10-07-2020, 12:12 PM
(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.
