10-06-2020, 08:34 PM
(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.
