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

Quote Bush_Wacker:

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.

Hardly. Not all whites were bigoted racists who demanded the government enforce Jim Crow segregation.

Majorities can't always be trusted... but that doesn't mean we should permit minorities to either have the power to rule... or for ultra tiny minorities to obstruct sensible legislation. We need a system of majority rule with sensible protections for legitimate minority rights... and by minority I mean of all sorts... racial, regional, religious, even the rich... etc.

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

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

I'm not going to defend American style libertarianism, but you're wrong about a popular democracy operating like a libertarian government as defined by American libertarians. Like Madison, libertarians have contempt for democracy. I advocate for popular democracy v. representative government, especially like the US.

America existed as a constitutionally protected slave state until a civil war changed the course of American history, not our representative government. It was not our representative government that changed Jim Crow laws in the south that was a decade’s long struggle against oppression. America's labor laws were non-existent under a representative government until a popular struggle was able to make some gains for the working class; however, under a representative government those protection are being stripped away.

A popular democracy guided by strong principle as I suggested at the beginning of this forum thread could form a government based in the interest of humanity; as well as, protecting individual right when they can be justified.

My vision for a popular democracy

Just the basic outline

Any democracy should have an informed citizenry: education, debate, contemplation.

The way a popular democracy should be organized: local up to national. I advocate locals like in labor unions as the base for a popular democracy. Community = local = town, township, district, ward, county. Cities would all depend on size, but the basic idea would be keeping communities at a relatively small size, a local should be no larger than 200 members

Then depending on the state’s size it would have state regions: Southwest, mid-state or something like that, again keeping things relatively small and well represented. Cities could have multiple regions in state: North Chicago, Midtown etc... However this is structured, the key is keeping it relatively small in terms of representation in comparison to population.

Then to national.. First you'd have regional that already exist in the US: Mid-West, the South, Southwest etc.. National regional could be more specified if necessary due to shared interest like the Rust Belt states have much different issues than southern states, so different needs would require different legislation that could be handled local, state, regional or national depending on the necessity. Take something like water desalination for a state like California would have to be a large national project, but soil conservation in the Midwest could be handled by local or state government possible state regional.

The petition process would start like this: Any member can petition his/her local: law, rules, policy, projects, funding etc... Any local can petition another local: support, mutual benefit, collaboration on projects etc... A local or a collective of locals can petition directly to regional state or the state. State regional can petition the state on behalf of locals or state regional can petition national regional directly with consenting locals. The State can petition national regional or national with state locals majority consent. The national regional can petition national as an individual region or jointly with another region. Different state can petition each other and so on… The process would always start from the bottom up..

Each local (community) would be governed by popular consent. Example: A member petitions the local to start the process of funding a project to supplement the existing power grid with reusable energy source. The community would vote on the petition. If the petition is accepted, then a deliberation on how it will be funded or if additional petitions to other locals or local region to assist in the project.

The state regional is made up of representatives of that region’s locals. Each local can act independent of each other or in collaboration with one another with agreed upon limits; however, that would be determined: either by state charter or a constitution, but the locals can work independently under whatever parameters are set.

When a local petitions the state regional, the local representatives of that state region makes up the governing body with each local granted a vote including the petitioner. The petition is taken back to each local to be voted on with the local representative. I would advocate for two options: The representative can appeal his local to be granted freedom to act or negotiate the petition free of popular consent or the local can vote directly on presented petition. If the local choses to vote on the presented petition then the rep is bound to the majority vote, but if the rep is granted to act on his/her own judgment, the rep can vote on a petition without majority consent.

The petition process would act this way all the way to the national level. With each step of the petition process requiring more votes to pass, but the underlying system would be bottom up voting. The national level would be each state voting with the locals inside the state deciding how that state will vote.

This might look familiar to anybody that has read my blog post about consumer unions.

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

I know what the problem is you either A) have no idea how the system works or B) do not like the fact that you and your buddies can not force people who do not believe what you believe to live like you do. I think it is a combination of both.

self governing is good that is why i want the federal government to have as little power as possible in our everyday lives, unlike you who believes the only power comes from the federal government and should run our lives as a ward of the state.

the point that I was making about the senate needing regional representation is mainly for treaties and things that concern the state overall. a treaty or presidential nominee maybe good for california and the people there will love him or it, but be completely wrong for say north dakota should north dakota be able to say hey hold on here a second this is not going to work for us. they may loose in the end because they are such a small state but under your plan they would not even have the representation to put forth an arguement.

when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:self governing is good that is why i want the federal government to have as little power as possible in our everyday lives, unlike you who believes the only power comes from the federal government and should run our lives as a ward of the state.

If you can't make a point without lying through your keyboard... then you really haven't made a point... now have you Fluffy. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE EVER SAID WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED!! Put up or retract, liar.

But then you've been caught in blatant lies before such as when you claimed the Disabled Seamans Act got its constitutional authority from military clauses in the Constitution... "read it" you said... that I was making a fool of myself for saying otherwise. Of course you were again lying. You NEVER read the Act. And when I posted the ENTIRE ACT and had NO mention of the military... it was all about civilian seamen, you've have refused TO THIS DAY to admit you lied. Given your inability to understand ANY ideas that you disagree with, your intellectual dishonesty... and your childish insecurity, no one should take ANYTHING you say at face value.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

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

Quote mavibobo:self governing is good that is why i want the federal government to have as little power as possible in our everyday lives, unlike you who believes the only power comes from the federal government and should run our lives as a ward of the state.

If you can't make a point without lying through your keyboard... then you really haven't made a point... now have you Fluffy. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE EVER SAID WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED!! Put up or retract, liar.

But then you've been caught in blatant lies before such as when you claimed the Disabled Seamans Act got its constitutional authority from military clauses in the Constitution... "read it" you said... that I was making a fool of myself for saying otherwise. Of course you were again lying. You NEVER read the Act. And when I posted the ENTIRE ACT and had NO mention of the military... it was all about civilian seamen, you've have refused TO THIS DAY to admit you lied. Given your inability to understand ANY ideas that you disagree with, your intellectual dishonesty... and your childish insecurity, no one should take ANYTHING you say at face value.

Well let's see, you want the senate to be run by mob rule, you want single payer health care, social security, poor to have welfare, federal control of education. Not sure about open boarders. so you want the citizens of the country to be wards of the state. We have to go to the government to be told when and what type of vaccines to get, all other forms of health care under single payer, the government for education. The government for retirement so how are we not wards of the state? Now retreat the liar comment.

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

Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works. The president if following the constitution is pretty powerless. And besides that all spending starts in the house so if you do not like the tax cuts blame the house.

There is a lot of stuff in theory is never permitted, he'll breaking the law is not permitted either but the politicians do it daily

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

Quote mavibobo:when bush won you would have to turn to your house of representiatives to pass or block laws that you thought were bad, like the tax cuts. those bills start in house not the senate. but then again you would know this if you knew how the system worked.

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

Really AL you lost that election 14 years ago you have to let it go man or it will kill you.

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

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works.
Gee Einstein... WE KNOW HOW THE EC "WORKS"... BUT IT'S ANTIDEMOCRATIC. And please don't play the "we're a republic not a democracy" game... SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC THAT IT MUST BE UN- or ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Even our system pays lip service to the concept of majority rule... in the EC, Senate, and in amendments... all of which are NOT, in fact, democratic.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

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

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

Really AL you lost that election 14 years ago you have to let it go man or it will kill you.
EVASION ALERT!!!! Have there been ANY reforms that can stop this from happening again?

You're evading your own moronic idea that, SURE, we can have a candidate IMPOSED on a nation of free people that rejected him and his agenda... as long as we have a hope some other branch of government might block him.

Do you EVER listen to yourself FO?

But then when you start with the core assumption that the Constitution is perfect and needs no key reforms... then you're stuck having to make moronic arguments that even you can't defend but would rather sweep under the carpet.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:...unlike you who believes the only power comes from the federal government and should run our lives as a ward of the state.

If you can't make a point without lying through your keyboard... then you really haven't made a point... now have you Fluffy. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE EVER SAID WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED!! Put up or retract, liar.

But then you've been caught in blatant lies before such as when you claimed the Disabled Seamans Act got its constitutional authority from military clauses in the Constitution... "read it" you said... that I was making a fool of myself for saying otherwise. Of course you were again lying. You NEVER read the Act. And when I posted the ENTIRE ACT and had NO mention of the military... it was all about civilian seamen, you've have refused TO THIS DAY to admit you lied. Given your inability to understand ANY ideas that you disagree with, your intellectual dishonesty... and your childish insecurity, no one should take ANYTHING you say at face value.

Well let's see, you want the senate to be run by mob rule
See... right there you're again lying through your teeth. I've NEVER said I want "mob rule". I've been QUITE CLEAR that I want a system that is both DEMOCRATIC and where legitimate minority rights... and I've SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED RURAL STATES.... are protected.

I'm still waiting for YOU to explain why we MUST give SOME US citizens a bigger vote than others... and if this is the best way for minority groups to protect their rights... why should not ALL minority groups get this power?

No, I don't expect you to answer now any more than when you blew the question off the first time.

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

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

The electoral college is pretty messed up but that is how it works.
Gee Einstein... WE KNOW HOW THE EC "WORKS"... BUT IT'S ANTIDEMOCRATIC. And please don't play the "we're a republic not a democracy" game... SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC THAT IT MUST BE UN- or ANTIDEMOCRATIC. Even our system pays lip service to the concept of majority rule... in the EC, Senate, and in amendments... all of which are NOT, in fact, democratic.

I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

Ok a moral argument is a waste of time but if you need one how about this. Under trade agreement xyz with country abc, all of North Dakota oil must be shipped to Canada for their consumption with no fees or taxes attached if all exports from Canada to the u.s. must go through california. California benefits while north Dakota gets screwed should north Dakota just bend over and take it. Because California has 40 million votes to improve their economy where north Dakota has a few hundred thousand.

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

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:...unlike you who believes the only power comes from the federal government and should run our lives as a ward of the state.

If you can't make a point without lying through your keyboard... then you really haven't made a point... now have you Fluffy. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE EVER SAID WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED!! Put up or retract, liar.

But then you've been caught in blatant lies before such as when you claimed the Disabled Seamans Act got its constitutional authority from military clauses in the Constitution... "read it" you said... that I was making a fool of myself for saying otherwise. Of course you were again lying. You NEVER read the Act. And when I posted the ENTIRE ACT and had NO mention of the military... it was all about civilian seamen, you've have refused TO THIS DAY to admit you lied. Given your inability to understand ANY ideas that you disagree with, your intellectual dishonesty... and your childish insecurity, no one should take ANYTHING you say at face value.

Well let's see, you want the senate to be run by mob rule
See... right there you're again lying through your teeth. I've NEVER said I want "mob rule". I've been QUITE CLEAR that I want a system that is both DEMOCRATIC and where legitimate minority rights... and I've SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED RURAL STATES.... are protected.

I'm still waiting for YOU to explain why we MUST give SOME US citizens a bigger vote than others... and if this is the best way for minority groups to protect their rights... why should not ALL minority groups get this power?

No, I don't expect you to answer now any more than when you blew the question off the first time.

You keep saying that a very small number of population can rafity treaties but it take two thirds majority to do so do you honestly believe that all of the small states and none of the big states are ever going to agree on a treaty.

As far as the EC is concerned we should make changes to how the president is voted in but first we have to make sure that only citizens that are alive at the time of election are voting. You know that old Democrat saying vote early vote often even the dead can vote. Well it also includes the illegals now.

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

NO Einstein... government that has the CONSENT of the governed does NOT allow someone REJECTED by the People to "win" elections and take power in the first place. Your idea that that's OK because we can hope some other branch MIGHT stop a Bush is insane. Either all of government has the consent of the governed or it doesn't... and in democratic theory MINORITY RULE IS NEVER PERMITTED.

Really AL you lost that election 14 years ago you have to let it go man or it will kill you.
EVASION ALERT!!!! Have there been ANY reforms that can stop this from happening again?

You're evading your own moronic idea that, SURE, we can have a candidate IMPOSED on a nation of free people that rejected him and his agenda... as long as we have a hope some other branch of government might block him.

Do you EVER listen to yourself FO?

But then when you start with the core assumption that the Constitution is perfect and needs no key reforms... then you're stuck having to make moronic arguments that even you can't defend but would rather sweep under the carpet.

no there has not been any reforms to stop you from losing again al, but for the good of the country maybe we need to look at changing the ec if we can keep the democrats from cheating to win.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mavibobo:...unlike you who believes the only power comes from the federal government and should run our lives as a ward of the state.

If you can't make a point without lying through your keyboard... then you really haven't made a point... now have you Fluffy. SHOW ME WHERE I'VE EVER SAID WHAT YOU JUST CLAIMED!! Put up or retract, liar.

But then you've been caught in blatant lies before such as when you claimed the Disabled Seamans Act got its constitutional authority from military clauses in the Constitution... "read it" you said... that I was making a fool of myself for saying otherwise. Of course you were again lying. You NEVER read the Act. And when I posted the ENTIRE ACT and had NO mention of the military... it was all about civilian seamen, you've have refused TO THIS DAY to admit you lied. Given your inability to understand ANY ideas that you disagree with, your intellectual dishonesty... and your childish insecurity, no one should take ANYTHING you say at face value.

Well let's see, you want the senate to be run by mob rule
See... right there you're again lying through your teeth. I've NEVER said I want "mob rule". I've been QUITE CLEAR that I want a system that is both DEMOCRATIC and where legitimate minority rights... and I've SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED RURAL STATES.... are protected.

I'm still waiting for YOU to explain why we MUST give SOME US citizens a bigger vote than others... and if this is the best way for minority groups to protect their rights... why should not ALL minority groups get this power?

No, I don't expect you to answer now any more than when you blew the question off the first time.

what you are to uneducated to realize is that a straight majority vote even with your so called protections for the minority, you will end up with mob rule.

you fail to realize that any protections for the minority you are proposing have to be voted on by the majority. which also allows the majority to override the protections which again ends up with mob rule.

are you learning yet? I doubt it you have proven you are not capable of learning

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

Ok a moral argument is a waste of time but if you need one how about this.
Why not just concoct a fairy tale about everyone from Cal voting to take all the first born of N Dakota?

I know this will NEVER sink into that thick skull of yours but there are BETTER ways to protect legitimate rights that to let ONE minority... those who choose to live in small population states get a bigger vote than other US citizens... AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVES IT.

So I ask for the hundredth time... if you believe vote weighting is the ONLY moral way to protect legitimate minority rights... THEN WHY SHOULD THIS BE LIMITED TO SMALL STATES. WHY NOT GIVE ALL HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED MINORITY GROUPS A BIGGER VOTE?

And for the 100th time... to give SOME citizens in small population states a bigger vote which is NOT limited to protecting their legitimate rights means they have power to affect ALL decisions... LEADING TO POSSIBLE MINORITY RULE.

You can NOT escape this fact no matter how much you deny it.

Time to deal with reality FO... are you up for it?

Didn't think so. That's OK... a lot of libs can't question their 4th grade brainwashing either.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:You keep saying that a very small number of population can rafity treaties but it take two thirds majority to do so do you honestly believe that all of the small states and none of the big states are ever going to agree on a treaty.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. All that matters is it's POSSIBLE... and may have happened, just as Clarance Thomas was REJECTED by senators representing a majority of the population but was placed on the Supreme Court... or that Bush who was rejected by the People was installed as president.

Quote mavibobo:As far as the EC is concerned we should make changes to how the president is voted in but first we have to make sure that only citizens that are alive at the time of election are voting. You know that old Democrat saying vote early vote often even the dead can vote. Well it also includes the illegals now.
Ya ya, the Dems are always to blame... and the GOP is eternally innocent. So what percent of the vote has ever been PROVEN to be democratic voter fraud?

And let me guess... the GOP isn't involved in ELECTION fraud by trying suppress the vote or rig the EC so we get more election 2000s?

As for the EC, it is ANTIDEMOCRATIC ABOMINATION... it can NEVER be reformed. By it's nature it's designed to give the votes of SOME citizens more weight than others... which can lead to MINORITY RULE. It needs to be ABOLISHED.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:what you are to uneducated to realize is that a straight majority vote even with your so called protections for the minority, you will end up with mob rule.

you fail to realize that any protections for the minority you are proposing have to be voted on by the majority. which also allows the majority to override the protections which again ends up with mob rule.

Gee Einstein... if you're soooooo concerned about rights... why aren't YOU here protesting everyday that is the GOP that is trying to deny rights to the American People by negating the Ninth Amendment? My beliefs... stated here endlessly, are ANY law that exceeds legitimate intent is AN ABUSE OF POWER. I want to err on the side of liberty.

What's suspect here is YOUR giving these right wing Neanderthals on the Supreme Court a free pass as they use the power of the court to DENY Americans rights. If I'm being unfair... show me where you've protested the likes of Scalia and Bork who want to shove the Ninth under the carpet.

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

Quote mavibobo:what you are to uneducated to realize is that a straight majority vote even with your so called protections for the minority, you will end up with mob rule.

you fail to realize that any protections for the minority you are proposing have to be voted on by the majority. which also allows the majority to override the protections which again ends up with mob rule.

Gee Einstein... if you're soooooo concerned about rights... why aren't YOU here protesting everyday that is the GOP that is trying to deny rights to the American People by negating the Ninth Amendment? My beliefs... stated here endlessly, are ANY law that exceeds legitimate intent is AN ABUSE OF POWER. I want to err on the side of liberty.

What's suspect here is YOUR giving these right wing Neanderthals on the Supreme Court a free pass as they use the power of the court to DENY Americans rights. If I'm being unfair... show me where you've protested the likes of Scalia and Bork who want to shove the Ninth under the carpet.

How are they negating the Ninth amendment? I see progressives like you trying to negate the Ninth almost daily,

I am on here as lost everyday protesting the government, I have had length discussions with you about the right to defend myself with a fire arm. My right to have high capacity magazines, I have protested government involvement in marriage, and a whole slew of other things including your misrepresentation of citizens united.

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

Quote mavibobo:You keep saying that a very small number of population can rafity treaties but it take two thirds majority to do so do you honestly believe that all of the small states and none of the big states are ever going to agree on a treaty.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. All that matters is it's POSSIBLE... and may have happened, just as Clarance Thomas was REJECTED by senators representing a majority of the population but was placed on the Supreme Court... or that Bush who was rejected by the People was installed as president.

Quote mavibobo:As far as the EC is concerned we should make changes to how the president is voted in but first we have to make sure that only citizens that are alive at the time of election are voting. You know that old Democrat saying vote early vote often even the dead can vote. Well it also includes the illegals now.
Ya ya, the Dems are always to blame... and the GOP is eternally innocent. So what percent of the vote has ever been PROVEN to be democratic voter fraud?

And let me guess... the GOP isn't involved in ELECTION fraud by trying suppress the vote or rig the EC so we get more election 2000s?

As for the EC, it is ANTIDEMOCRATIC ABOMINATION... it can NEVER be reformed. By it's nature it's designed to give the votes of SOME citizens more weight than others... which can lead to MINORITY RULE. It needs to be ABOLISHED.

I never said the GOP does not have voter fraud I just pointed out the the dems ate known for voter fraud, vote early vote often, even the dead and illegal can vote.

How is asking to see the same Id you need to receive any type of government assistance voter suppression?

With the technology we have we should be able to do a popular vote with out the ec.

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

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:I'm still waiting for you to give us the MORAL reason why we should NOT have each citizen's vote weigh the same... but instead a citizen from one state can have their vote be weighed as much as 70X that of a citizen in another state.

US federalism is an affirmative action discrimination scheme for SOME CITIZENS over others. Let me guess, you're suddenly going to embrace affirmative action scheme?

Ok a moral argument is a waste of time but if you need one how about this.
Why not just concoct a fairy tale about everyone from Cal voting to take all the first born of N Dakota?

I know this will NEVER sink into that thick skull of yours but there are BETTER ways to protect legitimate rights that to let ONE minority... those who choose to live in small population states get a bigger vote than other US citizens... AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVES IT.

So I ask for the hundredth time... if you believe vote weighting is the ONLY moral way to protect legitimate minority rights... THEN WHY SHOULD THIS BE LIMITED TO SMALL STATES. WHY NOT GIVE ALL HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED MINORITY GROUPS A BIGGER VOTE?

And for the 100th time... to give SOME citizens in small population states a bigger vote which is NOT limited to protecting their legitimate rights means they have power to affect ALL decisions... LEADING TO POSSIBLE MINORITY RULE.

You can NOT escape this fact no matter how much you deny it.

Time to deal with reality FO... are you up for it?

Didn't think so. That's OK... a lot of libs can't question their 4th grade brainwashing either.

I have been giving you reality and you are refusing to look at it.

A lot of libs including you should be thankful breathing is automatic.

The Senate being given two votes per state is still two fold which you still refuse to understand. The first is a check against your mob rule stand point, which can override and bill of right type protection. And the second is for states right keeping the population centers from forcing stuff on them.

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

This is turning into a joke.

RichardofJeffersonCity's picture
RichardofJeffer...
Joined:
Jun. 23, 2011 11:31 am
Quote mavibobo:With the technology we have we should be able to do a popular vote with out the ec.
Wow... FO, you surprised me on that last point. It must mean you don't really understand the EC... because it's just the sort of antidemocratic government YOU'VE CONSISTENTLY EMBRACED HERE.

So, if you're sincere you want a popular vote WHERE ALL VOTES WEIGH THE SAME... how do we abolish the EC when it's protected by the anti-democratic government YOU APPROVE OF?

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

This is turning into a joke.

Not really... FO merely represents the resistance we'd get from both the right AND most Dems if we ever tried to move to a democratic system. I've debated this issue at liberal forums and their arguments are THE SAME as BooBoo's. They just can't break free from their 4th grade brainwashing to see that democracy is about how PEOPLE are represented... not states.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:I have been giving you reality and you are refusing to look at it. A lot of libs including you should be thankful breathing is automatic. The Senate being given two votes per state is still two fold which you still refuse to understand. The first is a check against your mob rule stand point, which can override and bill of right type protection. And the second is for states right keeping the population centers from forcing stuff on them.
For God's sake FO... I FULLY understand this traditional argument... when will you get it through your thick skull THAT I, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ADVANCED DEMOCRACIES REJECT IT. We believe that whenever there are such vote weighting/dilution schemes it can lead to MINORITY RULE... something you STILL haven't shown how you'd prevent. You just deny it's possible... or if it is possible... it's no big deal.

As for your laughable theory that going antidemocratic is the ONLY way to protect rights... what makes you think that ALL small states will agree? What makes you think that THEY can't be outvoted in the Senate?

And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHY HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THIS VOTE WEIGHTING/DILUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR STATES AND CITIES? You don't think states have the same issues internally that the US has?

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

This is turning into a joke.

Not really... FO merely represents the resistance we'd get from both the right AND most Dems if we ever tried to move to a democratic system. I've debated this issue at liberal forums and their arguments are THE SAME as BooBoo's. They just can't break free from their 4th grade brainwashing to see that democracy is about how PEOPLE are represented... not states.

Do you think the argument is starting to become circular. Mavibobo is refusing your logic for to maintain his argument. I would say it's a stalemate of sorts between reform and reactionary positions.

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

This is turning into a joke.

Not really... FO merely represents the resistance we'd get from both the right AND most Dems if we ever tried to move to a democratic system. I've debated this issue at liberal forums and their arguments are THE SAME as BooBoo's. They just can't break free from their 4th grade brainwashing to see that democracy is about how PEOPLE are represented... not states.

Do you think the argument is starting to become circular. Mavibobo is refusing your logic for to maintain his argument. I would say it's a stalemate of sorts between reform and reactionary positions.

When someone is determined to believe that Black = White, or less revenue after irresponsible tax cuts = a revenue boom... then the more you squeeze them into a corner... the more they act like quicksilver and they'll never be pinned down because preserving their beliefs is their only real agenda... and all their arguments are merely rationalizations and smokescreens designed to protect those beliefs. And so... we get the above.

Before anyone raises the obvious question... yes, I've been a victim of my own petrified beliefs. It's an embarrassing admission for a person who believed he was a political progressive but it wasn't until 1998 and a MoJo article did I EVER question the nature of the US Senate. And it's only been this year did it finally dawn on me how much backdoor freebies corporations get from government and unions don't.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:What's suspect here is YOUR giving these right wing Neanderthals on the Supreme Court a free pass as they use the power of the court to DENY Americans rights. If I'm being unfair... show me where you've protested the likes of Scalia and Bork who want to shove the Ninth under the carpet.

How are they negating the Ninth amendment?
Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, everything is seen through your black & white filter and you can't help but side with the GOP. But if you gave a shit about rights AS YOU CLAIM.... then you'd have seen ON YOUR OWN how right wing social conservatives use the courts to DENY rights they disapprove of... and how they have tried to sabotage the Ninth.

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

Quote mavibobo:I have been giving you reality and you are refusing to look at it. A lot of libs including you should be thankful breathing is automatic. The Senate being given two votes per state is still two fold which you still refuse to understand. The first is a check against your mob rule stand point, which can override and bill of right type protection. And the second is for states right keeping the population centers from forcing stuff on them.
For God's sake FO... I FULLY understand this traditional argument... when will you get it through your thick skull THAT I, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ADVANCED DEMOCRACIES REJECT IT. We believe that whenever there are such vote weighting/dilution schemes it can lead to MINORITY RULE... something you STILL haven't shown how you'd prevent. You just deny it's possible... or if it is possible... it's no big deal.

As for your laughable theory that going antidemocratic is the ONLY way to protect rights... what makes you think that ALL small states will agree? What makes you think that THEY can't be outvoted in the Senate?

And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHY HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THIS VOTE WEIGHTING/DILUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR STATES AND CITIES? You don't think states have the same issues internally that the US has?

See the problem you are having not understanding what I am saying is because of a fundamental difference between how we each think of the country. If I am understanding correctly you are asking for the federal government to be all powerful, the states would not be sovereign little countries to run as they see fit, with representation in the senate as it currently is, the sovereign state would have no vote for what is best for the state we would just have a parliamentary style government for the senate effectively forcing us into a mob rule situation. I understand that you believe a bill of rights could protect the minority with our ever facing the reality that the majority can vote to not put those protections in place or over rude them at any time.

You are calling for the u.s. to look like Europe which is fine for Europe.

Can the minority of population win in the senate from time to time sure they can but that is a whole lot better then mob rule.

Vote dilution is illegal for cities because you are not dealing with a body of government specifically set up to protect the sovereign rights of a state. Now if the city was a country and each township voted for a number of representivites for the common law and had a separate body to vote for township rights equally represented then it would be fine. Because the people would be represented in the house and the township is represented in the senate.

Are you learning yet?

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

Quote mavibobo:With the technology we have we should be able to do a popular vote with out the ec.
Wow... FO, you surprised me on that last point. It must mean you don't really understand the EC... because it's just the sort of antidemocratic government YOU'VE CONSISTENTLY EMBRACED HERE.

So, if you're sincere you want a popular vote WHERE ALL VOTES WEIGH THE SAME... how do we abolish the EC when it's protected by the anti-democratic government YOU APPROVE OF?

The electoral college can be abolished the same way any other bad law is abolished get the majority of people to force a change.

The only thing that is saving the ec today Is that the GOP believe the dems will cheat which is true and the dems believe the GOP will cheat which is also probably true.

But what I have been saying from the beginning and you still do not understand is that the majority already has the power to change anything they want if they push hard enough with enough people.

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

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:What's suspect here is YOUR giving these right wing Neanderthals on the Supreme Court a free pass as they use the power of the court to DENY Americans rights. If I'm being unfair... show me where you've protested the likes of Scalia and Bork who want to shove the Ninth under the carpet.

How are they negating the Ninth amendment?
Thanks for proving my point. In your mind, everything is seen through your black & white filter and you can't help but side with the GOP. But if you gave a shit about rights AS YOU CLAIM.... then you'd have seen ON YOUR OWN how right wing social conservatives use the courts to DENY rights they disapprove of... and how they have tried to sabotage the Ninth.

So you can't name any or explain any at least we know where we stand.

As far as rights the GOP does not approve of, I can only assume you are talking about same sex marriage. To which I have been saying get the government out of the marriage business for years. They should be allowed to ask three questions only.

1 are you both over 18
2 are you both human
3 are you related in any way

If the answers are yes yes no then let them marry

For terminating a pregnancy I say that is a decision between you and your doc.

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

Quote ulTRAX:
Quote RichardofJeffersonCity:

This is turning into a joke.

Not really... FO merely represents the resistance we'd get from both the right AND most Dems if we ever tried to move to a democratic system. I've debated this issue at liberal forums and their arguments are THE SAME as BooBoo's. They just can't break free from their 4th grade brainwashing to see that democracy is about how PEOPLE are represented... not states.

Do you think the argument is starting to become circular. Mavibobo is refusing your logic for to maintain his argument. I would say it's a stalemate of sorts between reform and reactionary positions.

I am not refusing his logic I do not accept the premise of his argument that if we turned the us into Europe we would be better off.

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

For God's sake FO... I FULLY understand this traditional argument... when will you get it through your thick skull THAT I, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ADVANCED DEMOCRACIES REJECT IT. We believe that whenever there are such vote weighting/dilution schemes it can lead to MINORITY RULE... something you STILL haven't shown how you'd prevent. You just deny it's possible... or if it is possible... it's no big deal.

As for your laughable theory that going antidemocratic is the ONLY way to protect rights... what makes you think that ALL small states will agree? What makes you think that THEY can't be outvoted in the Senate?

And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHY HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THIS VOTE WEIGHTING/DILUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR STATES AND CITIES? You don't think states have the same issues internally that the US has?

See the problem you are having not understanding what I am saying is because of a fundamental difference between how we each think of the country. If I am understanding correctly you are asking for the federal government to be all powerful, the states would not be sovereign little countries to run as they see fit, with representation in the senate as it currently is, the sovereign state would have no vote for what is best for the state we would just have a parliamentary style government for the senate effectively forcing us into a mob rule situation.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN... with this bogus "mob rule" argument. Can you EVER get it through your thick skull that I want both DEMOCRATIC rule with PROTECTIONS FOR LEGITIMATE MINORITY RIGHTS????? YOU are the one who wants a system that permits MINORITY RULE... pretending this is a defense against "mob rule".

For the hundredth time I'm asking for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE AGAINST MINORITY RULE NOW IN THE US??

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

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

For God's sake FO... I FULLY understand this traditional argument... when will you get it through your thick skull THAT I, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ADVANCED DEMOCRACIES REJECT IT. We believe that whenever there are such vote weighting/dilution schemes it can lead to MINORITY RULE... something you STILL haven't shown how you'd prevent. You just deny it's possible... or if it is possible... it's no big deal.

As for your laughable theory that going antidemocratic is the ONLY way to protect rights... what makes you think that ALL small states will agree? What makes you think that THEY can't be outvoted in the Senate?

And I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHY HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THIS VOTE WEIGHTING/DILUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR STATES AND CITIES? You don't think states have the same issues internally that the US has?

See the problem you are having not understanding what I am saying is because of a fundamental difference between how we each think of the country. If I am understanding correctly you are asking for the federal government to be all powerful, the states would not be sovereign little countries to run as they see fit, with representation in the senate as it currently is, the sovereign state would have no vote for what is best for the state we would just have a parliamentary style government for the senate effectively forcing us into a mob rule situation.
THERE YOU GO AGAIN... with this bogus "mob rule" argument. Can you EVER get it through your thick skull that I want both DEMOCRATIC rule with PROTECTIONS FOR LEGITIMATE MINORITY RIGHTS????? YOU are the one who wants a system that permits MINORITY RULE... pretending this is a defense against "mob rule".

For the hundredth time I'm asking for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE AGAINST MINORITY RULE NOW IN THE US??

Well first off the government overall is not grotesquely anti democratic, th senate is to represent the states interest from each of the states by 2 votes per state. You still think that each senator represents the interest of the people them selves but their primary job is the interest of the state. If you think in these terms each state is equally represented.

The house of Representatives is the house that represents the people this is where the majority gets to flex their muscles and in the senate they can stop what the majority is doing. Like I have explained before but you still do not understand if enough people want the government to do some thing they can get it done. A perfect example is the civil rights movement the d r ms fought it tooth and nail but the people and the Republican got it past.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:THERE YOU GO AGAIN... with this bogus "mob rule" argument. Can you EVER get it through your thick skull that I want both DEMOCRATIC rule with PROTECTIONS FOR LEGITIMATE MINORITY RIGHTS????? YOU are the one who wants a system that permits MINORITY RULE... pretending this is a defense against "mob rule".

For the hundredth time I'm asking for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE AGAINST MINORITY RULE NOW IN THE US??

Well first off the government overall is not grotesquely anti democratic, the senate is to represent the states interest from each of the states by 2 votes per state. You still think that each senator represents the interest of the people them selves but their primary job is the interest of the state.[/quote] There you go AGAIN. Spare me your 4th grade civics lesson. You actual believe if you stick your head up your butt and deny the system is antidemocratic... then all that matters is your denial of reality.

Democracy is about how PEOPLE are represented... not "interests".

And the Senate DOES represent people since there is direct election by PEOPLE. So even if Senator were elected the old way... those senators still represent the PEOPLE who elected the state legislators... and therefore the Senate is ANTIDEMOCRATIC with 18% of the US population getting 52% of the seats.

Quote mavibobo:If you think in these terms each state is equally represented.
For the HUNDREDTH TIME... I KNOW THE OFFICIAL RATIONALE FOR OUR SYSTEM AND REJECTED IT because it permits MINORITY RULE.

Quote mavibobo:The house of Representatives is the house that represents the people this is where the majority gets to flex their muscles and in the senate they can stop what the majority is doing.
Yup... still can't get past what you learned 4th grade. I DON'T LOOK AT HOW STATES ARE REPRESENTED. I don't give a damn about how states are represented. The antidemocratic nature of our system is evident by how CITIZENS are represented. CITIZENS elect members of Congress... not some abstraction called a "state". And no citizen that has more than one House member is represented by ALL their House members... only the one from their district... AND only if they elected that person. Those voting for an election loser have NO representation. So any given CITIZEN in Cal is represented only by ONE House member... not 53... and two senators. But any given CITIZEN who chooses to live in WY gets 70X more clout in the Senate... plus their two representative. So, NO, our system doesn't balance out.

Obviously you do NOT believe that each citizen in the US should have an equal say in Congress.

Quote mavibobo:Like I have explained before but you still do not understand if enough people want the government to do some thing they can get it done. A perfect example is the civil rights movement the d r ms fought it tooth and nail but the people and the Republican got it past.
ROTF... more of your Orwellian rewrite of US history? The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was introduced by a Dem... signed by a Dem president... and got more DEM votes than GOP votes in both the House AND Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h128

I await your retraction.

But if you're suddenly for civil rights... I await YOUR support for CIVIL EQUALITY in voting where all votes weigh the same. But we know that day will never happen since you've spent 20 posts here OPPOSING civil equality in favor of voter discrimination based on choice of state resident.

How goddamn hypocritical.

For the hundredth time I'm asking for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE AGAINST MINORITY RULE NOW IN THE US??

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX @ BooBoo: I don't give a damn about how states are represented. The antidemocratic nature of our system is evident by how CITIZENS are represented. CITIZENS elect members of Congress... not some abstraction called a "state".
Let's just get something straight... Democracy comes from the Greek root DEMOS which = PEOPLE.

The term originates from the Greek (demokratía) "rule of the people", which was found from (dêmos) "people" and (krátos) "power" or "rule"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

"States" have no will of their own no matter how much one tries to create the illusion they do. Only PEOPLE have a will of their own.

As we saw in the antebellum South... white racists used every trick in the book so their state governments continued white rule.

You pretend to favor civil rights when you think you can rewrite history and blame Dems for opposing the Civil Rights Act. But what you favor is the SAME antidemocratic tricks white racists in the South used to amplify their power over Blacks.... only you want this power to go to small population states where their power is amplified by an antidemocratic Senate, EC, and amendment process... to the point that it can permit MINORITY rule.

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

ulTRAX- I appreciate your passion on this issue and in some ways do not disagree. But t the same time I have personally lost trust in the federal system and am beginning to move towards a decentralized system. In my opinion when an individual considers the possible of decentralized systems, and part of that analysis would look at the possibility as states having autonomous power, the idea of one person would vote is a less simplistic concept than it may first appear. It may well be the case that in Presidential elections, and perhaps other cicrcumstances that you are indeed quite correct. But what it seems like you fail to consider is whether the states in this country or any other country are required to be members of a federal authority . You might insist that they do have such an obligation, but if they do not then a negotiation might be required and occasionally negotiations tend to disrupt the purity of ideas like one person one vote. I do tend to agree that the office of the President is the most probelmatic in terms of one person and one vote, and personally I would consider getting rid of the office of the President as a first step. Why do we really need one? Separation of powers is indeed important, but I am not sure why a cult of personality is a part of that formula

Semi permeable memebrain's picture
Semi permeable ...
Joined:
Nov. 10, 2011 8:36 am

Why all this never ending discussion about what is and what isn’t democracy? Just ask AIPAC and you get a pat answer:

http://www.aipac.org/learn/us-and-israel

The United States and Israel share the same values and a common commitment to democracy and freedom. Israel is America’s most reliable friend and only democratic ally in the Middle East, one of the world’s most volatile and important regions.

This is how it works…
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/17398-lieberman-behead-arabs-who-arent-loyal-to-israel

Lieberman: Behead Arabs who aren’t loyal to Israel

Monday, 09 March 2015 11:47

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman yesterday threatening to cut off with an axe the heads of Arab-Israeli citizens who are not loyal to the state.

"Those who are with us deserve everything, but those who are against us deserve to have their heads chopped off with an axe," Lieberman said during an election rally in the western city of Herzliya.

There you are, the ABC's...

Alberto Ceras 2's picture
Alberto Ceras 2
Joined:
Dec. 9, 2012 9:14 am
Quote Semi permeable memebrain:But what it seems like you fail to consider is whether the states in this country or any other country are required to be members of a federal authority . You might insist that they do have such an obligation, but if they do not then a negotiation might be required and occasionally negotiations tend to disrupt the purity of ideas like one person one vote.
I'm not failing to consider anything. I know the history of our system. It is probably the only system the Framers could have come up with at the time given the distrust states had of the intentions of other states... but also knowing without unity, they might all fail.

So federalism does have its place in the spectrum of possible governments. But this also means that federalism is an accident of our colonial history. What if we then were one colony instead of 13? Some seem to believe that our Framers would have to come up with the same system because of some inherent beauty. I think federalism... the source of ALL the antidemocratic and reformproof aspects of our system is ARBITRARY.

The problem I see is federalism can perpetuate those primitive politics. Our system set them in cement. And in the case of the US the demographic trends are making the system more and more antidemocratic... and reformproof. NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THIS. We've been brought up that we have the best system in the world. We're brought up to understand our system and NEVER CRITIQUE IT. Our antiquated electoral system results in an artificially narrow political spectrum that is functionally braindead. Citizens, by refusing to vote, are sending a message that the system is irrelevant. Off year elections have about 35% of the voting age population voting which means the direction of the nation can shift based on the will of a mere 18% of the voting age population. Other nations have voting rates in the mid-80% range. What's the point of voting if we can't vote our conscience and get some representation for those beliefs? What's the point of elections if someone REJECTED by the People gets into office anyway? What's the point of voting when our system permits minority rule? Where's the flexibility in a system when now states with a mere 3.5% of the population can block ANY reform yet states with as little as 40% can approve it?

On some level people get it that there's something wrong with out system even if it our upbringing doesn't let us articulate it... or worst, where they are stuck like BooBoo in what they learned in 4th grade. I'm merely articulating what I see as wrong... at least from the viewpoint that a government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. When a system fails in this regard... I have to question its moral legitimacy. Why MUST we live with a system created by the dead if doesn't suit our purposes? The Framers certainly didn't hesitate to create a new system when the Articles failed. At least they had the intellectual honesty to admit that fact. We paper over our system's failing.

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

ulTRAX- I appreciate your passion on this issue and in some ways do not disagree. But t the same time I have personally lost trust in the federal system and am beginning to move towards a decentralized system.

Decentralization has its place, but so do centralized laws. For instance look at the problems we have when certain states offer big tax breaks to corporations allowing them to play one state off the other. And should we have health, product, drug, auto, and worker safety regulations be determined by states? Pollution crosses state lines and requires a national approach. Do we want some states teaching creationism or that slavery was justified? Then there's the issue of how national standards improve economic efficiency. Do we want some states having their own automotive signals and signage, grades of gas, tire sizes... etc?

Sure there must be some version of home rule to deal with local/regional issues, but we can't dismiss the fact that the growth in federal power was based out of some necessity.

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

Centralized power was discussed in the Federalist Papers and in personal letters between the people that held power in the infant empire. The main concerns behind strengthening of central power was two fold: obligation of debt and controlling citizens - revolts, rebellion and debt forgiveness. This was the basis for the formation of the Constitution - the protection of the wealth interest of the ruling class.

The writers of the Constitution could have cared less about the will of the people or the rights of its rank-n-file citizen. If there is any hope of changing it, we must remove the stigma that the US Constitution was written by the Gods of the Republic. It is a deeply flawed document, and it is not a document that reflects the will of the people or the input of the majority of the its citizens. Even state constitution are ethnically and economically biased documents. The foundation of the United State is built upon a Republican that does not respect its citizens.

How would the US Constitution or State Constitutions hold up to the Law of Justification, the Golden Rule or majority consent ?

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

Quote ulTRAX @ BooBoo: I don't give a damn about how states are represented. The antidemocratic nature of our system is evident by how CITIZENS are represented. CITIZENS elect members of Congress... not some abstraction called a "state".
Let's just get something straight... Democracy comes from the Greek root DEMOS which = PEOPLE.

The term originates from the Greek (demokratía) "rule of the people", which was found from (dêmos) "people" and (krátos) "power" or "rule"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

"States" have no will of their own no matter how much one tries to create the illusion they do. Only PEOPLE have a will of their own.

As we saw in the antebellum South... white racists used every trick in the book so their state governments continued white rule.

You pretend to favor civil rights when you think you can rewrite history and blame Dems for opposing the Civil Rights Act. But what you favor is the SAME antidemocratic tricks white racists in the South used to amplify their power over Blacks.... only you want this power to go to small population states where their power is amplified by an antidemocratic Senate, EC, and amendment process... to the point that it can permit MINORITY rule.

Wow you are so hung up on your own reality you can't even read any more, I never said anything about the civil rights act of 1964. I was speaking of the civil rights movement in general which was pushed by the Republican and voted against and fillabustered by the dems. If we had minority rule we would still have white only drinking fountains.

So for the hundredth time we do not have minority rule in the u.s. the numbers you put up are worst possible case. This fact does not mean we have minority rule, any more than you claiming you want a straight democracy with minority protections never even seeing the fact that in order to gain minority protections the majority has to vote to adopt them, maintain them or strengthen them, are you starting to see the flaw in your argument yet or do I need cayons.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:Wow you are so hung up on your own reality you can't even read any more, I never said anything about the civil rights act of 1964. I was speaking of the civil rights movement in general which was pushed by the Republican and voted against and fillabustered by the dems.
Yawn... like it's my fault because YOU spew generalities. But, gee, your claim didn't hold up very long. It fell apart when looking at the major civil rights legislation of 20th century. So instead of looking the US having just two parties, that after Reconstruction the white South... using antidemocratic government YOU approve of, would almost never vote Republican, and the fact that what we were seeing was RACIST opposition... not any reflection of a Party per se... all we see is your obsession to make Dems look bad. As LBJ said... to pass the Civil Right's Act would cause the Dems to lose the South... so now all those racists vote for the GOP. Happy now? BTW... I'm not a Dem... I have contempt for most of them in office. So your childish taunts that nah nah... some Dems did something despicable 50 years ago, is laughable. But then YOU want a system where small minorities have such power to obstruct EVEN SOMETHING DESIRABLE. So take some goddamn responsibility Fluffy.

Quote mavibobo:If we had minority rule we would still have white only drinking fountains. So for the hundredth time we do not have minority rule in the u.s. the numbers you put up are worst possible case.
I never said we HAVE minority rule... as a governing principle. I said our system PERMITS minority rule... and I've given enough examples. You blow them off. If our system didn't permit minority rule Bush would never have been installed as president AFTER BEING REJECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Quote mavibobo:This fact does not mean we have minority rule, any more than you claiming you want a straight democracy with minority protections never even seeing the fact that in order to gain minority protections the majority has to vote to adopt them, maintain them or strengthen them, are you starting to see the flaw in your argument yet or do I need cayons.
Gee Einstein... even in YOUR system all those small states don't vote in a block. So for whatever minority issue you think it protects... it easily may not. But I don't see you admitting the flaw in YOUR approach.

And ENOUGH EVASION....

For the hundredth time I'm asking for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE AGAINST MINORITY RULE NOW IN THE US??

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

Quote mavibobo:Wow you are so hung up on your own reality you can't even read any more, I never said anything about the civil rights act of 1964. I was speaking of the civil rights movement in general which was pushed by the Republican and voted against and fillabustered by the dems.
Yawn... like it's my fault because YOU spew generalities. But, gee, your claim didn't hold up very long. It fell apart when looking at the major civil rights legislation of 20th century. So instead of looking the US having just two parties, that after Reconstruction the white South... using antidemocratic government YOU approve of, would almost never vote Republican, and the fact that what we were seeing was RACIST opposition... not any reflection of a Party per se... all we see is your obsession to make Dems look bad. As LBJ said... to pass the Civil Right's Act would cause the Dems to lose the South... so now all those racists vote for the GOP. Happy now? BTW... I'm not a Dem... I have contempt for most of them in office. So your childish taunts that nah nah... some Dems did something despicable 50 years ago, is laughable. But then YOU want a system where small minorities have such power to obstruct EVEN SOMETHING DESIRABLE. So take some goddamn responsibility Fluffy.

Quote mavibobo:If we had minority rule we would still have white only drinking fountains. So for the hundredth time we do not have minority rule in the u.s. the numbers you put up are worst possible case.
I never said we HAVE minority rule... as a governing principle. I said our system PERMITS minority rule... and I've given enough examples. You blow them off. If our system didn't permit minority rule Bush would never have been installed as president AFTER BEING REJECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Quote mavibobo:This fact does not mean we have minority rule, any more than you claiming you want a straight democracy with minority protections never even seeing the fact that in order to gain minority protections the majority has to vote to adopt them, maintain them or strengthen them, are you starting to see the flaw in your argument yet or do I need cayons.
Gee Einstein... even in YOUR system all those small states don't vote in a block. So for whatever minority issue you think it protects... it easily may not. But I don't see you admitting the flaw in YOUR approach.

And ENOUGH EVASION....

For the hundredth time I'm asking for you to explain why if grotesquely antidemocratic government, where SOME citizens get bigger votes than others, is the ONLY way to protect rights... then why stop with just those people who choose to live in small states? WHY NOT EXTEND YOUR PERFECT SYSTEM TO ALL MINORITY GROUPS?

AND WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE AGAINST MINORITY RULE NOW IN THE US??

First of all even in the civil rights act of 1964 more republic voted for it then dems did. Second you said we have a system that allows minorities to rule and threw up the fact that al gore had the popular vote but lost the election.

Well a grotesquely antidemocratic government is not the only way to protect rights. And for the hundredth time we do not have a grotesquely antidemocratic government were some citizens votes count more than other citizens votes. The system we have does have flaws, can it be improved on sure but that will only start when we elect people who follow the law.

What I wonder is if you like the way the European governments fo things so much why you still live here.

And no wyoming does not get 70 times the vote as California in the senate they all get two regardless of population. This was set up to offset the population given house of representatives. Where the mob can rule.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:And no wyoming does not get 70 times the vote as California in the senate they all get two regardless of population. This was set up to offset the population given house of representatives. Where the mob can rule.
God, you are as thick as they come. You have sooooo sabotaged what little intellect you have that after 20-30 posts YOU STILL CAN'T SEE THAT I'VE NEVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW STATES ARE REPRESENTED... I'M INTERESTED IN HOW >>>>>CITIZENS<<<<< ARE REPRESENTED.

How many times do I have to repeat and repeat and repeat over and over and over again that only when we look at >>>>>CITIZENS<<<<< does the antidemocratic nature of our system become visible.

FO, you remain too stupid to waste words on.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:This fact does not mean we have minority rule, any more than you claiming you want a straight democracy with minority protections never even seeing the fact that in order to gain minority protections the majority has to vote to adopt them, maintain them or strengthen them, are you starting to see the flaw in your argument yet or do I need cayons.

Your objections have already been addressed. The problem here is YOU have not had ANY good answers to my objections to the current system. You just keep regurgitating your 4th grade history lessons.

Leaving aside the office of president... who we KNOW can be someone rejected by the People, the current system does NOT LIMIT THE POWER... in this case residents of small states the power to block objectionable legislation. THEY HAVE THE POWER OVER ALL LAWS. So if Senators representing less than 51% of the US population can pass legislation... or if Senators representing less 2/3 of the US population can ratify treaties or nominations... THIS IS MINORITY RULE in those areas. The same with the Amendment process. A Gerrymandered House and Senators representing less than 66% of the US population... as LOW AS 30%... can send an amendment to the states where it can be ratified by states with as little as 40% of the US population.

YOUR SYSTEM DOESN'T STOP AT MINORITY OBSTRUCTION... IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.... AND OUR SYSTEM HAS NO PROTECTIONS AGAINST IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC THE SYSTEM GETS.

Are you EVER going to address that point or are you just going to keep blowing it off?

AGAIN I ask... if your approach of giving SOME US citizens bigger votes than others is the ONLY MORAL WAY to protect legitimate rights... then why not give this power to ALL minority groups... and give THEM powers not just to obstruct legislation...BUT THE POWER TO WRITE AND PASS ANY AND ALL LAWS?

Do YOU want gunshot victims or families of gunshot victims to have a bigger vote than gun owners and be able to limit what you seem to think is a god given right to hide from your "enimies" in your secret bunker surrounded by your version of an infant's security blanket... your guns? Maybe psychiatrists should have bigger votes so people like you NEVER have access to guns. Funny how now you see how an amendment can offer protection.... though in this case it's an invented right created by bastardizing the Second.

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

Quote mavibobo:This fact does not mean we have minority rule, any more than you claiming you want a straight democracy with minority protections never even seeing the fact that in order to gain minority protections the majority has to vote to adopt them, maintain them or strengthen them, are you starting to see the flaw in your argument yet or do I need cayons.

Your objections have already been addressed. The problem here is YOU have not had ANY good answers to my objections to the current system. You just keep regurgitating your 4th grade history lessons.

Leaving aside the office of president... who we KNOW can be someone rejected by the People, the current system does NOT LIMIT THE POWER... in this case residents of small states the power to block objectionable legislation. THEY HAVE THE POWER OVER ALL LAWS. So if Senators representing less than 51% of the US population can pass legislation... or if Senators representing less 2/3 of the US population can ratify treaties or nominations... THIS IS MINORITY RULE in those areas. The same with the Amendment process. A Gerrymandered House and Senators representing less than 66% of the US population... as LOW AS 30%... can send an amendment to the states where it can be ratified by states with as little as 40% of the US population.

YOUR SYSTEM DOESN'T STOP AT MINORITY OBSTRUCTION... IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.... AND OUR SYSTEM HAS NO PROTECTIONS AGAINST IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC THE SYSTEM GETS.

Are you EVER going to address that point or are you just going to keep blowing it off?

AGAIN I ask... if your approach of giving SOME US citizens bigger votes than others is the ONLY MORAL WAY to protect legitimate rights... then why not give this power to ALL minority groups... and give THEM powers not just to obstruct legislation...BUT THE POWER TO WRITE AND PASS ANY AND ALL LAWS?

Do YOU want gunshot victims or families of gunshot victims to have a bigger vote than gun owners and be able to limit what you seem to think is a god given right to hide from your "enimies" in your secret bunker surrounded by your version of an infant's security blanket... your guns? Maybe psychiatrists should have bigger votes so people like you NEVER have access to guns. Funny how now you see how an amendment can offer protection.... though in this case it's an invented right created by bastardizing the Second.

If you are really worried about how citizens are represented we should discuss removing the central power or increasing the number of reps to say 10 percent of the population for each house....

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

Quote mavibobo:This fact does not mean we have minority rule, any more than you claiming you want a straight democracy with minority protections never even seeing the fact that in order to gain minority protections the majority has to vote to adopt them, maintain them or strengthen them, are you starting to see the flaw in your argument yet or do I need cayons.

Your objections have already been addressed. The problem here is YOU have not had ANY good answers to my objections to the current system. You just keep regurgitating your 4th grade history lessons.

Leaving aside the office of president... who we KNOW can be someone rejected by the People, the current system does NOT LIMIT THE POWER... in this case residents of small states the power to block objectionable legislation. THEY HAVE THE POWER OVER ALL LAWS. So if Senators representing less than 51% of the US population can pass legislation... or if Senators representing less 2/3 of the US population can ratify treaties or nominations... THIS IS MINORITY RULE in those areas. The same with the Amendment process. A Gerrymandered House and Senators representing less than 66% of the US population... as LOW AS 30%... can send an amendment to the states where it can be ratified by states with as little as 40% of the US population.

YOUR SYSTEM DOESN'T STOP AT MINORITY OBSTRUCTION... IT PERMITS MINORITY RULE.... AND OUR SYSTEM HAS NO PROTECTIONS AGAINST IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE ANTIDEMOCRATIC THE SYSTEM GETS.

Are you EVER going to address that point or are you just going to keep blowing it off?

AGAIN I ask... if your approach of giving SOME US citizens bigger votes than others is the ONLY MORAL WAY to protect legitimate rights... then why not give this power to ALL minority groups... and give THEM powers not just to obstruct legislation...BUT THE POWER TO WRITE AND PASS ANY AND ALL LAWS?

Do YOU want gunshot victims or families of gunshot victims to have a bigger vote than gun owners and be able to limit what you seem to think is a god given right to hide from your "enimies" in your secret bunker surrounded by your version of an infant's security blanket... your guns? Maybe psychiatrists should have bigger votes so people like you NEVER have access to guns. Funny how now you see how an amendment can offer protection.... though in this case it's an invented right created by bastardizing the Second.

It's funny how you do not see that an amendment would offer zero protections as the majority has to approve it. Chances are it would not be approved, or the majority can over ride the amendment thus stripping the minority of it's protection.

As far as a security blanket remark my guns are tools I keep for hunting and self protection without them I still would be able to protect myself it would just be harder.

Using a firearm to protect yourself is not an invented right. Self defence is a natural right the left wants you to believe is a government given right that can be taken away by the government.

I do not live in a bunker I live in a house I just try to limit who knows where I live for security reasons, if you ever left the house you might find out that you need to do a few things for safety sake.

Again because you just do not understand some citizens do not get more votes then others. I know you are having a hard time counting but each person in the state regardless of population has 2 senators. Those two votes count as two votes, so wyoming has the same two votes as California and north dakota.

Giving minority groups more votes would make th ed m the majority.

You continue to throw up worst case senerios to show that under the exact right situation the small states could get a law passed. But what are the chances that law is so bad that no one in a large state would vote for it? Same goes for large states trying to pass laws. This only works if we have smart engaged senators that can look at the crackpot bill proposed by who ever as a crackpot bill.

Your abject ions have been addressed as well do you have anything new?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 3:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:It's funny how you do not see that an amendment would offer zero protections as the majority has to approve it.
Thanks again for proving you're intellectually incapable of understanding ANYTHING you disagree with.

Show me where I have I EVER said I want amendments to be ratified by a simple majority of either the population or states containing a simple majority of the population? Put up or retract.

YOU on the other hand want to keep a system where now states with as little as 40% of the population can ratify amendments... and states with as little as 3.5% of the population can block any amendment. Even Scalia agrees this is crazy and needs to be changed.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:As far as a security blanket remark my guns are tools I keep for hunting and self protection without them I still would be able to protect myself it would just be harder. Using a firearm to protect yourself is not an invented right.

Thanks for AGAIN proving you're intellectually incapable of understanding ANYTHING you disagree with. We've gone over this before and you KNOW I believe such self-protection is simply an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth. What I wrote was that it was INVENTED in the Second... here's what I wrote AGAIN...

Funny how now you see how an amendment can offer protection.... though in this case it's an invented right created by bastardizing the Second.

As for your pathological insecurity... living in a secret location to hide from your "enimies", surrounded by your guns... that's not a constitutional issue. Maybe some day you'll get the help you need and realize YOU are your own worst enemy.

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

Trump's Lies Are Killing Us

Thom plus logo Donald Trump keeps insisting in his rallies, as he did last night, that he has lowered prescription drug prices, is protecting people with pre-existing conditions, and is improving Medicare. While everybody knows that he lies a lot, these are among the most pernicious lies.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system