the voters can get 70% of the seats. Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Quote mavibobo:The reason I go back to a 4th grade level is I am trying to get you to understand that the senate was there to protect against mob rule.
Yawn. The BILL OF RIGHTS is to protect against "mob rule" using the power of government to restrict rights. The Senate and EC allow for MINORITY rule over the majority... in the areas of treaties and nominations. The EC can give the ability to enforce laws to a president REJECTED by the People. Together they can block ANY law proposed by a presumably democratically elected House. Toss in that amendments can be ratified by states with as little as 40% if the US population.

Isn't MINORITY RULE WORST? In all your infinate 4th grade wisdom... you can not think of ANY other way to protect minority rights WITHOUT allowing for a tyranny of the minority?

Guess not. So under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Quote mavibobo:We also need to get back to all important political decisions must be made at a local level. The amount of control at the federal level is completely out of control.
Red Herring Alert. The Constitution permits broad federal powers. As someone just said to me "if you do not like the system the way it is you can push to have it changed." Of course this is highly unlikely since a tiny minority of the US population... about 3.5%, CAN BLOCK ANY REFORMS.

Quote mavibobo: If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things.
RED HERRING ALERT... I know you've NEVER been able to grasp ANY concept that you disagree with. Where have I EVER said I would not want to protect any LEGITIMATE rights of small states??? What I have REPEATEDLY said is this should not be done in a way that gives small states a bigger vote then it deserves in a democratic system... because this can lead to MINORITY RULE. The power of small states in the Constitution is NOT RESTRICTED to just protecting their rights.

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things. California and New York City would control the entire country does that really sound like a good idea to you?

Why should ANY US CITIZEN be deprived of an equal vote JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR CHOICE OF STATE RESIDENCE???? Why should ANY US CITIZEN get a BIGGER vote just because of their choice of state residence.

All your 4th grade US history ever thought you was to think of how STATES are represented... NOT CITIZENS. But once you clear the official propaganda cobwebs from your mind and look at the Constitution in a different light... then the absurdity of it becomes apparent. Why should any citizen who chooses to live in Wyoming have 70 X the influence in the Senate than any citizen who chooses to live in California???? Why should their vote for president be 3.5X that of a citizen in Cal?

If you actually believe that giving SOME citizens a bigger vote than others to protect their "rights" WHY NOT DO THIS FOR EVERY group that needs rights protected????

Shall we give women, racial minorities, gays and the mentally disabled BIGGER VOTES than white straight men?

FO... somehow your brain, such as it is, got stuck on auto-pilot back in 4th grade. Since you have no independent moral compass... I can only imagine who you'd be if born in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:The reason I go back to a 4th grade level is I am trying to get you to understand that the senate was there to protect against mob rule.
Yawn. The BILL OF RIGHTS is to protect against "mob rule" using the power of government to restrict rights. The Senate and EC allow for MINORITY rule over the majority... in the areas of treaties and nominations. The EC can give the ability to enforce laws to a president REJECTED by the People. Together they can block ANY law proposed by a presumably democratically elected House. Toss in that amendments can be ratified by states with as little as 40% if the US population.

Isn't MINORITY RULE WORST? In all your infinite 4th grade wisdom... you can not think of ANY other way to protect minority rights WITHOUT allowing for a tyranny of the minority?

In a sense, we've all been propagandized since birth to understand the rationale for our federal system... and never to critique or compare it to other more modern systems of democratic governments. As a result most Americans probably believe, even if most don't bother to vote, we have the best government on the planet... and other nations have built their systems on ours. But if we look around at the developed industrial democracies... virtually no one has a system like ours.

In our 225 years we've done virtually NOTHING to reform ANY of the antidemocratic features of our system that are based on state suffrage... and because the differential between the smallest and largest population states continues to grow... the system has become more and more antidemocratic and reformproof. The Constitution has set in cement the politics of 1787 and now we think they are our politics.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:Well ultrax, if you do not like the system the way it is you can push to have it changed. The supreme court decision to give the election to bush had to be based on some thing if you do not agree with their decision take it up with them.
What part of MAJORITY RULE do you disagree with? Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Quote mavibobo:Garrymandering is a state level decision start with your local politics to change the way the districts are set up.
And if Gerrymandering is done well, 51% of the voters can get 70% of the seats. Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Quote mavibobo:The reason I go back to a 4th grade level is I am trying to get you to understand that the senate was there to protect against mob rule.
Yawn. The BILL OF RIGHTS is to protect against "mob rule" using the power of government to restrict rights. The Senate and EC allow for MINORITY rule over the majority... in the areas of treaties and nominations. The EC can give the ability to enforce laws to a president REJECTED by the People. Together they can block ANY law proposed by a presumably democratically elected House. Toss in that amendments can be ratified by states with as little as 40% if the US population.

Isn't MINORITY RULE WORST? In all your infinate 4th grade wisdom... you can not think of ANY other way to protect minority rights WITHOUT allowing for a tyranny of the minority?

Guess not. So under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Quote mavibobo:We also need to get back to all important political decisions must be made at a local level. The amount of control at the federal level is completely out of control.
Red Herring Alert. The Constitution permits broad federal powers. As someone just said to me "if you do not like the system the way it is you can push to have it changed." Of course this is highly unlikely since a tiny minority of the US population... about 3.5%, CAN BLOCK ANY REFORMS.

Quote mavibobo: If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things.
RED HERRING ALERT... I know you've NEVER been able to grasp ANY concept that you disagree with. Where have I EVER said I would not want to protect any LEGITIMATE rights of small states??? What I have REPEATEDLY said is this should not be done in a way that gives small states a bigger vote then it deserves in a democratic system... because this can lead to MINORITY RULE. The power of small states in the Constitution is NOT RESTRICTED to just protecting their rights.

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids.

The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule. The Senate allows the minority to stop the majority from over running them with the typical psycho babble that come out of your mouth.

The fact that wyoming has fewer people living in it then California is irrelevant as the house is based on majority. So California gets its way in the house and wyoming can say hang on that is stupid.

But being you c as n not grasp the concept of this it is like talking to a wall, but I am afraid I would get more intelligent responses from the wall.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

mavibobo If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things.

ulTRAX: RED HERRING ALERT... I know you've NEVER been able to grasp ANY concept that you disagree with. Where have I EVER said I would not want to protect any LEGITIMATE rights of small states??? What I have REPEATEDLY said is this should not be done in a way that gives small states a bigger vote then it deserves in a democratic system... because this can lead to MINORITY RULE. The power of small states in the Constitution is NOT RESTRICTED to just protecting their rights.

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

Thanks AGAIN for proving my point that it's YOU who's never thought past what you learned in 4th grade. And thanks AGAIN for proving you're so lost in your own delusions of infallibility that you're intellectually incapable of understanding ANY concepts you don't agree with.

So I'll ask for the SIXTH time:

Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Denying minority rule is possible under our system is NOT AN ANSWER.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:The fact that wyoming has fewer people living in it then California is irrelevant as the house is based on majority. So California gets its way in the house and wyoming can say hang on that is stupid. But being you c as n not grasp the concept of this it is like talking to a wall, but I am afraid I would get more intelligent responses from the wall.
Gee Einstein... how many times do I have to say I UNDERSTAND the basis of our system but I DISAGREE with the basis of our system. It's YOU who is incapable of understanding the basic representative principles THAT THE STATES HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER. It's been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for states to use ANY schemes that deny equal representation TO CITIZENS... such as white citizens getting 5 representatives in their statehouse for their district yet an equal number of black citizens get one representative for their district. Or a district with 5000 white citizens gets one representative while a district of 50000 black citizens also gets just one.

So I ask for the SEVENTH TIME: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This Supreme Court decision makes the moral (and legal) case for equal representation of citizens... at least on the state and municipal level. Unequal representation is obviously NOT illegal on the federal level where discrimination against citizens in large population states is an inherent part of US federalism.

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.

....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.

Of course, the effect of state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there.

The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or 10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable. One must be ever aware that the Constitution forbids "sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:The fact that wyoming has fewer people living in it then California is irrelevant as the house is based on majority. So California gets its way in the house and wyoming can say hang on that is stupid. But being you c as n not grasp the concept of this it is like talking to a wall, but I am afraid I would get more intelligent responses from the wall.
My dad was a person whose mind was mired in his upbringing... and always thought anything he was and believed had to have some intrinsic superiority over anything else. So he was one who thought his ethnic background and religion and tastes in food and culture were intrinsically superior. He could never grasp the concept that if born somewhere else... and in a different time, he'd disavow what he had just claimed as true and say the same about those circumstances. Surely we all know the type... and may even see some of this in ourselves.

So when I see BooBoo's pigheaded comments... I'm reminded of my dad's inability to see any other side of the argument. And when it comes to our federal system... even many liberals share his views that there's some self-evident truth and beauty to our system... and if someone doesn't see it... they just don't understand. Like some broken robot... it just does not compute.

Wearing the blinders they do... they can not comprehend that someone DOES understand... they just disagree.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

mavibobo If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things.

ulTRAX: RED HERRING ALERT... I know you've NEVER been able to grasp ANY concept that you disagree with. Where have I EVER said I would not want to protect any LEGITIMATE rights of small states??? What I have REPEATEDLY said is this should not be done in a way that gives small states a bigger vote then it deserves in a democratic system... because this can lead to MINORITY RULE. The power of small states in the Constitution is NOT RESTRICTED to just protecting their rights.

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

Thanks AGAIN for proving my point that it's YOU who's never thought past what you learned in 4th grade. And thanks AGAIN for proving you're so lost in your own delusions of infallibility that you're intellectually incapable of understanding ANY concepts you don't agree with.

So I'll ask for the SIXTH time:

Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Denying minority rule is possible under our system is NOT AN ANSWER.

Minority rule is bad, I never said it was not bad, however minorities are allowed to stop bad legislation just as the dems in the senate are trying to stop legislation in the senate now.

The majority can force some very bad rules on the minority with no way of fighting back against those rules. That is the down side to democracy it is also why the u.s. is a constitutional republic. This allows the minority to protect themselves from the mob rule. Thanks for proving yet again that you are so unbelievably lost in your delusions of infallibility that you are intellectually incapable of understanding any concept that is not your own.

You remind my of a parrot a friend owned once he was taught to say hello he never stop screaming hello.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

Ultrax, the minority of the population controls the majority of the wealth, how do you prevent the majority from taking the wealth from the minority?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm

movibobo, in our current system of State Capitalism most of the wealthy minority has extracted the majority's wealth through state intervention like subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation, policies that eliminate competition, public bailouts etc.. there are endless tools government uses to ensure the wealthy class are not subject to capitalist principles. Bailing out the financial institution in 2008 was direct state intervention were the majority bailed out the minority. There is no public influence over financial institution, but it was public money used to bail them out.

I would like to live in a government system where I get to vote on such issues like the state intervening in Capitalist enterprise like financial institutions gambling on packing and repacking artificially high rated real estate ventures that everybody knew was worthless, but continued to play until casino economy cashed in..

I want to live in a Democracy where my vote means something.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:

movibobo, in our current system of State Capitalism most of the wealthy minority has extracted the majority's wealth through state intervention like subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation, policies that eliminate competition, public bailouts etc.. there are endless tools government uses to ensure the wealthy class are not subject to capitalist principles. Bailing out the financial institution in 2008 was direct state intervention were the majority bailed out the minority. There is no public influence over financial institution, but it was public money used to bail them out.

I would like to live in a government system where I get to vote on such issues like the state intervening in Capitalist enterprise like financial institutions gambling on packing and repacking artificially high rated real estate ventures that everybody knew was worthless, but continued to play until casino economy cashed in..

I want to live in a Democracy where my vote means something.

I want to live in a system where citizens are not wards of the state nor considered secondary to the illegal alien.

I want to live in a system where the government does not bailout bad businesses, that does not force it's citizens to pay to support those who did not follow the laws to enter the country.

If you want to live in a Democracy instead of a republic you can freely move to the democracy of your choosing. If I want to live in a constitutional republic what are my choices?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

mavibobo If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things.

ulTRAX: RED HERRING ALERT... I know you've NEVER been able to grasp ANY concept that you disagree with. Where have I EVER said I would not want to protect any LEGITIMATE rights of small states??? What I have REPEATEDLY said is this should not be done in a way that gives small states a bigger vote then it deserves in a democratic system... because this can lead to MINORITY RULE. The power of small states in the Constitution is NOT RESTRICTED to just protecting their rights.

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

Thanks AGAIN for proving my point that it's YOU who's never thought past what you learned in 4th grade. And thanks AGAIN for proving you're so lost in your own delusions of infallibility that you're intellectually incapable of understanding ANY concepts you don't agree with.

So I'll ask for the SIXTH time:

Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Denying minority rule is possible under our system is NOT AN ANSWER.

Minority rule is bad, I never said it was not bad, however minorities are allowed to stop bad legislation just as the dems in the senate are trying to stop legislation in the senate now.
EVASION ALERT... just because you want to deny it doesn't mean we can't have minority rule in the US.... I GAVE YOU THREE EXAMPLES... and you blew them off.

Quote mavibobo:The majority can force some very bad rules on the minority with no way of fighting back against those rules. That is the down side to democracy it is also why the u.s. is a constitutional republic. This allows the minority to protect themselves from the mob rule.
Again.... try READING FOR COMPREHENSION instead of projecting your own meaning into what others are saying. Our system does NOT restrict minorities to certain powers. It doesn't just allow the people in small states not just to protect themselves... BUT TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS ON THE MAJORITY.

AGAIN.... recent elections of 1992 and 2000 proved a candidate REJECTED by the People can be imposed on the nation as president. That 18% of the US population that gets 52% of the Senate seats is NOT restricted to just protecting any legitimate rights these small states might have. And in the ratifying an amendment... a mere 40% of the US population ratify ANY amendment.

AGAIN... DIRECT QUESTION you can not think of ANY other system that protects majority rule AND the rights of minorities? Funny... most of the advanced industrial democracies have.

Quote mavibobo: You remind my of a parrot a friend owned once he was taught to say hello he never stop screaming hello.
I'm not the one incapable of thinking beyond whatever propaganda I was taught in 4th grade.

So for the SEVENTH TIME.... Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:Ultrax, the minority of the population controls the majority of the wealth, how do you prevent the majority from taking the wealth from the minority?
Now that you raise the question... Madison was clear that the reason for the Senate had less to do with states, but:

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

At the time the Senate was conceived, and you seem to ignore how much this idea was opposed at the so-called Constitutional Convention, Madison opposed a Bill of Rights. When under pressure from the states, he finally came around and the vast majority of the BoR are "positive rights" designed to restrict the power of the new government. Obviously this approach is preferable to limit the power of the majority than giving the rich under the guise of protecting the small states, the power of minority rule or a veto over the House. And YES... when it comes to nominations and treaties... Senators representing as little as 30% of the US population alone with a minority elected president... have power through nominations over how laws are enforced... and how they are interpreted in the courts.

So my question to you... is since we know from the FDR era that small states can also be progressive... what protections over rights are preferable... a constitutional protection such as in the BoR or giving every minority a bigger vote that still might be over outvoted by a majority?

And AGAIN I ask... if minority power is the "best" way to protect rights... then why not give EVERY historically oppressed minority group a bigger vote to protect their rights?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:

movibobo, in our current system of State Capitalism most of the wealthy minority has extracted the majority's wealth through state intervention like subsidies, tax breaks, deregulation, policies that eliminate competition, public bailouts etc.. there are endless tools government uses to ensure the wealthy class are not subject to capitalist principles. Bailing out the financial institution in 2008 was direct state intervention were the majority bailed out the minority. There is no public influence over financial institution, but it was public money used to bail them out.

I would like to live in a government system where I get to vote on such issues like the state intervening in Capitalist enterprise like financial institutions gambling on packing and repacking artificially high rated real estate ventures that everybody knew was worthless, but continued to play until casino economy cashed in..

I want to live in a Democracy where my vote means something.

I want to live in a system where citizens are not wards of the state nor considered secondary to the illegal alien. I want to live in a system where the government does not bailout bad businesses, that does not force it's citizens to pay to support those who did not follow the laws to enter the country. If you want to live in a Democracy instead of a republic you can freely move to the democracy of your choosing. If I want to live in a constitutional republic what are my choices?

You live in a function constitutional republic if you live in the US. I want to radically change it to function as a popular democracy. I suggest using 3 principles to formulate such a democracy: the law of justification, majority rule and the Golden Rule.

I would say our arguments are irreconcilable on this matter.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

[quote]mavibobo If we went by just straight majority rule as you are proposing the population centers could and would force the rest of the country to do some really stupid things.

ulTRAX: RED HERRING ALERT... I know you've NEVER been able to grasp ANY concept that you disagree with. Where have I EVER said I would not want to protect any LEGITIMATE rights of small states??? What I have REPEATEDLY said is this should not be done in a way that gives small states a bigger vote then it deserves in a democratic system... because this can lead to MINORITY RULE. The power of small states in the Constitution is NOT RESTRICTED to just protecting their rights.

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

Thanks AGAIN for proving my point that it's YOU who's never thought past what you learned in 4th grade. And thanks AGAIN for proving you're so lost in your own delusions of infallibility that you're intellectually incapable of understanding ANY concepts you don't agree with.

So I'll ask for the SIXTH time:

Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

Denying minority rule is possible under our system is NOT AN ANSWER.

Minority rule is bad, I never said it was not bad, however minorities are allowed to stop bad legislation just as the dems in the senate are trying to stop legislation in the senate now.
EVASION ALERT... just because you want to deny it doesn't mean we can't have minority rule in the US.... I GAVE YOU THREE EXAMPLES... and you blew them off.

Quote mavibobo:The majority can force some very bad rules on the minority with no way of fighting back against those rules. That is the down side to democracy it is also why the u.s. is a constitutional republic. This allows the minority to protect themselves from the mob rule.
Again.... try READING FOR COMPREHENSION instead of projecting your own meaning into what others are saying. Our system does NOT restrict minorities to certain powers. It doesn't just allow the people in small states not just to protect themselves... BUT TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS ON THE MAJORITY.

AGAIN.... recent elections of 1992 and 2000 proved a candidate REJECTED by the People can be imposed on the nation as president. That 18% of the US population that gets 52% of the Senate seats is NOT restricted to just protecting any legitimate rights these small states might have. And in the ratifying an amendment... a mere 40% of the US population ratify ANY amendment.

AGAIN... DIRECT QUESTION you can not think of ANY other system that protects majority rule AND the rights of minorities? Funny... most of the advanced industrial democracies have.

Quote mavibobo: You remind my of a parrot a friend owned once he was taught to say hello he never stop screaming hello.
I'm not the one incapable of thinking beyond whatever propaganda I was taught in 4th grade.

So for the SEVENTH TIME.... Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE

Again for the seventh time minority rule is not permitted by any moral authority. It is not permitted under the consitutational republic we live in, the minority proposes legislation the majority says no and the legislation dies. This happens all the time in both the house and the senate.

As far as a system that allows mob rule while protecting the minorities the closest you can come is a parliament style stem but they can only protect the minorities under the grace of the majority. The majority can at any time they feel like vote to change or eleminate any protections s granted to the minority. That is a pretty basic concept so I can see how you can not understand it.

As far as the popular voted president losing that was happening way before 1996. If I remember correctly it happened in the 1800 a couple of times as well.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:[quote=ulTRAX]

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

FO your IQ was never that great that you can continue to let it slip even further.

Yes, any prevailing vote in the Senate is done by a majority or super-majority of senators. BUT THESE SENATORS DO NOT REPRESENT EQUAL NUMBERS OF CITIZENS. Senators from WY can represent as little as 600k citizens and those from California around 40 million... which means if there were only two states in the Senate... any citizen from WY would have about 70X the influence of any citizen from Cal.

What part of 18% of the US population now getting 52% of the Senate seats are you having problems with?

What part of 30% of the US population getting enough seats to ratify nominations or treaties are you having problems with?

What part of states with as little as 40% of the US population being able to ratify amendments are you having problems with?

I have an idea... since I've tried every way I know to get through that thick skull of yours... find some 6th grader to explain the concepts in that Supreme Court case I posted.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:[quote=ulTRAX]

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

FO your IQ was never that great that you can continue to let it slip even further.

Yes, any prevailing vote in the Senate is done by a majority or super-majority of senators. BUT THESE SENATORS DO NOT REPRESENT EQUAL NUMBERS OF CITIZENS. Senators from WY can represent as little as 600k citizens and those from California around 40 million... which means if there were only two states in the Senate... any citizen from WY would have about 70X the influence of any citizen from Cal.

What part of 18% of the US population now getting 52% of the Senate seats are you having problems with?

What part of 30% of the US population getting enough seats to ratify nominations or treaties are you having problems with?

What part of states with as little as 40% of the US population being able to ratify amendments are you having problems with?

I have an idea... since I've tried every way I know to get through that thick skull of yours... find some 6th grader to explain the concepts in that Supreme Court case I posted.

Ultrax, I completely understand what you are saying or calling for it does not take much education to come up with an idea like yours which you prove and then try to insult me by saying my IQ is to low to understand what you are saying.

So let me recap you want the senate to be a parliamentary style body, where is the communists get 5 percent of the vote they get 5 seats, progressives get 25 percent they get 25 percent if the national socialists get 5 percent they get the same percentage of seats. This can be said for the Democratic Party the tea party and the Republican Party. Your low education level leads you to believe that this would set up everyone to be a minority forcing everyone to work together not allowing any one party to be the majority. This assumption is incorrect, this style system would set up a majority party that would never lose control of congress and never take any steps to defend the minority rights. It would also lead to no one really having proper representation. The Midwestern progressive is different than the new York progressive, however, the Midwestern progressive would not be voting for a Midwestern progressive he would be voting for the progressive party who then would pick who they believe is the correct progressive for the job if he has any idea where Omaha Nebraska is or not.

This is how I see it happening; the communist party, national socialists, progressives, liberals, and democrats are all the same party under different names. This would live the tea party the libertarians and republicans who agree on very little to try and fight the majority with no chance of winning. Which could very easily lead to the same situation nazi Germany had going on in the 1930’s

the popular voted president has lost a total of 4 times in our history, 1824 the ec picked john quincy adams dispite losing both the popular vote and the electoral vote. 1876 hayes one by one electoral vote but lost by 250,000 popular votes, harrison lost the popular vote but won the ec vote and the last was bush in 2000. so this is nothing new.

I understand that you are upset because you believe that the minority of the population can ratify treaties, something like 30 percent of the population but has it ever happened?

40 percent can approve amendments then why is it so hard to pass an amendment? The 27th amendment was proposed in 1792 and not past until 1992. If 40 percent of the population can adopt amendments why not start proposing some and see if you can get them past.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:[quote=ulTRAX]

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

FO your IQ was never that great that you can continue to let it slip even further.

Yes, any prevailing vote in the Senate is done by a majority or super-majority of senators. BUT THESE SENATORS DO NOT REPRESENT EQUAL NUMBERS OF CITIZENS. Senators from WY can represent as little as 600k citizens and those from California around 40 million... which means if there were only two states in the Senate... any citizen from WY would have about 70X the influence of any citizen from Cal.

What part of 18% of the US population now getting 52% of the Senate seats are you having problems with?

What part of 30% of the US population getting enough seats to ratify nominations or treaties are you having problems with?

What part of states with as little as 40% of the US population being able to ratify amendments are you having problems with?

I have an idea... since I've tried every way I know to get through that thick skull of yours... find some 6th grader to explain the concepts in that Supreme Court case I posted.

Ultrax, I completely understand what you are saying or calling for it does not take much education to come up with an idea like yours which you prove and then try to insult me by saying my IQ is to low to understand what you are saying.

FINALLY... you pretend to understand? How many posts did it take to explain it?

I know the right hates the idea of democracy... even with protections for rights. So in your whacky far right world, CIVIC EQUALITY, where the vote of each citizen weighs the same is an unacceptable, radical idea that should be avoided?

That all STATES and CITIES have to hold elections on this premise proves it's hardly as radical as you claim...

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibooboo:So let me recap you want the senate to be a parliamentary style body, where is the communists get 5 percent of the vote they get 5 seats, progressives get 25 percent they get 25 percent if the national socialists get 5 percent they get the same percentage of seats.

As an extreme right winger I know you have contempt for democracy... I don't. What I object to is where in our winner take all system up to 49.9% of the voters have no voice. Their representation is stolen from them.

EVERYONE who votes should have someone representing what they believe in. It's the only way to insure that the legislative process isn't intellectually braindead by excluding outlier viewpoints... and the way to do it is through proportional representation... something the vast majority of advanced industrial democracies use. But since you have contempt for democracy... you prefer the system gives the GOP power over us they don't deserve.

Quote mavibooboo:This can be said for the Democratic Party the tea party and the Republican Party. Your low education level leads you to believe that this would set up everyone to be a minority forcing everyone to work together not allowing any one party to be the majority. This assumption is incorrect, this style system would set up a majority party that would never lose control of congress and never take any steps to defend the minority rights.
If you can't make a point without misrepresenting my position... you really haven't made a point... have you BooBoo?

Quote mavibooboo:It would also lead to no one really having proper representation. The Midwestern progressive is different than the new York progressive, however, the Midwestern progressive would not be voting for a Midwestern progressive he would be voting for the progressive party who then would pick who they believe is the correct progressive for the job if he has any idea where Omaha Nebraska is or not.

Please show me where I EVER said I was looking for a single legislative body. I've ALWAYS said I want two bodies... the second to represent a person's REGIONAL interests. As the two chambers do now... they'd form a CHECK on each other... except now both chambers are stated based... and because of it, elections can't measure smaller political groups that are spread out through out the nation. But it seems you want some people to pay taxes and NEVER get any representation for their beliefs. How goddamn noble.

Quote mavibooboo: This is how I see it happening; the communist party, national socialists, progressives, liberals, and democrats are all the same party under different names.
That's because you're an idiot.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BooBoo:the popular voted president has lost a total of 4 times in our history...
You're finally doing some reading? But you claimed our system didn't permit minority government... and now your admitting you were wrong. I await your concession you don't know what you're talking about.

BTW you missed Clinton. He only got about 42% of the vote. Once in power he had the advantage of incumbency to win a second term... as did Bush. So of the past 6 presidential elections 2 were imposed on the nation without getting a majority. In two more elections these incumbents had the advantage even if they were initially rejected by the People.

There's more proof US history was changed WITHOUT the consent of the People.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BooBoo:I understand that you are upset because you believe that the minority of the population can ratify treaties, something like 30 percent of the population but has it ever happened?
God, you're ignorance of political theory knows no bounds, does it. We ALREADY KNOW PRESIDENTS CAN BE ELECTED even if rejected by the People. We already know the SENATE is antidemocratic. As for a treaty being passed by Senators representing a minority of the US population... I don't know if it's happened... and neither do you.

BTW, Einstein, that 30% represents roughly what the Senate looks like today. As the population differential increases between states... THE SYSTEM GETS MORE AND MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Where once it was about 12.5:1 it's now 70:1. So the 30% number does NOT hold up throughout US history.

And IT DOESN'T MATTER if we ever got an amendment passed by senators representing a minority of the US population. Once an antidemocratic system exists... an accident that we don't have more decisions made by the "minority". For instance we know that Clarance Thomas was ratified by Senators that did NOT represent a majority of the US population.... and he goes on to be a key vote in installing Bush as president even after he was REJECTED by the People.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibooboo: 40 percent can approve amendments then why is it so hard to pass an amendment? The 27th amendment was proposed in 1792 and not past until 1992. If 40 percent of the population can adopt amendments why not start proposing some and see if you can get them past.

Can you for once ever not be stupid? Because ratifying an amendment ISN'T PUT TO A POPULAR VOTE. Maybe you were absent from your 4th grade history class that day.

The 40% number comes from the population of the 3/4 smallest population STATES using population numbers from about a decade ago.

There have been amendments passed with less than states with 3/4 of the population. The 18th was became law after being ratified by states with only 61-62% of the US population. The 25th was passed with less by states with less than 3/4 of the population.

Conversely, states with as little as 3.5% of the US population can BLOCK any amendment... something you're on record APPROVING OF. Has this specific case ever happened? No... but WHENEVER votes are based on antidemocratic formulas... there is the possibility of an antidemocratic outcome... or super minorities blocking something wanted by the vast majority of the population.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

More on our nutty amendment process from a 1987 article by Peter Suber http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/acessay.htm Because of the date it doesn't include numbers from the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census

  1. The loss of majority rule in the amending process first appeared in the census of 1820. It continued in 1830, disappeared in 1840, and has remained with us constantly since 1850. It has existed in sixteen of the twenty census decades since the adoption of the Constitution.
  2. The minority of the national population that can amend the Constitution has shrunk in every census for more than three-fourths of the nation's history. In 1820, when a minority first became able to amend the Constitution, it constituted 49.6% of the national population. Until the twentieth century, the figure stayed between 46% and 49%. but in the twentieth century, the figure dropped quickly; in 1970, it dwindled to 39.8%.
  3. The minority that can veto an amendment by refusing to ratify it has always been small and, recently, has shrunk to a mere sliver. The smallest minority with veto power is the population of the least populous one-fourth of the states, rounded upwards if there is a remainder, or plus one state if there is not. In 1790, states representing only 13.32% of the national population could veto an amendment. The percentage has not climbed so high since then, and has not even reached double digits since 1820. In 1980, the census closest to the expiration of voting on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), the percentage that could veto an amendment was mere 4.3% of the national population.
  4. Although a 4% minority can veto amendments if scattered throughout enough states, an absolute majority remains powerless to veto amendments if concentrated in too few (fewer than one-fourth) of the states. Presently, a veto of an amendment requires thirteen states. Under 1980 census data, the most populous thirteen states comprise an absolute majority of the population —as do the most populous 12, 11, 10, and 9 states. Although these states harbor a majority of Americans, they are powerless to adopt or even to veto amendments. In contrast, a differently distributed 39% of the nation can adopt amendments and a differently distributed 4% can veto them.
  5. Not only has majority rule vanished from the amending process, but the resulting disregard of the one-person, one-vote principle has made the impact fall unevenly on different groups. The minority that can adopt amendments is the population of the least populous three-fourths (thirty-eight) of the states. Neither the gainers of power who live in those states, nor the losers of power who live in the most populous one-fourth (thirteen) of the states, are representative of the Nation.
ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:[quote=ulTRAX]

So I ask AGAIN: Under what moral theory of government is MINORITY RULE permitted?

mavibobo: Good god you are so incapable of seeing what is really going on it is not even funny, it is down right scary you are allowed to vote or have kids. The Senate is not minority rule it is not now or ever has been minority rule.

FO your IQ was never that great that you can continue to let it slip even further.

Yes, any prevailing vote in the Senate is done by a majority or super-majority of senators. BUT THESE SENATORS DO NOT REPRESENT EQUAL NUMBERS OF CITIZENS. Senators from WY can represent as little as 600k citizens and those from California around 40 million... which means if there were only two states in the Senate... any citizen from WY would have about 70X the influence of any citizen from Cal.

What part of 18% of the US population now getting 52% of the Senate seats are you having problems with?

What part of 30% of the US population getting enough seats to ratify nominations or treaties are you having problems with?

What part of states with as little as 40% of the US population being able to ratify amendments are you having problems with?

I have an idea... since I've tried every way I know to get through that thick skull of yours... find some 6th grader to explain the concepts in that Supreme Court case I posted.

Ultrax, I completely understand what you are saying or calling for it does not take much education to come up with an idea like yours which you prove and then try to insult me by saying my IQ is to low to understand what you are saying.

FINALLY... you pretend to understand? How many posts did it take to explain it?

I know the right hates the idea of democracy... even with protections for rights. So in your whacky far right world, CIVIC EQUALITY, where the vote of each citizen weighs the same is an unacceptable, radical idea that should be avoided?

That all STATES and CITIES have to hold elections on this premise proves it's hardly as radical as you claim...

I have understood your position the entire time you are just so bad at reading I had to restate your position to prove to you that I understood your 4th grade position.

First off one person one vote is the law of the land and can not be avoided. In the two house system we have the house of represented represents the people and the senate balances the mob rule by 2 senators per state.

Equal weighting of votes is not a radical idea nor am I trying to avoid it. I am trying to pull you kicking and screaming like a toddler into reality.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibooboo:So let me recap you want the senate to be a parliamentary style body, where is the communists get 5 percent of the vote they get 5 seats, progressives get 25 percent they get 25 percent if the national socialists get 5 percent they get the same percentage of seats.

As an extreme right winger I know you have contempt for democracy... I don't. What I object to is where in our winner take all system up to 49.9% of the voters have no voice. Their representation is stolen from them.

EVERYONE who votes should have someone representing what they believe in. It's the only way to insure that the legislative process isn't intellectually braindead by excluding outlier viewpoints... and the way to do it is through proportional representation... something the vast majority of advanced industrial democracies use. But since you have contempt for democracy... you prefer the system gives the GOP power over us they don't deserve.

Quote mavibooboo:This can be said for the Democratic Party the tea party and the Republican Party. Your low education level leads you to believe that this would set up everyone to be a minority forcing everyone to work together not allowing any one party to be the majority. This assumption is incorrect, this style system would set up a majority party that would never lose control of congress and never take any steps to defend the minority rights.
If you can't make a point without misrepresenting my position... you really haven't made a point... have you BooBoo?

Quote mavibooboo:It would also lead to no one really having proper representation. The Midwestern progressive is different than the new York progressive, however, the Midwestern progressive would not be voting for a Midwestern progressive he would be voting for the progressive party who then would pick who they believe is the correct progressive for the job if he has any idea where Omaha Nebraska is or not.

Please show me where I EVER said I was looking for a single legislative body. I've ALWAYS said I want two bodies... the second to represent a person's REGIONAL interests. As the two chambers do now... they'd form a CHECK on each other... except now both chambers are stated based... and because of it, elections can't measure smaller political groups that are spread out through out the nation. But it seems you want some people to pay taxes and NEVER get any representation for their beliefs. How goddamn noble.

Quote mavibooboo: This is how I see it happening; the communist party, national socialists, progressives, liberals, and democrats are all the same party under different names.
That's because you're an idiot.

I made a point but again it went right over your head, by using proportional representation you ensure one party will always have the majority.

Again I am still only taking about the senate leaving the house as is, however since you still not grasp what I said let me draw you a picture in crayon. If you use proportional representation the progressive from Nebraska will be represented in the senate by some one the national progressive committee picked even if they have never heard of billings montana.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote BooBoo:I understand that you are upset because you believe that the minority of the population can ratify treaties, something like 30 percent of the population but has it ever happened?
God, you're ignorance of political theory knows no bounds, does it. We ALREADY KNOW PRESIDENTS CAN BE ELECTED even if rejected by the People. We already know the SENATE is antidemocratic. As for a treaty being passed by Senators representing a minority of the US population... I don't know if it's happened... and neither do you.

BTW, Einstein, that 30% represents roughly what the Senate looks like today. As the population differential increases between states... THE SYSTEM GETS MORE AND MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Where once it was about 12.5:1 it's now 70:1. So the 30% number does NOT hold up throughout US history.

And IT DOESN'T MATTER if we ever got an amendment passed by senators representing a minority of the US population. Once an antidemocratic system exists... an accident that we don't have more decisions made by the "minority". For instance we know that Clarance Thomas was ratified by Senators that did NOT represent a majority of the US population.... and he goes on to be a key vote in installing Bush as president even after he was REJECTED by the People.

Well then it is a good thing you need 60 votes in the senate in order to pass important legislation. This ensures that the minority population does not rule over the majority but I can see how you do not understand that concept.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:I have understood your position the entire time you are just so bad at reading I had to restate your position to prove to you that I understood your 4th grade position. First off one person one vote is the law of the land and can not be avoided. In the two house system we have the house of represented represents the people and the senate balances the mob rule by 2 senators per state. Equal weighting of votes is not a radical idea nor am I trying to avoid it. I am trying to pull you kicking and screaming like a toddler into reality.
There you go... pretending to understand when you've never understood anything you disagree with... and AGAIN proving that you can not free yourself your own delusions of infallibility. If you agree that minority rule is NEVER acceptable... then you'd not constantly DEFEND AND EXCUSE minority rule and antidemocratic government every chance you get. You're so oblivious you don't even know that YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

Such Orwellian nonsense is what we expect from you. Minority rule is not acceptable except that we MUST have a system that permits it.

And one person one vote is NOT a meaningful principle if NOT ALL VOTES WEIGH THE SAME.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote BooBoo:I understand that you are upset because you believe that the minority of the population can ratify treaties, something like 30 percent of the population but has it ever happened?
God, you're ignorance of political theory knows no bounds, does it. We ALREADY KNOW PRESIDENTS CAN BE ELECTED even if rejected by the People. We already know the SENATE is antidemocratic. As for a treaty being passed by Senators representing a minority of the US population... I don't know if it's happened... and neither do you.

BTW, Einstein, that 30% represents roughly what the Senate looks like today. As the population differential increases between states... THE SYSTEM GETS MORE AND MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Where once it was about 12.5:1 it's now 70:1. So the 30% number does NOT hold up throughout US history.

And IT DOESN'T MATTER if we ever got an amendment passed by senators representing a minority of the US population. Once an antidemocratic system exists... an accident that we don't have more decisions made by the "minority". For instance we know that Clarance Thomas was ratified by Senators that did NOT represent a majority of the US population.... and he goes on to be a key vote in installing Bush as president even after he was REJECTED by the People.

Well then it is a good thing you need 60 votes in the senate in order to pass important legislation. This ensures that the minority population does not rule over the majority but I can see how you do not understand that concept.

Shall I recap all the points I made that you EVADED before you made your last idiotic claim? And of course YOU'RE WRONG again... not that you ever care...

THOSE 60 SENATE VOTES DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT LAW ISN'T MADE BY SENATORS REPRESENTING A MINORITY OF THE US POPULATION. Please try to get that through your head before you again make an ass of yourself.

In our Senate... depending how the states line up those 60% of the senators can represent roughly between 24% - 77% of the US population.

Maybe in your mind... 24% is a majority... but not to anyone who hasn't sabotaged their intellect.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:If you use proportional representation the progressive from Nebraska will be represented in the senate by some one the national progressive committee picked even if they have never heard of billings montana.
There you go again.... PROVING you can not understand ANYTHING that you disagree with. I've been quite clear that I favor THE HOUSE WOULD PROVIDE REPRESENTATION FOR SUCH REGIONAL ISSUES.

We don't need BOTH chambers of Congress providing such regional representation. This is where our braindead two party system originates... FROM A DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

As for protecting any LEGITIMATE interests of small states I'VE ALREADY PROPOSED TWO WAYS TO DO SO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANTIDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:I have understood your position the entire time you are just so bad at reading I had to restate your position to prove to you that I understood your 4th grade position. First off one person one vote is the law of the land and can not be avoided. In the two house system we have the house of represented represents the people and the senate balances the mob rule by 2 senators per state. Equal weighting of votes is not a radical idea nor am I trying to avoid it. I am trying to pull you kicking and screaming like a toddler into reality.
There you go... pretending to understand when you've never understood anything you disagree with... and AGAIN proving that you can not free yourself your own delusions of infallibility. If you agree that minority rule is NEVER acceptable... then you'd not constantly DEFEND AND EXCUSE minority rule and antidemocratic government every chance you get. You're so oblivious you don't even know that YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

Such Orwellian nonsense is what we expect from you. Minority rule is not acceptable except that we MUST have a system that permits it.

And one person one vote is NOT a meaningful principle if NOT ALL VOTES WEIGH THE SAME.

I am not defending it or excusing it I am merely pointing out that minority rule if and when it does happen is very rare.

All states weigh the same you have popular vote in the house where each state has representivites based off of population. The Senate is the balance to the mob rule by only having 2 senators per state but I see you still do not understand this concept.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote BooBoo:I understand that you are upset because you believe that the minority of the population can ratify treaties, something like 30 percent of the population but has it ever happened?
God, you're ignorance of political theory knows no bounds, does it. We ALREADY KNOW PRESIDENTS CAN BE ELECTED even if rejected by the People. We already know the SENATE is antidemocratic. As for a treaty being passed by Senators representing a minority of the US population... I don't know if it's happened... and neither do you.

BTW, Einstein, that 30% represents roughly what the Senate looks like today. As the population differential increases between states... THE SYSTEM GETS MORE AND MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Where once it was about 12.5:1 it's now 70:1. So the 30% number does NOT hold up throughout US history.

And IT DOESN'T MATTER if we ever got an amendment passed by senators representing a minority of the US population. Once an antidemocratic system exists... an accident that we don't have more decisions made by the "minority". For instance we know that Clarance Thomas was ratified by Senators that did NOT represent a majority of the US population.... and he goes on to be a key vote in installing Bush as president even after he was REJECTED by the People.

Well then it is a good thing you need 60 votes in the senate in order to pass important legislation. This ensures that the minority population does not rule over the majority but I can see how you do not understand that concept.

Shall I recap all the points I made that you EVADED before you made your last idiotic claim? And of course YOU'RE WRONG again... not that you ever care...

THOSE 60 SENATE VOTES DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT LAW ISN'T MADE BY SENATORS REPRESENTING A MINORITY OF THE US POPULATION. Please try to get that through your head before you again make an ass of yourself.

In our Senate... depending how the states line up those 60% of the senators can represent roughly between 24% - 77% of the US population.

Maybe in your mind... 24% is a majority... but not to anyone who hasn't sabotaged their intellect.

In my mind 24 percent is a minority and 77 is a majority again how many times has it happened where 24 percent of the population represented by 60 senators have passed anything. This seems like you trying to create a solution to a problem that does not exist.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:If you use proportional representation the progressive from Nebraska will be represented in the senate by some one the national progressive committee picked even if they have never heard of billings montana.
There you go again.... PROVING you can not understand ANYTHING that you disagree with. I've been quite clear that I favor THE HOUSE WOULD PROVIDE REPRESENTATION FOR SUCH REGIONAL ISSUES.

We don't need BOTH chambers of Congress providing such regional representation. This is where our braindead two party system originates... FROM A DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

As for protecting any LEGITIMATE interests of small states I'VE ALREADY PROPOSED TWO WAYS TO DO SO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANTIDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

I see your cut and paste skills completely left off the part where I said the house would be left as is. So you would have some one from Texas representing the interests of dome one in maine. What the hell does a cowboy in texas know about the interests of Maine?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:There you go... pretending to understand when you've never understood anything you disagree with... and AGAIN proving that you can not free yourself your own delusions of infallibility. If you agree that minority rule is NEVER acceptable... then you'd not constantly DEFEND AND EXCUSE minority rule and antidemocratic government every chance you get. You're so oblivious you don't even know that YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

Such Orwellian nonsense is what we expect from you. Minority rule is not acceptable except that we MUST have a system that permits it.

And one person one vote is NOT a meaningful principle if NOT ALL VOTES WEIGH THE SAME.

I am not defending it or excusing it I am merely pointing out that minority rule if and when it does happen is very rare. All states weigh the same you have popular vote in the house where each state has representatives based off of population. The Senate is the balance to the mob rule by only having 2 senators per state but I see you still do not understand this concept.

There you go AGAIN... claiming that antidemocratic/minority decision making in government is FINE... because "all states are the same" and it "protects" against "mob rule".... while at the same time saying you're not defending antidemocratic/minority decision making in government. So thanks AGAIN for proving that you're oblivious to your contradicting yourself.

So who protects the MAJORITY against minority rule? Where do the citizens go to overturn Bush2 being imposed on the nation that REJECTED HIM AND THE ISSUES HE RAN ON? The People voting for Gore and Nader voted AGAINST Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and any new ABM system.

Sorry Einstein... you can't have it both ways where you pretend to be against minority rule AND EMBRACE IT WHEN IT SUITS YOU.

Bottom line... either you believe in self-government based on the "consent of the governed" or you don't. If you do... then you want the electoral system to as accurately as possible MEASURE THAT CONSENT. But you favor a system where the minority simply can't simply block the majority, but where MINORITY of US voters/citizens can change the course of nation when the MAJORITY of voters/citizens object.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:If you use proportional representation the progressive from Nebraska will be represented in the senate by some one the national progressive committee picked even if they have never heard of billings montana.
There you go again.... PROVING you can not understand ANYTHING that you disagree with. I've been quite clear that I favor THE HOUSE WOULD PROVIDE REPRESENTATION FOR SUCH REGIONAL ISSUES.

We don't need BOTH chambers of Congress providing such regional representation. This is where our braindead two party system originates... FROM A DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

As for protecting any LEGITIMATE interests of small states I'VE ALREADY PROPOSED TWO WAYS TO DO SO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANTIDEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

I see your cut and paste skills completely left off the part where I said the house would be left as is. So you would have some one from Texas representing the interests of dome one in maine. What the hell does a cowboy in texas know about the interests of Maine?
I have no idea WTF you're babbling about since WE WERE TALKING JUST ABOUT THE SENATE. Here's your quote

Again I am still only taking about the senate leaving the house as is, however since you still not grasp what I said let me draw you a picture in crayon. If you use proportional representation the progressive from Nebraska will be represented in the senate by some one the national progressive committee picked even if they have never heard of billings montana.

But if you agree with me that the House is sufficient to provide REGIONAL representation... THEN YOUR WHINING ABOUT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE SENATE MAKES NO SENSE. But then nothing you write ever does. You have but one agenda... being a braindead apologist for a dysfunctional, reform proof, and antidemocratic system.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's not about minority rule, it's about equality. If we lived in a majority rules democracy then there would still be white only water fountains. A majority ruled country would be about as successful as a libertarian ruled country. As I said before there are times when the system works as intended and there are times when it backfires. I haven't heard any real solutions to the problem either.

A very short but informative read pertaining to why there must be limits to majority rule.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Is war on the menu for 2020 elections?

Thom plus logo We complain that democracy is under assault from Donald Trump, but he's just a cog in a much larger worldwide machine that is tearing down democratic self-governance.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system