Broken Government

[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.