Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it is not irrelevant. If we take power from the elites and move towards a more democratic system, we will lessen the instances of the elites manipulating the masses. Of course, going hand-in-hand with that is doing a better job of educating Americans, particularly on civics...things like the meanings of "democracy" and "republic."
Even now, when things like gay rights are put to referendum, they often fail. Same with abortion depending on where you live.
That is my point. A Hitler example would be extreme.
Even then, the masses can be manipulated with or without manipulation by elites in control of government. The elite will always exist in some way shape or form.
With the exception of not allowing state run propaganda to exist, I fail to see any substantial harness on the tendency of the general public to be led around like sheep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
Very well. You do realize, however, that not being able to answer that question with a simple "yes" places you in a suspect position: almost universally since the end of the Second World War, Americans (and all other Westerners) endorse the simple proposition that governments should be chosen by and responsible to their peoples. Those who don't, tend to subscribe to extremist anti-democratic ideologies antithetical to the values of our civilization.
I generally endorse the simple proposition. But it is not an absolute. It does not encompass all that government should be. Therefore, it is not a yes or no question. To answer it and leave it at that would not make for any type of comprehensive discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian
I see we are now going to return to the question of the democratic fairness of our constitutional architecture.
As for the longevity of the present structure, I don't see how that necessarily signifies; an arrangement can be reasonably fair in one period and become unfair in another (which was the point of Jefferson's prescription for regular constitutional revision: a quote which is authenticated, by the way).
The distribution of borough seats in the English parliament was a fairly accurate reflection of the urban population in 1380, but by 1830 population change had rendered many of those seats "rotten boroughs", and pressure for reform had reached the point of crisis in the United Kingdom. The result: the Reform Bill of 1832.
Likewise, what was once, if not entirely fair, then at least tolerably unfair, in the composition of the U.S. Senate has changed to be nearly intolerable. The comparison of California and Wyoming is often used to illustrate the point, as the extreme ends of the spectrum: the ratio of population represented by one senate vote in CA vs WY is 33:1 as of the 2010 census. In 1940, it was less than 14:1. Our Senate is now a chamber of rotten boroughs.
As for the risks of constitutional reform or revision: the main risk at such a juncture is that the polity collapses in chaos or civil war. Such an outcome may be a favorite fantasy among extremists, but no responsible person can believe that a constitutional convention, if it were ever summoned, would provoke such a calamity: the stakes on all sides are too high.
Compromise, on the other hand, would certainly be required: possibly in the direction of the Canadian confederation, with much more control over areas of important policy delivered to the states, in return for concession in the direction of a more democratic federal structure of government. Small red states might find that control, for example over labor policy and immigration, such as the Canadian provinces enjoy, would more than compensate for surrendering their bastion in the Senate in the name of a genuinely democratic federal legislature.
The alternative is ultimately unsustainable: the disproportionate influence of small rural states, especially when magnified by the filibuster super-majority, will either continue, in which case the common interests of the nation suffer, or will be reduced significantly by a nuclear-option abolition of the filibuster. The small states would be far better off trading what they have now for real gains than waiting until their bargaining position is much weaker.
You've said quite a bit, but at the end of it, this is all predicated on the idea that the states' relative power over federal policy and therefore other states should correlate with population. Which I fully reject.
California is free to legislate all it wants in California.
California is not however free to exercise disproportionate power through the senate on the national level based on its population. An ideal with which I am absolutely fine.
What you call disproportionate influence of smaller states I call equality between states as it concerns federal legislation.
Maher is a self-serving lunatic partisan hack, much worse than Coulter or Limbaugh.
Maher is basically a large whiney child. He is going through mid life never having been an actual adult and cannot handle things not going his way so he's just an old impotent manchild curmudgeon now. Kind of like David Letterman.
this is all predicated on the idea that the states' relative power over federal policy and therefore other states should correlate with population. Which I fully reject.
And if what constitutes "federal power" were to be adjusted as part of the bargain?
It seems to me that much of the objection to diminishing the inequalities of representation, especially in the senate, is the fear that the federal government as presently constituted would then become the creature of the large, mostly-blue states, or else of the majority of the people as a whole, who would then use their increased power to "cram down the neck" of the small states policy they found objectionable.
My suggestion is that this isn't necessarily so: a constitutional revision would inevitably also consider the state-federal balance of powers. Quite possibly to the advantage of the small states in important ways, which the cost of relinquishing an obviously unfair advantage in the senate would make very worthwhile.
(And, in addition, we could finally ditch the ridiculous College of Electors).
And if what constitutes "federal power" were to be adjusted as part of the bargain?
It seems to me that much of the objection to diminishing the inequalities of representation, especially in the senate, is the fear that the federal government as presently constituted would then become the creature of the large, mostly-blue states, or else of the majority of the people as a whole, who would then use their increased power to "cram down the neck" of the small states policy they found objectionable.
My suggestion is that this isn't necessarily so: a constitutional revision would inevitably also consider the state-federal balance of powers. Quite possibly to the advantage of the small states in important ways, which the cost of relinquishing an obviously unfair advantage in the senate would make very worthwhile.
(And, in addition, we could finally ditch the ridiculous College of Electors).
I'm all for reasonable compromise.
My point is that as it currently stands, those states are given equal representation. Were this alone changed with no further compromise, it would be a problem. And those smaller states would be steamrolled. I'd take it even further. As it currently stands, areas like upstate NY and parts of CA for example are steamrolled by the larger coastal cities which is a problem.
This is more an issue of state/local rights vs federal in general than any particular balance of power in the senate or electoral college etc.
My point is that as it currently stands, those states are given equal representation. Were this alone changed with no further compromise, it would be a problem. And those smaller states would be steamrolled.
I have a hard time imagining a constitutional convention which did not negotiate the entire package: it either wouldn't be convened in the first place, or it would fail and collapse. And any deal on the whole package would have to be a compromise.
Quote:
I'd take it even further. As it currently stands, areas like upstate NY and parts of CA for example are steamrolled by the larger coastal cities which is a problem.
That's an issue for state conventions to deal with, I'd think, but it seems plausible to me that a successful convention at the federal level would prompt state conventions in some states - the example would lead to pressure for state constitutional reform in some places.
I have a hard time imagining a constitutional convention which did not negotiate the entire package: it either wouldn't be convened in the first place, or it would fail and collapse. And any deal on the whole package would have to be a compromise.
In that case yes.
All I'm talking about is the topic of the thread, namely the twisted idea that it's somehow unreasonable that we follow anything but purely population based representation on the federal level.
Maher is a self-serving lunatic partisan hack, much worse than Coulter or Limbaugh.
Maher is just a stand up comic.
Limbaugh is the de-facto leader of a large segment of the GOP. That this spiteful angry blowhard controls such a large GOP population should be terrifying to any sane American citizen. From the party of Lincoln to the party of Limbaugh..
That's why you have the House of Representatives, where majority rules.
The Senate isn't the House, and was never meant to be.
Bills have to pass both house and the senate. Non budgetary bills originate in the Senate so if the Senate is locked-down in a filibuster bubble and not a simple majority nothing will get done and hence the hijacking.
For anyone else reading this thread, you need to understand that there are motivations for these people in denying that the United States is a democracy. It is a central point to most right-libertarian authors and philosophers. They make a point of making the point again and again. It is most certainly not merely a point of semantics.
And there also is an agenda of those who advance that saying that the USA is a republic and not a democracy is a meaningless distinction.
The true disagreement for me here is the meaningless distinction (squarian) characterization.
If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist because all the changes that Maher is pining for could be done with a simple majority vote.
The simple fact that the will of the majority is crippled and diluted by the structure of our constitutional system and the fact that the powers of government to act (even to fulfill a demand of an overwhelming majority of citizens) is strictly limited to just that which is enumerated.
Your (and [Ignoring] HistoryDude) argument is the "tautologous oxymoronity" in this thread. You make this claim that there is no difference but ignore the conversation we are having wouldn't exist if you were correct LOL.
A meaningless distinction would not act to render impotent the desires and frustrate the actions of the will of the majority . . . and that, more than anything was the intention of the framers. To crush any foothold of a democracy ever establishing itself in the USA.
Your argument is profoundly wrong because the rights of the minority were never placed in the hands of the majority and that, in the sentiments of the framers was perhaps the most significant distinction between a democracy and a republic and the one thing to be forever precluded.
"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest.. . . . It has been said, that in the Federal Government [bills of rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. . . ."
If no, I accept the resignation of [Ignoring] HistoryDude's "meaningless confabulation of essentially unrelated concepts, compounded by pointless hair splitting" position.
Then we can get into the agenda served by the left's advancement of this philosophically, historically, legally and intellectually bankrupt denial of a meaningful distinction between a democracy and a republic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
