Saddam wasn't half bad....

I agree that it is not a perfect democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is not more perfect than unabating democracy. Although in my opinion it is not.

0 Replies

I wonder if it were put to a vote if the electoral college would withstand majority opinion. If in fact it did, then we would have an interesting issue. If the majority chooses something other than democracy, then is it still democratic?

0 Replies

There should be some way to eliminate the electoral college while limiting the big city's ability to dump on lesser populated areas. We don't have nearly enough laws. Why not enact a few that way?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Sure, democracy can have it's bumps, but the very idea of democracy is "tyranny of the majority".

Great. So lets get rid of that pesky Supreme Court. Why should 9 people get to have a vote that outweighs the popular vote of 200 million?

The idea of a democratic republic (which is what we live in) is that there are checks on that tyranny of the majority so that the majority is inhibited in using the power of government to quash the rights of the minority.

The EC is just one of many checks on tyranny of any majority (the Judicial branch is another).

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The majority is supposed to have their way. Every man's vote is supposed to be equal.

More silliness. So those laws that prohibited blacks from eating in the same room with whites or going to "white shcools" should have been left in place? More people voted for those laws than voted against them! Majority rules!

Every mans vote is equeal as long as it doesn't infringe on someone elses rights (within reason as established in law). At that point the vote is worth nothing.

0 Replies

Majority don't rule in cases like Jim Crow. Ask the Supreme Court.

0 Replies

Exactly my point edgar! Wink

0 Replies

You do have good points, Fishn'. If people were generally considerate and good, then majority rule would be ideal, I think. But then again, you could say that about any government. If Hitler had been benevolent and accepting, then he would have made a great dictator.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Sure, democracy can have it's bumps, but the very idea of democracy is "tyranny of the majority".

Great. So lets get rid of that pesky Supreme Court. Why should 9 people get to have a vote that outweighs the popular vote of 200 million?

The judicial system is not a democracy. The elections of our representatives purport to be.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
The majority is supposed to have their way. Every man's vote is supposed to be equal.

More silliness. So those laws that prohibited blacks from eating in the same room with whites or going to "white shcools" should have been left in place? More people voted for those laws than voted against them! Majority rules!

This is a moral issue that is explored on some other threads about morality and public opinion.

My personal opinion on the morality of the racism that was popular in the past has nothing to do with democracy.

I am but one opinion in the democracy.

I want my vote counted at the same value as everyone else's. And sometimes this means that what I think is right will be superceded by the will of the majority.

That sucks, but that's Democracy.

0 Replies

If people were generally good and considerate we could easily halve the size of government (Federal, state and local). Smile

But we acept that they aren't and we build a government system to handle things and then we build checks into that system of government to ensure that the power of government can't be abused by a simple majority. The EC is just one of those checks.

It's not a simple problem with simple solutions. The exact same issue exists in the Congress but you don't hear many people saying we should disband Congress because of it. i.e. based on the latest census each U.S. House member represents an AVERAGE of 646,952 citzens. But that's isn't the number of people each rep actually represents. Some represent more people than that, some less. But since each of us are only represented by 1 member of the House some of our voices are watered down while others are strengthened. Why should an area with 600,000 people get one Rep when an area with 700,000 also only gets one?

It's not equeal I tell ya! Very Happy

0 Replies

The issue of representation in such bodies has always been something I have had a problem with.

You can see it in Brazil, for example, where the backwater rural areas have a disproportionate share of representation.

I have just as much a problem with that disproportionate representation. But I don't wish to "disband Congress" but merely to change the system to be more representational.

The congressmen can be alloted a value for their votes that correspond to the number of people they represent.

Simple that one.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The judicial system is not a democracy. The elections of our representatives purport to be.

But the judicial system IS a part of our system of government (just like the EC) and as such, it has the power to over-ride everyone elses vote. If we're a democracy as you claim then why should the vote of a judge be given more weight than the will of the majority?

Craven de Kere wrote:

This is a moral issue that is explored on some other threads about morality and public opinion.

My personal opinion on the morality of the racism that was popular in the past has nothing to do with democracy.

But it's more more than just a moral issue. It's also an issue of law and the right to vote and have your vote mean something. Those laws were put in place through that very same democratic system you say you want. They are classic example of a tryanny of the majority and that majority abused the power of the government to exclude others from full participation in society.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
The judicial system is not a democracy. The elections of our representatives purport to be.

But teh judicial system IS a part of our system of government (just like the EC) and as such, it has the power to over-ride everyone elses vote. If we're a democracy as you claim then why should the vote of a judge be goiven more weight than the will of the majority?

Damn, I was kinda hoping youd contradict my claim that the judicial system is not a democracy by countering that it is because society grants those people their power. Thnat way, you'd be making my case for me.

But it didn't work.

Anywho, I do think it is different because the supreme court is decided upon by a drmocratic (could be more democratic) process and those judges represent the people.

Some country bumpkin with a more valuable vote than mine does not in any way represent anything but his own opinions.

But my ultimate goal is to do away with representation at all, and have each issue decided by vote by any interested party.

It's not yet practical but eventually I bet it will be through the use of technology.

Quote:

But it's more more than just a moral issue. It's also an issue of law and the right to vote and have your vote mean something. Those laws were put in place through that very same democratic system you say you want. They are classic example of a tryanny of the majority and that majority abused the power of the government to exclude others from full participation in society.

Sometimes the majority is wrong. This is an inherent flaw in democracy.

0 Replies

The Senate is based on the same principle as the Electoral college, and I think it does a fine enough job of misrepresentation. I don't see why any distortion needs to creep into the presidential elections.

0 Replies

We can separate the judicial issues from the electoral college issue. Call it arbitrary, but a good move. I have issues with the judges, but don't see why they can't be dealt with seperately. I like for my vote to be equal to the vote of somebody living 30 miles outside Utah's smallest town.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

We can separate the judicial issues from the electoral college issue. Call it arbitrary, but a good move. I have issues with the judges, but don't see why they can't be dealt with seperately.

I disagree. I don't think they can be easily seperated because the EC Representation, the Congressional Representation and the Judicial system all serve as small cogs to achieve the same goal. They all play parts in our whole system of "checks and balances". When you dislodge one cog the system is thrown out of kilter giving more weight to another cog. Then someone comes up with another "patch" to the system to try and block one type of abuse and in doing so they create another and so on. Our existing system is the result of 235 years of tinkering in exactly that way. There are few, if any real malfunctions in the operation of the EC. Most of the people that say they want to scrap it want to do so for philisophical reasons more than practical reasons. The Judicial system is a much greater infringement on the idea of "one man, one vote" but you hear very few people saying that it should be dumped.

The only way to address it, IMO, is to build a perfected system from the ground up and scrap the existing system entirely. I don't beleive you can do it piecemeal.

0 Replies

You really think scrapping the EC is that big of a deal fishin?

It rarely ever makes a difference, except in the symbolism people attach to it I think it is a simple cog to alter.

0 Replies

We can then have the checks and balances while voting one man one equal vote.

0 Replies

Checks and balances are good if they are necessary, but the electoral college is designed to check directly on democracy. Something like the Senate or Judicial system does not in fact check directly on majority opinion, but on elected representatives who should reflect that opinion. I believe the electoral college is in fact a different issue as there is no middle man--it directly distorts the voice of the people, rather than being a check or balance set up against distortion.

0 Replies

Saddam wasn't half bad....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know