Stack the Senate instead of the Court

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 03:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I support the Constitution of the United States (I've sworn an oath to defend it multiple times) and don't want to change the rules just because things didn't go my way.  The fact that you think that is representative of impropriety says a lot about you and nothing about me.

It seems the only argument you have is that I want to change the rules to help "my side".  I have already proven that is not true because my proposed rule changes would work the same for both sides, and history proves that the majority is constantly shifting back and forth.

The fact is I am arguing AGAINST minority rule in a democracy.  So what I have on my side is that in a democracy a minority should not be able to rule over a majority. 

The ONLY thing you have on your side is that the current system helps your side.  You can't argue that we have never changed our system before and you can't argue that it is working properly now. You value the power of your party over the theory of democracy.

[CKwi88]

(10-14-2020, 04:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think that when people resist change using the premise that "The US is great just the way it always was" makes no sense.

The country and government and the constitution have changed repeatedly over the years. 

It's just fear that keeps them back.  Either fear of loss of power or fear of change or both.  But it's silly IMHO.

I always imagine that their ancestors were probably all like "whaddaya mean we're not gonna count blacks as three fifths? Our constitution was designed that way!"

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact is I am arguing AGAINST minority rule in a democracy.  So what I have on my side is that in a democracy a minority should not be able to rule over a majority. 

But America is not a democracy.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 05:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But America is not a democracy.

I say it is.

democracy

[dəˈmäkrəsē]


NOUN

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
   

What makes you claim that it is not?  And what part of your definition makes it proper for a minority to rule over a majority?

[BmorePat87]

Some states should be divided. We should also increase the number of members of the House to like 800-900.

This is unrelated to political ideology.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It seems the only argument you have is that I want to change the rules to help "my side".  I have already proven that is not true because my proposed rule changes would work the same for both sides, and history proves that the majority is constantly shifting back and forth.

Whether that's the case or not the timing of the propositions, coupled with the current climate, absolutely cast any such proposed change in starkly partisan terms.

Quote:The fact is I am arguing AGAINST minority rule in a democracy.  So what I have on my side is that in a democracy a minority should not be able to rule over a majority. 

Then you're literally against one of the founding principles of our country.  That seems to be going around a lot nowadays.  The founders were very explicit about their fear of the tyranny of the majority.

Quote:The ONLY thing you have on your side is that the current system helps your side.

 
I don't have a side, except for a consistent and logical argument.  I find both extremes repellent.  But you are slightly correct in that I find the current trends on the left to be worse and more pervasive.  You're providing an excellent example(s).

Quote:You can't argue that we have never changed our system before and you can't argue that it is working properly now.

I can't argue the former, no, but anyone could make an argument for the latter.  You wouldn't agree with it, but that doesn't mean an argument couldn't be made.

Quote:You value the power of your party over the theory of democracy.

Which party is that?  I'm a registered independent.  If you're referring to who I've voted for, I've never once cast my ballot for a Republican candidate, although I would have enthusiastically done so for McCain in 2000.  Stick to trying to make points instead of slapping labels on people. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-14-2020, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I say it is.

democracy

[dəˈmäkrəsē]


NOUN

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
   

What makes you claim that it is not?  And what part of your definition makes it proper for a minority to rule over a majority?

It's a silly argument you hear a lot, and one which, in attempt to cling to the founding fathers, ignores what they actually wrote on the terms "democracy" and "republic".

Madison refers to a republic as "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place" (Federalist no. 10) "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior... It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified" (Federalist no. 39). This is what most people in 2020 consider to be a representative democracy. 

He refers to democracy as "pure democracy" and being a government with only a few citizens who all vote on all issues (our modern term being "direct democracy")

Other founding fathers saw no need to distinguish between Democracy and Republic, noting that a "pure democracy" didn't exist anywhere and couldn't exist anywhere. Our longest serving Chief Justice, John Marshall, said that the Constitution created a "well regulated Democracy" with safeguards for our "representative government".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 07:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's a silly argument you hear a lot, and one which, in attempt to cling to the founding fathers, ignores what they actually wrote on the terms "democracy" and "republic".

Madison refers to a republic as "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place" (Federalist no. 10) "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior... It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified" (Federalist no. 39). This is what most people in 2020 consider to be a representative democracy. 

He refers to democracy as "pure democracy" and being a government with only a few citizens who all vote on all issues (our modern term being "direct democracy")

Other founding fathers saw no need to distinguish between Democracy and Republic, noting that a "pure democracy" didn't exist anywhere and couldn't exist anywhere. Our longest serving Chief Justice, John Marshall, said that the Constitution created a "well regulated Democracy" with safeguards for our "representative government".

Indeed.  Referring to it as a democracy or a republic are both correct and acceptable.  The correct term would be a democratic republic, but any argument with any of the three is really a semantic parsing of hairs.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 07:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whether that's the case or not the timing of the propositions, coupled with the current climate, absolutely cast any such proposed change in starkly partisan terms.

The timing is simply due to the fact that rule by the minority is happening right now.

We could not complain about it when Obama was in office because he won the popular vote.

(10-14-2020, 07:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you're literally against one of the founding principles of our country.  That seems to be going around a lot nowadays.  The founders were very explicit about their fear of the tyranny of the majority.

I don't think you understand what the founding fathers were talking about.  Please provide a link to any of them saying that a minority should rule over and control a majority.  Or at least provide a link to the context of when they addressed the problem of  "the tyranny of th majority"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 08:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The timing is simply due to the fact that rule by the minority is happening right now.

You can make that argument, but you can also make the exact same argument I did.  Neither can be discounted summarily.

Quote:We could not complain about it when Obama was in office because he won the popular vote.

First off, who is "we"?  Secondly you're actually aiding my side of this argument with this statement.

Quote:I don't think you understand what the founding fathers were talking about. 

No?

Quote:Please provide a link to any of them saying that a minority should rule over and control a majority.  Or at least provide a link to the context of when they addressed the problem of  "the tyranny of th majority"

Sure.  It's a central theme of The Federalist Papers.  James Madison was probably the biggest advocate of protection against the tyranny of the majority.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110431595

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#The_Federalist_Papers_and_ratification_debates

In fact the checks and balances of our current system, that you are advocating to dismantle, are specifically designed to prevent this type of abuse.  If the majority of US citizens voted to expel all illegal immigrants with no process or debate would you be in favor of this?  Your position on majority rule would indicate that you would, but somehow I doubt you, personally, would approve of this and would instead look to the judicial system as a break on this kind of action.  Essentially, you appear to be in favor of pure majority rule because you perceive yourself to be part of that majority.  If you did not then your position on this topic would almost certainly be different.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 08:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The timing is simply due to the fact that rule by the minority is happening right now.

We could not complain about it when Obama was in office because he won the popular vote.



I don't think you understand what the founding fathers were talking about.  Please provide a link to any of them saying that a minority should rule over and control a majority.  Or at least provide a link to the context of when they addressed the problem of  "the tyranny of th majority"

Didn't you just start a thread because this is what you assert they did? 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-14-2020, 04:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: How many non-soldier jobs does that create?   I assume there is a boost in the economy from more people there but vs what Benton said it seems like small apples.  Albeit apples that you personally would be in favor of.

I’ll always listen to new ideas, but they really have to convince me of why it would be better that way, and just just an advantage for you politically.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-14-2020, 08:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The timing is simply due to the fact that rule by the minority is happening right now.

We could not complain about it when Obama was in office because he won the popular vote.



I don't think you understand what the founding fathers were talking about.  Please provide a link to any of them saying that a minority should rule over and control a majority.  Or at least provide a link to the context of when they addressed the problem of  "the tyranny of th majority"

Both of Clinton terms would be ruled by minority then because he never got a majority of the vote. The first time he missed by a lot.

Edit: Not sure how the Senate was at the time. The only reason I can imagine Gorsuch didn’t get more Dem votes is because they were pissed otherwise I would think he would have had a majority as you are defining it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 09:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Both of Clinton terms would be ruled by minority then because he never got a majority of the vote. The first time he missed by a lot.

Excellent point.  I'm sure there will be a spin about three candidates dividing the vote, but that won't factually take away anything from your point at all.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 09:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Both of Clinton terms would be ruled by minority then because he never got a majority of the vote. The first time he missed by a lot. Not sure how the Senate was at the time.

(10-14-2020, 09:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent point.  I'm sure there will be a spin about three candidates dividing the vote, but that won't factually take away anything from your point at all.

As a bureaucrat, I appreciate it. However, in our current election system a plurality is as good as a majority. So while Clinton may not have had the majority, he did have the plurality, which is good enough. It shouldn't be, but it is.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-14-2020, 09:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent point.  I'm sure there will be a spin about three candidates dividing the vote, but that won't factually take away anything from your point at all.

Yeah if we ever had a legit third party nobody would ever get a majority.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-14-2020, 09:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

As a bureaucrat, I appreciate it. However, in our current election system a plurality is as good as a majority. So while Clinton may not have had the majority, he did have the plurality, which is good enough. It shouldn't be, but it is.

Oh I understand and I’m fine with it but it’s still a minority.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 09:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I understand and I’m fine with it but it’s still a minority.

or is it...

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 09:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I understand and I’m fine with it but it’s still a minority.

Absolutely. Which is why we should move to popularly elected via ranked choice voting. We will never have another president elected by less than a majority of the people, again.

[CJD]

DC statehood is pretty much exclusively held up because it would give the Democrats a free 2 Senator advantage and the Republicans don't want that. Their arguments are cloaked with "but then the federal branches would be reliant on a state for protection which may or may not go against the priorities and needs of an independent state government." This could probably be rectified with statutes and laws to specify certain federal requirements of the state, but we don't talk about those.

Of course, as usual, Donald Trump said the quiet part out loud and admitted it was just about Congressional seats for Democrats. As an aside, for all the damage Donald Trump has done to our country, he has really laid bare the Republicans' true motivations and beliefs with all of his telling on himself and his party. That should be helpful down the line, as his movement dies out, leaving just the "normal Republicans" to answer for all his misdeeds. But I digress.

Puerto Rico is somewhat similar for the reasons that many stateside politicians oppose statehood, however there are actually campaigns there by the citizens of Puerto Rico to remain a territory rather than a state (mostly to do with how taxes are applied to citizens and businesses there, with a fear that a lot of companies that currently enjoy huge tax benefits would leave the island if statehood brought additional taxes with it), so at least it isn't 100% politically motivated removal of rights by the Republicans.