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.
Look it is very simple, there are a number of discussions on various issues from taxes to government involvement in the economy that sprout up on this board from time to time. Many of these arguments are based upon the premise that the government is becoming less democratic, and more importantly that these democratic trends are moving in countervailing manner than intended by the founders (you still with us?).
For their argument to ring true, we should see diminishing level of enfranchisement, or trends in that direction, from those established in the original constitution. By pointing out that since the ratification of the Constitution that to the contrary, the level of enfranchisement has steadily increased. So, yes, the country has moved steadily away from the intent of the framers, not towards limiting democracy, but instead greatly enlarging it.
That being the case, the argument being put forth is largely schizophrenic. If the desire is to return to the democracy as originally intended, then the exercise of the democracy should in fact be limited, not expanded. You can't have it both ways, as much as many here would like.
Get it?
Also, while enfranchisement is critical, so is the nominating proces and its openness.
Remember what Croaker of Tammany Hall said?
"I don't care who votes for 'em, I want to nominate 'em"?
THat's what's wrong with our system today- just like in the Gilded Age.
In 1973, we returned to laissez faire, and it's been back to the 1890's ever since.
"The Great U-Turn" by Bluestone and Harrison, and "The Myth of Free Trade" by Batra are crucial for understanding this "brave old world" we currently find ourselves mired in.
And that's my point.
But for good or for ill, that is what the electorate clearly wanted.
Also, while enfranchisement is critical, so is the nominating proces and its openness.
Remember what Croaker of Tammany Hall said?
"I don't care who votes for 'em, I want to nominate 'em"?
THat's what's wrong with our system today- just like in the Gilded Age.
What was the nominating process in the gilded age? It certainly wasn't a grueling 50 state pre-election that we have now, hell the primaries and caucuses, the people's voice within the party, wasn't as significant in the 1960's as they are now, for good or for ill.
What we have today may not be in it's entirety what the Founders had intended but not all of what we got was intended by all the Founders. So, while you're at it why don't you just go ahead and show us the part where the Founders intended for the country to plow into a socialist state.
Interesting question, but I will suggest you look for answer yourself. I will help though... do you think the founders were mindless free marketeers, who believed that government should not interfere with private corporations in any way? That they should succeed and fail on their own?
Then you might want to do a bit of study of corporate charters back in the day. Remember... they established the greatest socialistic system of all: government, so power was vested in the hands of the people, not in the hands of corporations who they had just fought against.
I keep reading that the U.S. is increasingly undemocratic accompanied by cries about returning the country to the principles on which it was founded... well let's review the progress of American democracy.
The "Founders" never intended;
For anyone other than white male property owners to have the right to vote, which in 1790 was 10 to 15 percent of the population.
But...
In 1828 the last religious restriction on voting was removed when Maryland granted Jews the right to vote.
In 1850 all adult white males were finally allowed to vote.
In 1870 the right to vote was extended to black males.
In 1913 the people were allowed to elect their senator for the first time.
In 1910 the first presidential primary was established,
In 1920 women are finally granted the right to vote.
In 1944 private (read white only) primaries were outlawed.
In 1971 the voting age was dropped to 18 years of age, old enough to fight old enough to vote.
In short, in 1789, the people had no say in the presidential nominating process, only white males who owned property could vote (as long as they weren't Catholic or Jewish) and candidates to the U.S. Senate were selected by the state legislature or the governor with no input from the voting public.
By the way, the Constitution established the selection of the Senate by state governments for the expressed purpose of being a check against the whims of the popularly elected members of the House (so much for the Congress not listening to the "'will" of the people).
So, if American is moving towards, despotism and tyranny, we've got a long way to go before we become as despotic and tyrannical as the Founders intended.
The worst miistake was the 17th Amendment, The Senate was supposed to represent the the States not the Electorate. That way being Confirmed by the Senate meant being approved by the States. Right now the Senate is as useful as a Second Navel
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,657,266 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
True. The founders did not establish a Democracy. The established a Representative Republic.
How's that "Hope and change" workin' for you libs? How many of you are out of work? Too bad. You voted for this idiot. Sh-t happens. Hope you can find a job some day. Maybe a McDonald's.
Are you blaming Obama for the mess the Bush people left the country in?? Funny I never heard Bush complain a bit about the shape the country was in when he took it over!
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,657,266 times
Reputation: 3587
There is no doubt that there will be more moves among Republicans to try and limit voting or to disenfranchise voters. They know that their time in national politics is about over and in fact may be over. They are a party of old white folks that see the country becoming more brown, more black, more gay, more bilingual and less religious everyday. And it bugs the hell out of them. But they cannot stop the change. It is going to happen with or without them.
But for good or for ill, that is what the electorate clearly wanted.
No, most people in 1946 knew nothing about GATT- low public salience- a technical issue.
Nor was any public input sought prior to the Tokyo round of GATT (1973), which negated tariffs for the first time in our history.
The first time we have any idea of what the public wanted was NAFTA- 60% opposed.
However, it passed. Because the money wanted it, and they had effectively bought ALL sides in the deabte (just as Croaker's policy was at Tammany).
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.
Too bad. You voted for this idiot. Sh-t happens. Hope you can find a job some day. Maybe a McDonald's.
