02-21-2019, 01:51 AM
(02-21-2019, 01:24 AM)Benton Wrote: Intellectual and educated? Crap, don't make me take the low road here in regard to either one of those elections.
Regardless, that's not the way the framers, I think, intended for things to be. They were soldiers, farmers and, in many cases, scholars. But they weren't just some high brow bunch of dreamers that thought the common man didn't have a say.
Agreed. I was speaking to their original intent, not the current state of things. Regardless, they did not want the final say to be in the hands of the general populace, nor did they want to allow the majority to automatically dictate to the majority. This really can't be disputed.
Quote:As far as the majority, come on man. Public opinion and the 'right thing' don't always line up. Sometimes it takes legislation for the populace to realize the world isn't going to end. Hell, I live in a community that only two years ago went wet. Why? Because for decades the elected leaders said God would punish voters for ending prohibition.
Precisely! Majority rule is a fine idea in principle. This, of course, assumes that the majority are well meaning and informed people. This is often not the case. 50.00001% of the people should not have control over 49.99999% of the people. Checks and balances are inherent in our system for this exact reason.
Quote:But, end of the day, the majority of people should have a say in who represents them. Period. From there, if the person they elected doesn't legislate well, then voters have a choice. But just giving legislators carte blanche is never what was intended.
They do, they just don't get precisely proportional representation. This is why the House is based on population and Senate is not. A Federation cannot survive when each member is not equally represented in some fashion. Our system is far from perfect, I doubt we'll ever achieve a perfect one, but it strikes a nice balance between majority rule and limiting mob rule.
