09 November

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 03:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, that's something left for AP US History. Our history segment ends midway through 1st quarter once we begin covering the Constitution.

See, to me that is something that should be covered more readily. How many people see that typical layer cake image from civics when they think of federalism? But it's so much messier than that now.

[Belsnickel]

I heard an interview with the author of Rejecting Democracy, which is about the position that too many people are voting for things today and that wasn't the intention of the framers. I'm planning on getting it to check it out. What do you all think of that theory?

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2016, 05:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I heard an interview with the author of Rejecting Democracy, which is about the position that too many people are voting for things today and that wasn't the intention of the framers. I'm planning on getting it to check it out. What do you all think of that theory?

Too many citizens? Citizens voting for too many offices? Too many members of Congress? Members of Congress voting for too many things?

[fredtoast]

(10-25-2016, 08:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Too many citizens? Citizens voting for too many offices? Too many members of Congress? Members of Congress voting for too many things?

I am guessing they are talking about citizens voting for referendums or laws instead of voting for legislators to make these decisions.

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2016, 08:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am guessing they are talking about citizens voting for referendums or laws instead of voting for legislators to make these decisions.

Hmmm, interesting. Certainly not the intent of the framers, but something positive out of the Progressive era.

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2016, 08:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Too many citizens? Citizens voting for too many offices? Too many members of Congress? Members of Congress voting for too many things?

(10-25-2016, 08:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am guessing they are talking about citizens voting for referendums or laws instead of voting for legislators to make these decisions.

Not just voting on referendums, but voting on representatives themselves.

(10-25-2016, 08:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Hmmm, interesting. Certainly not the intent of the framers, but something positive out of the Progressive era.

I would tend to agree. I didn't get to catch all of the interview, but the topic intrigued me. Once I get around to reading it I will have to share the argument.

[THE Bigzoman]

(10-21-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What spurred this was that in one of the email dumps there was a link to this 2014 study that was shared: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

tl;dr: Princeton study said we are an oligarchy.

We probably talked about this study when it came out, and I'm sure that many of us agreed with some points. It got me thinking about what will happen after the election, though. Because I think that more and more people will be feeling this way.

We are, of course, not a pure democracy. No such thing exists. We are a republic where we elect officials to represent our interests. At least in theory. I am rather fond of Dahl's point of view on things, and so would like to think we are a polyarchy. But in truth it is hard to really see it as such given current events.

So what do you think? Are we still a democratic nation? Do our politicians represent us? Most importantly, what do you think should be done to fix it?

Trust in government is extremely low, depending on the poll you look at it could be an all time low, but even if it isn't it is very close. Policy mood is also interesting right now, the most conservative it has ever been in 70 years. Policy mood typically has a negative correlation to the party in the White House (a liberal POTUS results in a conservative shift, and vice versa), so with Clinton winning it will just continue to move further and the distrust will continue to grow. Clinton will be a one term POTUS and it will be the GOP's election to lose, just like this one.

The RNC will move to a super-delegate system, like the DNC has. What I would love to see would be a move to the ranked/alternative/instant-runoff voting system combined with publicly funded elections. Will never happen, but those are the two things I would most like to see. I've said before that I would like to see a new constitution happen and there was a lot of disagreement, I get that, but I am sticking by that. I would like to see it, though, it's not something I see as a need quite as much as the election changes.

So what do you think

I wouldn't even say we're a republic, honestly. Republicans no longer have the right to exist as a political entity. Trump steamrolling through their primaries, against their wishes, just goes to show how disconnected they are with their constituents. If Democrats keep messing around like they did with Sanders, they'll be on the same boat if they haven't sealed their fate already.