Broken Government

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2020, 07:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So a prez who most voters did not vote for and was saved from impeach by votes from senators who represent a minority of population will stop negotiating to help our struggling country and instead focus on jamming through a scotus nominee breaking their own rule. And we will have a 3rd scotus inserted by a president who was not voted for by the majority and senators who represent a minority of the population.


Broke as f

Just flat out undemocratic stuff going on.

This is not a representative government.

Translation, the rules we've operated under for over 200 years don't work in my favor, so let's change them.  Sad. 

[BigPapaKain]

(10-06-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Translation, the rules we've operated under for over 200 years don't work in my favor, so let's change them.  Sad. 

Admittedly, blowing it up and starting it over is a bad idea. But gerrymandering and lobbying definitely need to end.

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Translation, the rules we've operated under for over 200 years don't work in my favor, so let's change them.  Sad. 

That is not what he is saying at all.

He is saying that the rules need to be changed to be more democratic and representative.  That would benefit EVERYONE, not just one party.

And as we have pointed out many times already the rules have been changed multiple times over the last 200+ years.  US Senators were not even selected by popular vote of citizens until 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified.  The Constitution was 125 years old at that time.

[BmorePat87]

(10-06-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Translation, the rules we've operated under for over 200 years don't work in my favor, so let's change them.  Sad. 

we didn't operate very democratically for most of those 200 years. Nothing wrong with wanting government to work for the majority rather than just the minority. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2020, 08:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: we didn't operate very democratically for most of those 200 years. Nothing wrong with wanting government to work for the majority rather than just the minority. 

I think a lot of people get lost in the idea that the founding fathers did not like a democracy. Majority rule on its own is flawed and had been known to result in oppression of the minority. Our system is intended to protect the minority from the majority, but the issue is that our system has evolved into one in which the minority rules. A minority of the voters elected Donald Trump. A minority of the voters elected the Republicans in the Senate. As a result of this, they have filled court vacancies with ideologically aligned jurists, meaning jurists that align with a minority of the population.

So while our representative democracy was intended to protect the minority, instead we have minority rule.

[BmorePat87]

(10-06-2020, 08:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of people get lost in the idea that the founding fathers did not like a democracy. Majority rule on its own is flawed and had been known to result in oppression of the minority. Our system is intended to protect the minority from the majority, but the issue is that our system has evolved into one in which the minority rules. A minority of the voters elected Donald Trump. A minority of the voters elected the Republicans in the Senate. As a result of this, they have filled court vacancies with ideologically aligned jurists, meaning jurists that align with a minority of the population.

So while our representative democracy was intended to protect the minority, instead we have minority rule.

This is why I avoided the phrase "majority rule". We currently allow for minority rule for those who disregard minority rights. If the minority ideology of this nation can dictate which rights are held by minority groups, while also refusing to consider legislation to aid the majority of people, we have a completely broken system.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2020, 08:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is why I avoided the phrase "majority rule". We currently allow for minority rule for those who disregard minority rights. If the minority ideology of this nation can dictate which rights are held by minority groups, while also refusing to consider legislation to aid the majority of people, we have a completely broken system.

I know why you avoided it; I was just trying to put that little explainer in there to avoid the inevitable retorts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2020, 07:40 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Admittedly, blowing it up and starting it over is a bad idea. But gerrymandering and lobbying definitely need to end.

I agree to the former, not necessarily with the latter.  I would be very happy with changes in lobbying and the influence of money in politics.

(10-06-2020, 07:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is not what he is saying at all.

Yeah, it is.

Quote:He is saying that the rules need to be changed to be more democratic and representative.  That would benefit EVERYONE, not just one party.

Yeah, change the rules because he doesn't like them.  He doesn't like them because they don't benefit who he prefers.  I don't remember him complaining about these rules during Obama's tenure, so your point comes off as rather weak.

Quote:And as we have pointed out many times already the rules have been changed multiple times over the last 200+ years.  US Senators were not even selected by popular vote of citizens until 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified.  The Constitution was 125 years old at that time.

As stated, the idea of changing these rules is recent.  It has only gained traction because of the last four years, hence the impetus for such cnage is pathetically transparent.

(10-06-2020, 08:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: we didn't operate very democratically for most of those 200 years. Nothing wrong with wanting government to work for the majority rather than just the minority. 

As Bel is abut to explain, this is by design.  We don't have a direct democracy by conscious decision, not by accident or happenstance.

(10-06-2020, 08:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of people get lost in the idea that the founding fathers did not like a democracy. Majority rule on its own is flawed and had been known to result in oppression of the minority. Our system is intended to protect the minority from the majority, but the issue is that our system has evolved into one in which the minority rules. A minority of the voters elected Donald Trump. A minority of the voters elected the Republicans in the Senate. As a result of this, they have filled court vacancies with ideologically aligned jurists, meaning jurists that align with a minority of the population.

So while our representative democracy was intended to protect the minority, instead we have minority rule.

You're 90% of the way there, but your final position is flawed, IMO.  Yes, the Framers absolutely did not want majority rule.  As Franklin famously stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."  But the minority does not rule and everything is working as designed.  The House is Dem because more people voted for them.  The Senate is GOP because more states have more GOP senators.  The POTUS is GOP because they won the Electoral College.  All the reasons and arguments for changing this doesn't change the basic point, that people want to change the rules we've operated under for hundreds of years because they don't like the result of the 2016 election.  This is childish and short sighted.  The system has worked for over two hundred years.  It's the oldest democratic republic in the world (is it the longest tenured contiguous government as well?).  It has functioned as is for a long time.  If you don't like that then change the government via a Constitutional Amendment.  Is that too hard, well guess what, that's by design.  I have a lot of respect for the intellect and acumen of both you and Bmore, but these calls for radical change ring hollow as sour grapes to me, and millions of others.

[BmorePat87]

(10-06-2020, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree to the former, not necessarily with the latter.  I would be very happy with changes in lobbying and the influence of money in politics.


Yeah, it is.



Yeah, change the rules because he doesn't like them.  He doesn't like them because they don't benefit who he prefers.  I don't remember him complaining about these rules during Obama's tenure, so your point comes off as rather weak.


As stated, the idea of changing these rules is recent.  It has only gained traction because of the last four years, hence the impetus for such cnage is pathetically transparent.


As Bel is abut to explain, this is by design.  We don't have a direct democracy by conscious decision, not by accident or happenstance.


You're 90% of the way there, but your final position is flawed, IMO.  Yes, the Framers absolutely did not want majority rule.  As Franklin famously stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."  But the minority does not rule and everything is working as designed.  The House is Dem because more people voted for them.  The Senate is GOP because more states have more GOP senators.  The POTUS is GOP because they won the Electoral College.  All the reasons and arguments for changing this doesn't change the basic point, that people want to change the rules we've operated under for hundreds of years because they don't like the result of the 2016 election.  This is childish and short sighted.  The system has worked for over two hundred years.  It's the oldest democratic republic in the world (is it the longest tenured contiguous government as well?).  It has functioned as is for a long time.  If you don't like that then change the government via a Constitutional Amendment.  Is that too hard, well guess what, that's by design.  I have a lot of respect for the intellect and acumen of both you and Bmore, but these calls for radical change ring hollow as sour grapes to me, and millions of others.

I'm not advocating for a direct democracy nor is anyone else. A majority rule representative democracy wouldn't qualify as direct. 

I think positive non radical changes, like the two of us debated a few weeks ago, would go a long way. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2020, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're 90% of the way there, but your final position is flawed, IMO.  Yes, the Framers absolutely did not want majority rule.  As Franklin famously stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."  But the minority does not rule and everything is working as designed.  The House is Dem because more people voted for them.  The Senate is GOP because more states have more GOP senators.  The POTUS is GOP because they won the Electoral College.  All the reasons and arguments for changing this doesn't change the basic point, that people want to change the rules we've operated under for hundreds of years because they don't like the result of the 2016 election.  This is childish and short sighted.  The system has worked for over two hundred years.  It's the oldest democratic republic in the world (is it the longest tenured contiguous government as well?).  It has functioned as is for a long time.  If you don't like that then change the government via a Constitutional Amendment.  Is that too hard, well guess what, that's by design.  I have a lot of respect for the intellect and acumen of both you and Bmore, but these calls for radical change ring hollow as sour grapes to me, and millions of others.

I am not sure how you can say we don't have minority rule when all three branches are rules by the minority of voters. I understand your point on how Congress works, but the Senate is the upper chamber and has more power. This is what allows the minority control of the judiciary, as well. Honestly, I have been against the idea of the EC for well over a decade at this point. Our system has been flawed for quite some time but there haven't been fixes put in place. The reason radical change seems so radical now is because those in power have avoided the incremental changes that would have been necessary to keep our democracy more representative.

For instance: the House of Representatives number was set in 1911 at 435 with a population of roughly 92 million. This resulted in a Congressperson representing around an average of 212,000 people. To have that same proportioned representation from 1911, we would have to increase the number of Representatives to 1,561. That's a radical change, no doubt, but one that could have been avoided had there been incremental fixes over time to allow for a more representative system to be put into place.

A system that allows the minority to rule is not working effectively. Even if it had been working for over 200 years (which it hasn't), then a situation like this should be an event that highlights the need for a readjustment. The height of democratic theory was not in 1789. We are continually improving on these systems. What was created was a radical system at the time and we need to not forget that. It was a grand experiment. We should continue to find ways to improve upon it just as the framers intended. Jefferson said himself he would see the need for each generation to affect change upon the system, and it's been too many generations since we have.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-23-2020, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think putting an age cap on it is kind of a good middle ground. It doesn't allow for a regular cycle like set terms would, but it doesn't allow for the unexpected, either.

After Trump contacted COVID and thinking of all the possibilities that could happen including his death combined with the thoughts that Biden may not serve out his full term because of health issues/death, I think having an age cap is definitely a good idea for presidential candidates, if not all elected officials. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 09:52 AM)PhilHos Wrote: After Trump contacted COVID and thinking of all the possibilities that could happen including his death combined with the thoughts that Biden may not serve out his full term because of health issues/death, I think having an age cap is definitely a good idea for presidential candidates, if not all elected officials. 

The issue I have with it for elected officials is that it should be up to the voting population to make that determination. For appointments like judges/justices, that aren't accountable to the citizenry, I think it is most important.

[GMDino]

I'm dropping this here because in a discussion about it and how people (white people) always "cared" about those things and fought against blacks having equal rights or women getting equal rights I posted the following thought about our country:

Quote:It is my understanding that this country was founded by men who wanted freedom. They felt they could not lead their lives the way they wanted under the rule of England.


Unfortunately that freedom was for...men. Specifically white men.

Then for the next 244 years we (slowly) expanded that "God given" freedom to others: women, minorities, homosexuals.

And every step of the way the people who wanted go without being oppressed and started a war to live that way fought it when other just wanted to be equal. Not better than...just equal.

Quote:--->We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.<---

It's just taken over two centuries to get closer to "all men" meaning "all citizens".

To Matt's point we have changed the country/government/constitution many, many, many times.   It's just that the resistance to change is always there by those who feel they will lose power.  Which I get.  But if the move is toward equality and being better I just don't understand the argument.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 10:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue I have with it for elected officials is that it should be up to the voting population to make that determination. For appointments like judges/justices, that aren't accountable to the citizenry, I think it is most important.

Fair enough.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 10:15 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Fair enough.

Yeah, I always view things with the lens of "will this take power away from the people?" If it does, then it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally has to be worth it for me to go along with it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2020, 08:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not advocating for a direct democracy nor is anyone else. A majority rule representative democracy wouldn't qualify as direct. 

I think positive non radical changes, like the two of us debated a few weeks ago, would go a long way. 

I've already stated why I don't like the idea of a national popular vote for POTUS, so I suppose no use rehashing that here.  As for tweaks, sure, as long as the tweeks aren't partisan.  I don't think the changes on the table for the Dems could be considered tweeks though.

(10-06-2020, 09:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not sure how you can say we don't have minority rule when all three branches are rules by the minority of voters. I understand your point on how Congress works, but the Senate is the upper chamber and has more power. This is what allows the minority control of the judiciary, as well. Honestly, I have been against the idea of the EC for well over a decade at this point. Our system has been flawed for quite some time but there haven't been fixes put in place. The reason radical change seems so radical now is because those in power have avoided the incremental changes that would have been necessary to keep our democracy more representative.

For instance: the House of Representatives number was set in 1911 at 435 with a population of roughly 92 million. This resulted in a Congressperson representing around an average of 212,000 people. To have that same proportioned representation from 1911, we would have to increase the number of Representatives to 1,561. That's a radical change, no doubt, but one that could have been avoided had there been incremental fixes over time to allow for a more representative system to be put into place.

Yeah, we discussed increasing the numbers of HoR reps, and I'd be fine with that.  It would actually likely result in more blue reps from red states and vice versa.  I know neither of us are in favor of 212K reps though. 

Quote:A system that allows the minority to rule is not working effectively. Even if it had been working for over 200 years (which it hasn't), then a situation like this should be an event that highlights the need for a readjustment. The height of democratic theory was not in 1789. We are continually improving on these systems. What was created was a radical system at the time and we need to not forget that. It was a grand experiment. We should continue to find ways to improve upon it just as the framers intended. Jefferson said himself he would see the need for each generation to affect change upon the system, and it's been too many generations since we have.

I don't think it does though.  In the Senate it absolutely can, but that's by design.  For POTUS it almost never does and the HoR works as intended, just with fewer reps than it probably should have.

I suppose my biggest issues with these changes is that they're only brought up by a party when the current system didn't work in their favor.  This is hardly surprising, but it taints the position, almost irrevocably for me.  If the Dems had advanced some reasonable changes when they took power in 2010, or the GPO in 2016 I'd have some respect for that.  As it is it comes off strongly as rigging the game in your favor on a  permanent basis and given out current level of polarization that would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

[BmorePat87]

(10-07-2020, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've already stated why I don't like the idea of a national popular vote for POTUS, so I suppose no use rehashing that here.  As for tweaks, sure, as long as the tweeks aren't partisan.  I don't think the changes on the table for the Dems could be considered tweeks though.

Proportional allocation of electoral votes rather than winner take all and the impossible to pass anti-gerrymandering amendment.  :andy:

[fredtoast]

(10-06-2020, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't remember him complaining about these rules during Obama's tenure, so your point comes off as rather weak.

Obama was elected by a majority of the voters.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Obama was elected by a majority of the voters.

No, he was elected by a majority in the Electoral College.  Doesn't change the point though, the EC was around then, with all the inherent issues it has today.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerf Wrote: I suppose my biggest issues with these changes is that they're only brought up by a party when the current system didn't work in their favor.  

Hard to complain about "minority rule" when there is no "minority rule"