Thomas wrote:au1929 wrote: Regarding the tyranny of the majority. Because they the, republicans, hold a majority in congress and as well control the White House they can shove anything they want other than that which is unconstitutional down the publics throat.
That's how a democracy works. If you think that compatibility with the constitution is an insufficient constraint, you must be believing that the American constitution is inadequate. Based on the last 250 years of history, I'm sceptical about that view.
Bit of funny logic, there.
Way Au puts his point is that, the way it works in this US democracy, the Republicans, even with a narrow majority, can do "anything they want" - and that therefore it's a good thing that, the way it works in this US democracy, there's also this fillibuster safeguard, to ensure that really controversial legislation needs a more substantial majority to be passed.
Now that makes sense to me.
In your reply, you say Au shouldn't complain about how the Republicans, even with a narrow majority, can do anything they want, because thats just how this US democracy works - end of story. But then there is this here fillibuster safeguard,
also part of how this US democracy works - but
that, according to you, is "a scandal".
So - lemme get this right - when Au objects to how element A works in this democracy, he is whining and should put up unless he knows of a better alternative to the American constitution; but when he then praises the fact that luckily, there is element B, too, you turn around and say, well wait - but how
element B works in this democracy is "a scandal".
<shakes head>
Anyway, I've been kind to you by adding "US" in front of "democracy" in the above. You actually wrote, "That's how a democracy works." But of course, in democracies that have proportional representation, a party would
not be able to pass whatever laws it wanted with a 48% share of the vote. But yeh, that's "how American [or British] democracy works", true. And thats probably why they came up with the fillibuster ;-).
Thomas wrote:au1929 wrote:It is obvious that even though they did not recieve a mandate from the electorate {lost the popular vote} they want to govern as if they do.
Tennis matches aren't won by the player who wins the most rallys. Football matches aren't won by the team who wins the most yards. And according to the US constitution, presidential elections aren't won by the candidate who wins the most votes. [..] the rule applies, however stupid it may be, and however little you may like the results.
I think the words "popular mandate" usually refer to a concept beyond "how the rules apply". One can win fair and square according to "how the rules apply" - and still be said to lack a popular mandate.
Again you use the argument "thats just how it works - if you dont like it, think of a better system" to respond to a a critical evaluation of how it does, indeed work. I don't get it.
Au didnt, I think, argue that "the rule doesnt apply" - just that it would have been better if it didn't! Acknowledgement of reality vs evaluation of reality. Yes, the rules of the game are the way they are, and thus the Bush administration came to power legally. But why should that stop anyone from pointing out that it lacks a mandate from the electorate, and that it would thus be more democratic for it to keep the opponents' opinion in mind slightly more than an all-out winner would have had to? No, it doesn't
need to, the rules don't oblige it to, but what's wrong with saying it would be better - or even, more democractic, to do so?
In general, since when do the rules of democracy the country has decided on philosophically equate with what we should consider "the most democratic"? You can live in a democracy and recognize it to be a democracy and still point out that some things could be done more democractically, no? To reply to such arguments with the, well, these are the rules of the game, and we/they won, so there, is almost Italgatoesque.
[edit:] Moreover, its kind of an ironic thing to do, considering that, just yesterday,
you were telling
me: "You appear to imply that a political action has to be illegal to merit a hullaballoo -- or a scandal, as you phrased it earlier. It doesn't." Well, there you go. Au and I and you just disagree about which of the perfectly legal bits nevertheless constitute a scandal - better leave the "that's just the way it works" argument out of it altogether.
