The Senate is a highly undemocratic institution

[Cain]

Here's the problem: The Senate is a highly undemocratic institution.

I forget the numbers, but I recall reading an article saying Senate Republicans represents one-hundred X number of million people, and Democrats, who were in the minority at the time, represented 200 X number of million people (upper 100 million vs. lower 200 million). That's crazy.

I am not necessarily philosophically opposed to the idea of filibustering, but the Republican "majority" was an illusion, and we need to apply democratic principles of one person, one vote to the Senate.

Split from: Never Mind What We Said. That Was Then. This Is Now. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137454)

[Skeptic]

Here's the problem: The Senate is a highly undemocratic institution.

Absolutely correct. That's the way it's supposed to be.

The USA is NOT a democracy -- it is a REPUBLIC. It deliberately created a balance between proportional representation (in the House of Representatives) and one where each state of the Union has the same number of senators (the Senate).

The idea of this bicameral legistlature is to let the majority have more power while not allowing it to overwhelm the minority. The senate is there precisely to make sure the larger (in terms of population) states of the union do not overwhelm the smaller, less populous ones.

Right now the less populous, more rural states tend to be Republican, and the large, more populous ones tend to be democratic. In the past, the smaller states used to be Democratic, while the more populous, larger states tended to be Republican.

In neither case should the senate have been changed just to make it "more democratic" and not "crazily out of touch with the will of the people". All such statements really mean is, "let the current majority overwhelm the current minority! I don't care, because right now the majority I LIKE happens to be in power!"

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Absolutely correct. That's the way it's supposed to be.

The USA is NOT a democracy -- it is a REPUBLIC. It deliberately created a balance between proportional representation (in the House of Representatives) and one where each state of the Union has the same number of senators (the Senate).

The idea of this bicameral legistlature is to let the majority have more power while not allowing it to overwhelm the minority. The senate is there precisely to make sure the larger (in terms of population) states of the union do not overwhelm the smaller, less populous ones.

Right now the less populous, more rural states tend to be Republican, and the large, more populous ones tend to be democratic. In the past, the smaller states used to be Democratic, while the more populous, larger states tended to be Republican.

In neither case should the senate have been changed just to make it "more democratic" and not "crazily out of touch with the will of the people". All such statements really mean is, "let the current majority overwhelm the current minority! I don't care, because right now the majority I LIKE happens to be in power!"

Oh noes, the smaller states will be overwhelmed! Heavens to Betsy!

The idea that democracy has to be inefficient to be good is silly. Furthermore, the idea that it should be so based on geography is even dumber. The government is made for the people, not invisible entities called States. And thanks for reading my mind.

[jsfisher]

The government is made for the people, not invisible entities called States.

The Constitution seems to say otherwise.

[Cain]

Absolutely correct. That's the way it's supposed to be.

The USA is NOT a democracy -- it is a REPUBLIC.

Oh God, it's you. Of course you believe such nonsense. After all, it's the natural right of the "Chosen People" to oppress the Palestinian hordes.

Your argument -- such as it is -- is not only a non sequitur, it's not very good. I don't think you know what a republic is. Supposing our Senate was a more democratic -- and dare I say "civilized" institution -- would we somehow be less of a republic? Would the republic be under threat? Was the 17th Amendment a threat to republicanism? Do you even know what a republic is?

It deliberately created a balance between proportional representation (in the House of Representatives) and one where each state of the Union has the same number of senators (the Senate).

The idea of this bicameral legistlature is to let the majority have more power while not allowing it to overwhelm the minority. The senate is there precisely to make sure the larger (in terms of population) states of the union do not overwhelm the smaller, less populous ones.

Do you know why? The U.S. Constitution is not some grand philosophical document from on high? It was borne out of political compromises from the time, and in the case of our bicameral legislature, the "Great Compromise." There were other compromises: ending the slave trade in 1808 for no export tax. Counting blacks as 3/5 of a person for census purposes. Stop your foolishness.


Right now the less populous, more rural states tend to be Republican, and the large, more populous ones tend to be democratic. In the past, the smaller states used to be Democratic, while the more populous, larger states tended to be Republican.

How is this at all relevant or meaningful? Who cares about the political parties?

[quote[In neither case should the senate have been changed just to make it "more democratic" and not "crazily out of touch with the will of the people". All such statements really mean is, "let the current majority overwhelm the current minority! I don't care, because right now the majority I LIKE happens to be in power!"[/QUOTE]

Total B.S.

I would like to know why conservatives are enamored with being ruled by a minority.

[dudalb]

Man, Washinton ,Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers were DUMB.
We need to get rid of the Consitution, and have a new one written by a group of Cool,Hip, Internet Revolutionaries.

[dudalb]

The Constitution seems to say otherwise.


TSuka Buddha seems to want an overwhelmingly powerful federal government. Maybe why he seems to dislike the Constituion is because it would get in the way of the political and economic agenda he wants.

[Cain]

Man, Washinton ,Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers were DUMB. We need to get rid of the Consitution, and have a new one written by a group of Cool,Hip, Internet Revolutionaries.

Weak sarcasm coupled with a weaker argument -- or what I expect from you.

You want to cast the debate in other terms: The founding fathers are DUMB. We need to replace the Constitution with "Internet Revolutions." Try to engage the arguments at hand, if you can. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," originally proposed a bicameral legislature based on population. Politicians then were still politicians, often motivated by self-interest (despite the lies your teacher told you).

The character of the country has changed since the late 1700s. Indeed, it changed quite some time ago when Lincoln, "the Father of the Republican Party" as John McCain likes to say, won the Civil War. This IS the United States.

[rwguinn]

Weak sarcasm coupled with a weaker argument -- or what I expect from you.

You want to cast the debate in other terms: The founding fathers are DUMB. We need to replace the Constitution with "Internet Revolutions." Try to engage the arguments at hand, if you can. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," originally proposed a bicameral legislature based on population. Politicians then were still politicians, often motivated by self-interest (despite the lies your teacher told you).

The character of the country has changed since the late 1700s. Indeed, it changed quite some time ago when Lincoln, "the Father of the Republican Party" as John McCain likes to say, won the Civil War. This IS the United States.
And as such, the controls in the legislature help, in conjunction with the Judicial branch, prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority" by helping protect the Rights of EVERYBODY, not just the plurality

[Upchurch]

but the Republican "majority" was an illusion
Regardless of the number of people represented, each Senator's vote is worth the same. As the Republicans, at one time, had the majority of those votes, the had the majority. In reality.

You may not like it, but reality doean't really care about our feelings.

[Cain]

And as such...

And as such what? What's your jumping off point? Suppose we transform the Senate into a democratic institution, is the threat of tyranny more likely? You seem to be blabbing about a different type of majoritarian tyranny, one that lacks even the basic dignity of drawing its authority from the people. Your tyranny of the many is the tyranny of smaller states. In a republic, the people are sovereign.

What's amusing is that we can easily re-write this story in conservative terms, extolling virtues of excellence, and merit. You have big states and small states. Why? In some cases because some states are just better than others. A lot of people prefer to live in America than pick-some-dumb-third-world country because, well, America is better. America's the best. Similarly, a lot of people choose to live in New York and California because they're dreamers and they want to make something of themselves. They want to succeed. Yet, in America, right now, tax dollars flow from the populous states to the not-so-populous states. You're taking our tax dollars for dumb pet projects and stupid Homeland Security protocols (as if any self-respecting terrorist is going to attack ****in' Wyoming).

Upchurch wrote:
Regardless of the number of people represented, each Senator's vote is worth the same.

I suppose you're trying to make some show of intellectual independence, but you're looking uncharacteristically foolish. Yes, each Senator has an equal vote even though some represent lots of people while others represent relatively few people. That's, um, the thrust of my the moral argument -- that this state of affairs is unjust.

As the Republicans, at one time, had the majority of those votes, the had the majority. In reality. You may not like it, but reality doean't really care about our feelings.

I hope you didn't scratch yourself too bad from falling flat on your face with this one.
I suppose we could go back to census data when three-fifths was still in effect and claim the "reality" is that government only recognizes X number of blacks. We may not like it, but we can't deny that reality. OoooooK. :rolleyes: The trouble is you're not making a relevant moral argument, and what's doubly insulting you're claiming to offer some reality-sensitive observation.

The whole point is that if you have, say, 55 Republicans representing 170 million people and 45 Democrats representing 220 million people, then there's a moral disconnect. I'm interested in learning how such an institution helps stave off tyranny.

[jsfisher]

The whole point is that if you have, say, 55 Republicans representing 170 million people and 45 Democrats representing 220 million people, then there's a moral disconnect. I'm interested in learning how such an institution helps stave off tyranny.

Fortunately, that's not the case. We have 100 senators (of some mixture of political parties) representing 50 states. Two senators per state seems balanced to me.

[Upchurch]

Whatever.

Cain, your rant is off-topic. Kindly take it to another thread, please.

[Texas]

The whole point is that if you have, say, 55 Republicans representing 170 million people and 45 Democrats representing 220 million people, then there's a moral disconnect. I'm interested in learning how such an institution helps stave off tyranny.
You have that with the House. The number of House seats are based on state population because the House was set up to be the people's representatives. The Senate was not even an elected body until the 17th Amendment was ratified 1n 1913, Senators were appointed by State legislatures, because it was envisioned as a deliberative body that acted as a brake on rash action from the House. It is now an elective office BUT it is still supposed to be a deliberative body. You have your proportionate representation in the House and you have a check in place in the Senate to protect the smaller states from their minority status in the House.

[Cain]

Fortunately, that's not the case. We have 100 senators (of some mixture of political parties) representing 50 states. Two senators per state seems balanced to me.

Oh, it "seems balanced" to "jsfisher" -- what in holy god **** was I thinking. Yeah, 100, a nice round number. Jesus, it all makes perfect sense now.

Texas wrote:
You have that with the House. The number of House seats are based on state population because the House was set up to be the people's representatives. The Senate was not even an elected body until the 17th Amendment was ratified 1n 1913, Senators were appointed by State legislatures, because it was envisioned as a deliberative body that acted as a brake on rash action from the House.

And the progressives from early in the last century thought they were SOOOOO much smarter than the DUMB founding fathers. Dudalb, your fatuous aside now recalls what Douglas said to Lincoln in those famous debates:

Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the Government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions...

Returning to our normal programming, the argument seems to be that this "deliberative body" serves as a check against its representative counterpart (which is restless and unthinking, like the masses):

It is now an elective office BUT it is still supposed to be a deliberative body. You have your proportionate representation in the House and you have a check in place in the Senate to protect the smaller states from their minority status in the House.

The House of Representatives is also ********. It's not representative because the vast majority of those districts are comically gerrymandered. Politicians are choosing voters, rather than voters choosing politicians. We have, what, two dozen competitive elections in a given year?

I'm interested in learning what sort of protections has the Senate been responsible for? Can you point to any examples?

I do wonder if Republicans would be in favor of an affirmative action-quota-style legislature to protect racial minorities -- actual people, not imaginaries -- for the all too real oppression they have historically experienced. We allot a certain number of seats to blacks, latinos, and Native Americans. This need not be representative -- we can give 54% of the seats to Native Americans. The Senate is already arbitrary enough, despite magical numbers like "100."

For some reason I think conservatives would immediately dismiss that idea out of hand. Maybe a few will concede that it would have once been a good idea, but not now in 2009.

If we are wedded to this idea of a deliberative body, then maybe we should seriously reconsider the Founding Fathers' original intention of not having the Senate elected by the people. We need to insulate this Patrician institution from the rabble; if our leaders are held accountable to hoi polloi rather than their own noble conscience, you're going to have lowest common denominator politics.

Upchurch.

Yeah, whatever. The sad fact -- the reality -- is that there is no decent argument for the Senate in its present form.

ETA: Open question- I really want to know what the large states are going to do to oppress the small states. What are your specific fears?

[jsfisher]

Oh, it "seems balanced" to "jsfisher" -- what in holy god **** was I thinking. Yeah, 100, a nice round number. Jesus, it all makes perfect sense now.

I have no idea what you were thinking, but I am glad I could be of service untangling the mystery for you of why the US has a senate. A lot of people get confused simply because they want it to be something it isn't.

You're welcome, by the way.

[jsfisher]

ETA: Open question- I really want to know what the large states are going to do to oppress the small states. What are your specific fears?

Excellent question hidden behind that straw man you erected. Maybe you'd consider starting a new thread with just such a question so as to not derail this one.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Constitution seems to say otherwise.

Actually that was an allusion to one of the arguments made during the writing of it.

[pipelineaudio]

I live in a state where the majority was able to dominate the minority through ballot measures (aka elected representatives being too chicken to do their job so they hand it to the mobs), precisely the thing the constitution wanted to prevent

it SUCKS

Run away democracy is exactly the same as mob rule, not a happy way to live when you fall out of favor with the conformist drones

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Man, Washinton ,Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers were DUMB.
We need to get rid of the Consitution, and have a new one written by a group of Cool,Hip, Internet Revolutionaries.

OMG LOLZ. Yay for a completely irrational argument.

And Jefferson wasn't even there and only argued for the Bill of Rights to be added.

TSuka Buddha seems to want an overwhelmingly powerful federal government. Maybe why he seems to dislike the Constituion is because it would get in the way of the political and economic agenda he wants.

No, I prefer a unitarian, unicameral government with proportional representation. And I don't see how that would help my political agenda, seeing as I am by far a minority in the things I care about (Gay marriage, health care, education, energy), and the economy is of the things I don't care much about seeing as I don't have an agenda to speak of.

I just like my governmental philosophy to be based on some premises, and not just hodge-podged together with what they had at the time and however they could get people to agree to it and then worshiping that as a new Revelation from the Lord.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I live in a state where the majority was able to dominate the minority through ballot measures (aka elected representatives being too chicken to do their job so they hand it to the mobs), precisely the thing the constitution wanted to prevent

it SUCKS

Run away democracy is exactly the same as mob rule, not a happy way to live when you fall out of favor with the conformist drones

Ha ha, see, this is what our Fathers thought! The common unclean filth are too stupid to vote as freely as us educated people! Why, give them equal say and they'll vote to turn our mansions into common housing and make beer free to all! I say the blacks would turn us into slaves!

This is the original elitism.

C'mon, any examples of proportional representation leading to "mobocracy"?

[Upchurch]

Cain: Stop derailing the thread, please.

[lionking]

Cain: Stop derailing the thread, please.
Christ, report him then. His contribution is thread drift, if that, in my opinion.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I take it neither you nor Cain has heard of a little something called Prop 8

[lionking]

I've heard of Prop 8. So?

[KoihimeNakamura]

By you I meant Tsukasa, my apologies.

[WildCat]

And as such what? What's your jumping off point? Suppose we transform the Senate into a democratic institution, is the threat of tyranny more likely?
So basically you want another House of Representatives? Why don't you just abolish the Senate entirely?

What's amusing is that we can easily re-write this story in conservative terms, extolling virtues of excellence, and merit. You have big states and small states. Why? In some cases because some states are just better than others. A lot of people prefer to live in America than pick-some-dumb-third-world country because, well, America is better. America's the best. Similarly, a lot of people choose to live in New York and California because they're dreamers and they want to make something of themselves. They want to succeed. Yet, in America, right now, tax dollars flow from the populous states to the not-so-populous states. You're taking our tax dollars for dumb pet projects and stupid Homeland Security protocols (as if any self-respecting terrorist is going to attack ****in' Wyoming).
And there's that California-elitist self-righteous class-warfaring Cain we all know!

Why don't you just lobby to have California secede from the union? Then you won't have all those flyover country hicks to worry about. You know, the ones that produce the food you eat?

[Cain]

Excellent question hidden behind that straw man you erected. Maybe you'd consider starting a new thread with just such a question so as to not derail this one.

What straw man? Before this thread was split someone else used the word "tyranny." I would really like to know how the large states will tyrannize the small states, and how it's any different than the current tyranny of the many: the small states thwarting and extorting the large states.


Wildcat:
Why don't you just lobby to have California secede from the union?

I am not unopposed to regionalism. After all, California's one of the ten biggest economies in the world.


Then you won't have all those flyover country hicks to worry about. You know, the ones that produce the food you eat?

Not that it matters in a globalized world... but California is also the leading agricultural state :rolleyes: It's also home of Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson, Richard Nixon, and Prop. 13. Our governor is Ahnold, and despite popular misperception, we're plenty enough conservative.

I do not personally mind if California tax dollars, on net, flow of the state, especially if it's to help the poorer states build their infrastructure. The earlier Harrison Bergeron style argument appeals directly to the elitist sentiments of the libertarian-Republicans on these forums -- the sort of people who probably resent rural electrification and Great Society programs aimed relieving poverty in Appalachia.

I live in a state where the majority was able to dominate the minority through ballot measures (aka elected representatives being too chicken to do their job so they hand it to the mobs), precisely the thing the constitution wanted to prevent

Pipelineaudio:
I live in a state where the majority was able to dominate the minority through ballot measures (aka elected representatives being too chicken to do their job so they hand it to the mobs), precisely the thing the constitution wanted to prevent

Really? The Constitution was designed to protect states from internal democratic pressure -- "mobocracy"? Really? Can you identify the article(s) in the Constitution with that aim?

The Constitution, borne out of fears of revolution (e.g., Shays' Rebellion) moved the country toward greater centralization. States lost autonomy to print their own currency, engage in tariff wars and so on. Frickin' jackasses need to read their Constitution along with Supreme court cases from McCulloch v. Maryland to incorporation theory and Gitlow v. New York.

-----
People forget the Constitution was the result of elite compromises. Hell, when Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence years earlier he had language condemning King George for imposing the "wicked" institution of slavery upon the colonies. That was dropped because some states had slave-based economies.

Anyway, I am still interested in learning how a democratically reformed or abolished Senate will lead to larger states "tyrannizing" smaller states.

[Skeptic]

he USA is NOT a democracy -- it is a REPUBLIC.
Oh God, it's you. Of course you believe such nonsense.

Well, so did Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and a few other people. Buuuuuuut, what the heck did THEY know?

After all, it's the natural right of the "Chosen People" to oppress the Palestinian hordes.

Huh? I believe the USA is a Republic because I'm a Jew?

That's a new one. Paranoid today, aren't we?

And what does America being a Republic or a Democracy have to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, anyway?

Nothing -- but, in the "progressive" camp, shouting "zionist!", like shouting "racist!", long ago ceased to have any meaning; it is just an ejaculation meaning, roughly, "you disagree with me and that makes me angry! Shame on you!".

[KoihimeNakamura]

Whilw it may be the result of elitist trades (Although, I'm dying to know how the word elitist is useful there), they were there for a reason.

Namely, if you want proof of larger states ruling over smaller states, look at the electoral college map.

[Cain]

Well, so did Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and a few other people. Buuuuuuut, what the heck did THEY know?

No... you don't know what a republic is. You're contrasting terms without having the slightest understanding of their definitions. Communist countries called themselves republics.

Huh? I believe the USA is a Republic because I'm a Jew?

No again.

That's a new one. Paranoid today, aren't we?

Paranoid, indeed.

And what does America being a Republic or a Democracy have to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, anyway?

Nothing -- but, in the "progressive" camp, shouting "zionist!", like shouting "racist!", long ago ceased to have any meaning; it is just an ejaculation meaning, roughly, "you disagree with me and that makes me angry! Shame on you!".

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Maybe you can answer the question posed directly to you: Assuming the Senate is reformed along democratic lines (or abolished), how would the U.S. cease to be a republic?

"Republic, not a democracy" is a dumb slogan endlessly repeated by mouthbreathers not interested in serious scrutiny.

[Cain]

Whilw it may be the result of elitist trades (Although, I'm dying to know how the word elitist is useful there), they were there for a reason.

The Constitution, remember, was drafted in secret (they were supposed to be reforming the AoC). The men who wrote it came from wealthy classes. Cited in nearly all American history textbooks is Charles Austin Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not difficult to find quotes from Founding Fathers claiming government is instituted for the protection of private property, and men are unequal in faculties conducive to property acquisition. There were serious fears of what was called "leveling."

The mob stuff glorified today involves throwing tea into the harbor and terrorizing loyalists with tars and feathers.

Namely, if you want proof of larger states ruling over smaller states, look at the electoral college map.

This is a joke, right? Now the Electoral College is too democratic an institution?? It's another one that needs to be abolished. Jesus.

Wyoming has THREE electoral votes. California has, what, fifty-five electoral votes? That's only an 18 times difference when California has 70X as many people.

[KoihimeNakamura]

The Constitution, remember, was drafted in secret (they were supposed to be reforming the AoC). The men who wrote it came from wealthy classes. Cited in nearly all American history textbooks is Charles Austin Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It's not difficult to find quotes from Founding Fathers claiming government is instituted for the protection of private property, and men are unequal in faculties conducive to property acquisition. There were serious fears of what was called "leveling."


I've read Madison's diary. Sorry, no.


This is a joke, right? Now the Electoral College is too democratic an institution?? It's another one that needs to be abolished. Jesus.

Wyoming has THREE electoral votes. California has, what, fifty-five electoral votes? That's only an 18 times difference when California has 70X as many people.


Tha.. no, that's not what I was claiming.

[Cain]

I've read Madison's diary. Sorry, no.

Well there you go. That seems to sum you up.

Tha.. no, that's not what I was claiming.

Oh, well by all means, please explain. You're doing such a brilliant job expressing yourself, crafting arguments and anticipating counterarguments. I'm just... amazed.

[jsfisher]

Now the Electoral College is too democratic an institution?? It's another one that needs to be abolished. Jesus.

It is an curious result of debate and compromise, but it doesn't need to be abolished.

Wyoming has THREE electoral votes. California has, what, fifty-five electoral votes? That's only an 18 times difference when California has 70X as many people.

You are right; that is unfair to Wyoming. California should have fewer votes.

[hgc]

The USA is NOT a democracy -- it is a REPUBLIC. It deliberately created a balance between proportional representation (in the House of Representatives) and one where each state of the Union has the same number of senators (the Senate).


You appear to NOT KNOW the meanings of the words "democracy" and "republic." They are not mutually exclusive. A republic, roughly speaking, is a country without a monarch. The United States is a democratic republic.

Most, perhaps all, democratic countries have some form of representative democracy, as opposed to totally direct democracy. Thus the states of the United States, the people of whom elected their senators directly, are represented in Senate. The people, in roughly equal proportion, are represented in the House of Representative (thus the moniker: "People's House").

Before the 17th admendment, there was another representative layer in this senator selection process, where the elected state legislatures selected senators.

[Thunder]

The USA is a Representative Democracy. Our founding fathers made it this way. If you don't like it, urge your Congressmen to change it.

By the way, China and Russia and Venezuela and Iran are also...Republics. Big deal.

[funk de fino]

C'mon, any examples of proportional representation leading to "mobocracy"?

There is part PR situation in the Scottish parliament. It sucks big dogs chuff.

[Thunder]

Our democracy is imperfect. But its still damn good.

[Freddy]

Oh noes, the smaller states will be overwhelmed! Heavens to Betsy!

The idea that democracy has to be inefficient to be good is silly. Furthermore, the idea that it should be so based on geography is even dumber. The government is made for the people, not invisible entities called States. And thanks for reading my mind.

At the time, the small states were not going to ratify the constitution without this compromise, which was called the Great Compromise. If the small states hadn't ratified the constitution, the United States would not have been formed. Since it would take an amendment to the constitution to change it, and since to get to 3/4 of the state legislatures would require that many small states agree to this amendment, this discussion is purely academic. Besides, the current set up has worked well enough so far.

[Cain]

It is an curious result of debate and compromise, but it doesn't need to be abolished.

Oh, but it does. It's undemocratic and foolish. The people don't elect the president. We don't even have an election for president: we have 51 elections. It's another beyond-stupid American tradition, held in high regard simply because it's old and the way we've always done things. If someone introduced it today he'd look more like Tom Cruise than Jesus Christ.

You are right; that is unfair to Wyoming. California should have fewer votes.

Again, you're caught up in states rather than people. States exist to serve people, and the people are equal: one person, one vote. Why should a Californian have diminished voting power when it comes to choosing the president?

[Skeptic]

You appear to NOT KNOW the meanings of the words "democracy" and "republic."

Of course the USA is democratic. But it isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic. But let us not quibble over words.

[jsfisher]

Oh, but it does. It's undemocratic and foolish.

You are certainly welcome to that opinion, but as arguments go, you are not presenting a very compelling one.

The people don't elect the president. We don't even have an election for president: we have 51 elections.

That would be by design, yes.

It's another beyond-stupid American tradition, held in high regard simply because it's old and the way we've always done things. If someone introduced it today he'd look more like Tom Cruise than Jesus Christ.

Again, your opinion. What's your opinion on how the EU is set up?

Again, you're caught up in states rather than people.

This is a straw man. Be that as it may, though, if you are so anti-states, why not advocate their dissolution directly rather than beat around the edges with this electoral college red herring.

States exist to serve people, and the people are equal: one person, one vote. Why should a Californian have diminished voting power when it comes to choosing the president?

That's easy: Generally speaking, Californians are too crazy to be allowed to vote.

[Skeptic]

That's easy: Generally speaking, Californians are too crazy to be allowed to vote.

As his posts prove.

But he meant apart from that.

[jsfisher]

As his posts prove.

But he meant apart from that.

Maybe we should pick a different state for the example, then. ;)

[hgc]

Of course the USA is democratic. But it isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic. But let us not quibble over words.


No, let's do quibble. What definition or understanding of "democracy" are you operating under, so as to say that the USA is democractic but not a democracy? Do you think that saying a country is a democracy and also saying it's a democractic republic are somehow contradictory?

I suggest you take a quick run past the dictionary before answering.

[Cain]

You are certainly welcome to that opinion, but as arguments go, you are not presenting a very compelling one.

Really, the fact it does not treat people as equals is not compelling? I'm sorry, but equality is the disposition in political arguments, and it's incumbent upon those claiming significant moral differences to demonstrate those moral differences.

ETA: Maybe some people should get a larger voting share than others, but why? No doubt your astute "Californians are crazy" observation was anticipated by the Holy Founding Fathers.

That would be by design, yes.

Do you think this is a compelling argument? Not that it's even right: the Electoral College did not work as it was intended because elections were rarely through thrown to the house. There was also the little problem of the rise of political parties, lamented by Washington.

This is a straw man.

I don't think you understand what a straw man is. Are you not insisting upon a state-centric rather than people-centric view?

Be that as it may, though, if you are so anti-states, why not advocate their dissolution directly rather than beat around the edges with this electoral college red herring.

1) I'm not the person who brought up the Electoral College.
2) How am I anti-state when earlier I said I was not unopposed to the idea of California becoming its own country?
3) What's incredible about this post is that you accuse me (wrongly) of precisely what you're doing: dropping a red-herring and erecting a straw man. This takes a special kind of obliviousness. I do not think the existence of states is as fundamentally illegitimate and undemocratic as the Electoral College.

That's easy: Generally speaking, Californians are too crazy to be allowed to vote.

Well, that's a serious political argument that serious people should take seriously. :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

I guess the idea of "Checks and Balances" just is beyond comprehension of some people.
What amuses me about some of these cool,hip, anti establishment revoultionaries is that although always talking about "The People" and Democracy, they show a constant comtempt for the average voter.

[Cain]

I guess the idea of "Checks and Balances" just is beyond comprehension of some people.
What amuses me about some of these cool,hip, anti establishment revoultionaries is that although always talking about "The People" and Democracy, they show a constant comtempt for the average voter.

Ah, here you are popping in again to repeat more of the same irrelevant jibberish while refusing to answer previous arguments. Which is fine, given your paper-thin understanding of the issues, but now it's checks and balances, even appearing in quotes to remind everyone you think in slogans. What do you think checks and balances refers to? How will a more representative, more democratic legislature threaten separation of powers?

[Skeptic]

What amuses me about some of these cool,hip, anti establishment revoultionaries is that although always talking about "The People" and Democracy, they show a constant comtempt for the average voter.

...or at least of for the average voter who, for some incomprehensible reason, votes for someone they dislike.

[Skeptic]

Ah, here you are popping in again to repeat more of the same irrelevant jibberish while refusing to answer previous arguments.

What's to answer? You note the senate is "undemocratic" in the sense that small and large states both have the same number of senators (two).

We note that, yes, that is the whole point behind the senate.

You say you don't like it.

Well... so what? Who cares?

[mortimer]

Cain,

Are you suggesting we abolish the bicameral legislative branch in favor of a unicameral one?

[Thunder]

Of course the USA is democratic. But it isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic. But let us not quibble over words.

Any nation that does not have a ruling monarchy is a Republic. The USSR was a Republic. Nazi Germany was a Republic. North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are ALL Republics. Calling ourselves a Republic is meaningless.

We are, a Representative Democracy. Its a faulty system..but it could be much worse.

[jsfisher]

Really, the fact it does not treat people as equals is not compelling? I'm sorry, but equality is the disposition in political arguments, and it's incumbent upon those claiming significant moral differences to demonstrate those moral differences.

Nice attempt to shift the burden. It is your position that the status-quo be abandoned, so the obligation falls on you to justify the need for the change. All you have provided so far are histrionics.

Do you think this is a compelling argument?

It was a statement of fact. The electoral college works according to the rules--the design--laid out in the Constitution, as amended.

Not that it's even right: the Electoral College did not work as it was intended because elections were rarely through thrown to the house. There was also the little problem of the rise of political parties, lamented by Washington.

And...? Was there a point you wanted to make, here?

I don't think you understand what a straw man is. Are you not insisting upon a state-centric rather than people-centric view?

I insist only that you haven't made a compelling argument to change the presidential election process. I am under no obligation to take a position in opposition to yours in order to point out your arguments lack substance.

1) I'm not the person who brought up the Electoral College.

No, but you were the first to rant on its illegitimacy. It is fair to give you full credit for the current discussion.

2) How am I anti-state when earlier I said I was not unopposed to the idea of California becoming its own country?

Except you didn't. You said you were unopposed to regionalism. Odd, too, since regionalism generally implies states' rights, a view you seem to oppose. Be that as it may, the "anti-state" proposition was presented as a conditional.

[Skeptic]

Well, that's a serious political argument that serious people should take seriously. :rolleyes:

But you're not a serious person, or a serious political thinker; you just think you are.

[Cain]

Nice attempt to shift the burden. It is your position that the status-quo be abandoned, so the obligation falls on you to justify the need for the change. All you have provided so far are histrionics.

Well, thankfully the above record shows otherwise. The argument against the Senate is that it's a non-representative institution. It arbitrarily gives disproportionate power and influence to smaller states. Now others can say, correctly, that the Senate was never intended to be representative. Sure, but that's not an independent, free-standing argument. The Senate was not supposed to be elective either.

Your charming refusal to offer up the slightest moral-political argument parallels the God debate. Atheists are tasked with pushing against the status-quo by generating arguments, but those arguments basically say that the original reasons favoring the existence of God were not very good at all. And so it goes with the Senate.

Let's suppose white person gets five times as many votes as a black person and I say, "Hey, that's unfair. Each person should have the same number of votes."

You seem to take the track: "That's not compelling."
"Skeptic" says something along the lines: "The Founding Fathers never intended for black people to vote at all!"

And that's what happens when you bracket out the ********. We can talk about the mysterious powers of some unnamed entity, and people will call nonsense upon it. But tell Americans that's it's mentioned in the Bible or described in the Constitution and they will take offense.

And then we go in 'round in circles. Even if you accidentally say something that's true, it also to be, um, relevant.

It was a statement of fact. The electoral college works according to the rules--the design--laid out in the Constitution, as amended.

And...? Was there a point you wanted to make, here?

This is amusing -- I mean, your failed attempt to balkanize related ideas.

I insist only that you haven't made a compelling argument to change the presidential election process. I am under no obligation to take a position in opposition to yours in order to point out your arguments lack substance.

A-not-as amusing evasion.

No, but you were the first to rant on its illegitimacy. It is fair to give you full credit for the current discussion.

Because the person's example of the Electoral College coincidentally has the same problem as the Senate: it fails the one person, one vote standard. If a group of people, by virtue of their geographic location, deserves more power and influence, then you need to offer a morally relevant reason explaining how that works.

Except you didn't. You said you were unopposed to regionalism. Odd, too, since regionalism generally implies states' rights, a view you seem to oppose. Be that as it may, the "anti-state" proposition was presented as a conditional.

How does regionalism imply states' rights? I had something more in mind along the lines of Alexander Cockburn's enviro-political hobbyhorse -- the notion that units should respect natural and social geography. In any case, I am more concerned about the level of government inasmuch as it affects the character of government -- specifically, in this case, giving people equal voting shares.

And people don't have an argument. It's just like the existence of God, or eating dairy with meat -- it's an unexamined faith that melts under the slightest bit of light.

You have failed repeatedly to offer up the slightest reason.
Skeptic has carefully retreated from his republic, not a democracy claims.

--------

To Mortimer on a unicameral legislature:

It's not even whether or not I favor a unicameral body. As I have said, the Senate can be reformed along democratic lines, or it can be abolished.

[Brainster]

Personally I think it's horribly unfair that it sometimes rains on weekends. But I don't expect it to change. The notion that this can somehow be changed is silly. There are probably about 34 states that benefit from overrepresentation in the Senate, and about 16 that are underrepresented. Now look at the requirements for a constitutional amendment.

You may as well command the tides not to come in.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I guess the idea of "Checks and Balances" just is beyond comprehension of some people.
What amuses me about some of these cool,hip, anti establishment revoultionaries is that although always talking about "The People" and Democracy, they show a constant comtempt for the average voter.

Hah, what alternate universe are you living in? The classic argument in favor of limiting democratic control is that the foolish commoners would become a mob etc.

And yay for more personal attacks to strawmen that do nothing to further the discussion.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Personally I think it's horribly unfair that it sometimes rains on weekends. But I don't expect it to change. The notion that this can somehow be changed is silly. There are probably about 34 states that benefit from overrepresentation in the Senate, and about 16 that are underrepresented. Now look at the requirements for a constitutional amendment.

You may as well command the tides not to come in.

Yes, we probably won't be able to change it...

So? Does that somehow make this discussion moot?

[jsfisher]

Well, thankfully the above record shows otherwise. The argument against the Senate is that it's a non-representative institution.

Not true. The Senate a representative body. It represents the states.

It arbitrarily gives disproportionate power and influence to smaller states.

Not true. It gives equal power to each state.

Now others can say, correctly, that the Senate was never intended to be representative. Sure, but that's not an independent, free-standing argument. The Senate was not supposed to be elective either.

Others can say what ever they like. They'd be wrong in this case. The Senate was/is representative (of the states) and it was/is elective (elected by the states).

Your charming refusal to offer up the slightest moral-political argument parallels the God debate. Atheists are tasked with pushing against the status-quo by generating arguments, but those arguments basically say that the original reasons favoring the existence of God were not very good at all. And so it goes with the Senate.

I see: Your argument still lacks substance so you continue the attempt to shift the burden.

Let's suppose white person gets five times as many votes as a black person and I say, "Hey, that's unfair. Each person should have the same number of votes."

You seem to take the track: "That's not compelling."
"Skeptic" says something along the lines: "The Founding Fathers never intended for black people to vote at all!"

I see you still have plenty of straw left. Your analogy is a poor one, too, because it attempts to shift the discussion from state representation at the federal level to one of voting rights and race.

And that's what happens when you bracket out the ********. We can talk about the mysterious powers of some unnamed entity, and people will call nonsense upon it. But tell Americans that's it's mentioned in the Bible or described in the Constitution and they will take offense.

Argumentum ad soap box.

...<snip of additional substance-free rants>...

[gumboot]

These sorts of threads always amuse me. I often see people showing a total lack of understanding of "democracy" or "republic". Most often, those arguing a clear democracy is not a democracy decide to use the extremely narrow definition of "direct democracy" - a type of state that's quite clearly impossible to implement in a modern country.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned much in this thread is that the USA is not just a democracy, or a republic. It's also a Federation. There's a reason it's called the United States of America and not the United State of America. And to remind some people a "state" is not an administrative sub-district. A state is sovereign.

To talk of the US Senate as not being democratic is akin to saying the UN isn't democratic because China has the same number of votes as New Zealand, despite representing about 300 times as many people.

In any sort of Federation the states are sovereign, not the populace. Each state gets equal number of votes. Applies to the UN, and to the US Senate.

Interestingly, if you adhere to the original model of democracy, the actual organ of democracy is not the general elections, but the legislature's act of voting on laws.

[Allen773]

These sorts of threads always amuse me. I often see people showing a total lack of understanding of "democracy" or "republic". Most often, those arguing a clear democracy is not a democracy decide to use the extremely narrow definition of "direct democracy" - a type of state that's quite clearly impossible to implement in a modern country.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned much in this thread is that the USA is not just a democracy, or a republic. It's also a Federation. There's a reason it's called the United States of America and not the United State of America. And to remind some people a "state" is not an administrative sub-district. A state is sovereign.

To talk of the US Senate as not being democratic is akin to saying the UN isn't democratic because China has the same number of votes as New Zealand, despite representing about 300 times as many people.

In any sort of Federation the states are sovereign, not the populace. Each state gets equal number of votes. Applies to the UN, and to the US Senate.

Interestingly, if you adhere to the original model of democracy, the actual organ of democracy is not the general elections, but the legislature's act of voting on laws.

Good post.

This whole federal government vs states rights debate has always been in American politics and society, and always will.

Maybe we should have united as a single state before we had our Revolution...

[Cain]

Not true. The Senate a representative body. It represents the states.

Not true. It gives equal power to each state.

Given that my terms by now are reasonably well-defined, what we have here are two counts of the equivocation fallacy -- and shortly after your blabbering denial on taking a state-centric view. Very nice.

I see: Your argument still lacks substance so you continue the attempt to shift the burden.

This is a non-response.

I see you still have plenty of straw left. Your analogy is a poor one, too, because it attempts to shift the discussion from state representation at the federal level to one of voting rights and race.

You're restating the analogy, not rebutting it. It's as if a person makes an argument for a women suffrage, noting black men were historically denied (the formal) right to cast a vote. You're simply saying, "well, those were men. You're talking about women. Men and women are different." You need to produce a reason why "state representation at the federal level" trumps one person, one vote. But I fully expect you to evade this point, as you have evaded others... more than once.

Argumentum ad soap box.

That's a new one, but also rather... meaningless.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

To talk of the US Senate as not being democratic is akin to saying the UN isn't democratic because China has the same number of votes as New Zealand, despite representing about 300 times as many people.

In any sort of Federation the states are sovereign, not the populace. Each state gets equal number of votes. Applies to the UN, and to the US Senate.

Yes, but I disagree with federalism too :p .

But still, federalism doesn't inherently require this sort of representation, hence the debate and compromise necessary during the writing of our Constitution.

[pipelineaudio]

I can think of mob rule that the constitution's writers meant to prevent, specifically by making a document meant to prevent the minority from the majority.

Here in my state, where the elected representatives refuse to do their job as following the constitution would make them unpopular they turn their job over to the mob, and we end up with :

Anti gay legislation

Religious smoking laws

Religious alcohol laws

Religious noise laws

Rampant environmental destruction/ economy ruining in favor of realty

Religious fear of the dark laws

Blue laws

calling mob rule a strawman does not make it any less of a mob rule

[Cain]

These sorts of threads always amuse me. I often see people showing a total lack of understanding of "democracy" or "republic". Most often, those arguing a clear democracy is not a democracy decide to use the extremely narrow definition of "direct democracy" - a type of state that's quite clearly impossible to implement in a modern country.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned much in this thread is that the USA is not just a democracy, or a republic. It's also a Federation. There's a reason it's called the United States of America and not the United State of America. And to remind some people a "state" is not an administrative sub-district. A state is sovereign.

To talk of the US Senate as not being democratic is akin to saying the UN isn't democratic because China has the same number of votes as New Zealand, despite representing about 300 times as many people.

In any sort of Federation the states are sovereign, not the populace. Each state gets equal number of votes. Applies to the UN, and to the US Senate.

Interestingly, if you adhere to the original model of democracy, the actual organ of democracy is not the general elections, but the legislature's act of voting on laws.

The main problem with this is that it totally ignores U.S. history, especially after the Civil War. The character of the country changed, and the autonomy of states diminished. This has been the trend, though it progresses in fits and starts, since the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

[Allen773]

I'm fine with the Senate. What I'm not fine with is the Electoral College.

[jsfisher]

...<snip>...

So where does this leave us? You haven't advanced your argument at all.

Skeptic provided an excellent summary many posts back. It still applies:

What's to answer? You note the senate is "undemocratic" in the sense that small and large states both have the same number of senators (two).

We note that, yes, that is the whole point behind the senate.

You say you don't like it.

Well... so what? Who cares?

[Skeptic]

Cain:

You wanted a serious answer? Here's a serious answer. But you won't like it.

You are willing to break down the backbone of the world's most successful and free country becasue according to its system, PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE GOT MORE POWER THAN YOU THINK THEY SHOULD. This has nothing to do with "the people" or "democracy": it is obvious that you wouldn't mind if the Democrats had more power than they "should" in the Senate. It is only "crazily undemocratic" for Republicans, which you dislike, to have more power than they "should".

This is the very essence of totalitarian thinking. You're a would-be dictator.

You cover this up with lots of sweet talk about "democracy" and "the people", but so do all would-be dictators. In reality, you despise the people. We can see what you REALLY think about "the people" the moment they disagree with you: the vast majority of them thinks the bicameral system, with both the house and the senate, is a very good system? Who cares! YOU decided it is "stupid", indeed a "typically incredibly stupid American thing" (or words to that effect), so that's that.

You're angry, like all self-important would-be dictators, because the world -- or at least those stupid hicks who vote for the other guy -- doesn't recognize your obvious intellectual superiority to all those stupid people you disagree with. Ah well.

So, there's your serious answer. I told you you wouldn't like it.

[DC]

Cain:

You wanted a serious answer? Here's a serious answer. But you won't like it.

You are willing to break down the backbone of the world's most successful and free country becasue according to its system, PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE GOT MORE POWER THAN YOU THINK THEY SHOULD. This has nothing to do with "the people" or "democracy": it is obvious that you wouldn't mind if the Democrats had more power than they "should" in the Senate. It is only "crazily undemocratic" for Republicans, which you dislike, to have more power than they "should".

This is the very essence of totalitarian thinking. You're a would-be dictator.

You cover this up with lots of sweet talk about "democracy" and "the people", but so do all would-be dictators. In reality, you despise the people. We can see what you REALLY think about "the people" the moment they disagree with you: the vast majority of them thinks the bicameral system, with both the house and the senate, is a very good system? Who cares! YOU decided it is "stupid", indeed a "typically incredibly stupid American thing" (or words to that effect), so that's that.

You're angry, like all self-important would-be dictators, because the world -- or at least those stupid hicks who vote for the other guy -- doesn't recognize your obvious intellectual superiority to all those stupid people you disagree with. Ah well.

So, there's your serious answer. I told you you wouldn't like it.

do you belive you can read other peoples mind? or are you just extremly arrogant?

[Cain]

Internet Revolutionary/Wannabe Dictator -- this the first communique the People's Shadow Government.

Everyone check out Urbandictionary's word for the day. It's important you stay cool, hip.

---

"Skeptic," - are you saying the Senate is the backbone of our country?

I think your post says more about you than it does me. I like to recall W.'s contingency plans for a case where Gore wins the Electoral College but he wins the popular vote, which is what most people expected. The campaign worker said (paraphrasing, I can get the exact quote), "one thing we don't do is roll over." They had a whole talk radio campaign planned, and even the slogan "Democrats for democracy."

I'm pretty sure I've never voted a Democrat for Senator since the two representing my state are particularly loathsome. For the presidency (the whole Electoral College deal) I've voted for a third party candidate every time.

Maybe if enlightened elite Leftists actually did run the country via undemocratic institutions, I wouldn't care about the will of the people. And I do have contempt for the typical person, and especially most of the persons I meet (or encounter on the Internet) Maybe I don't actually believe the principles I'm espousing and I am a "would-be dictator." So?

You see what I just did? I assumed your baseless allegations were true, and they still proved nothing, which suggests they're completely irrelevant. Bracket out the personalities involved and deal with the arguments at hand. If you can. How is anything in your post an argument against one person, one vote, or any of the principles brought up in this thread? You're attacking a person rather than ideas, which makes perfect sense considering your position of weakness.

the vast majority of them thinks the bicameral system, with both the house and the senate, is a very good system? Who cares!

I'll bet most of that is due to status-quo bias. If you asked people, "Should we amend the Constitution to replace our unicameral legislature with a bicameral legislature" most people would say No. Something like three times as many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than the scientific account for the origins of life.

The main problem is that these institutions are sacred cows that people would prefer not to question. So you get blather about the "world's most successful and free country" which makes me want to quote "Ozymandias." Grow the **** up.

---------
jsfisher writes:
So where does this leave us? You haven't advanced your argument at all.

Your undisguised contempt for truth and understanding has never been as charming. I especially like this fine touch: "Skeptic [sic] provided an excellent summary many posts back."

[KoihimeNakamura]

Okay. Now that I've read a bit further, I'd like someone to explain to me why states (which, despite Cain's comments about being weaker, still have signifcant autonomy) should be unrepresentated in a legislative body. Since, you know.

Federalism?

[Skeptic]

Okay. Now that I've read a bit further, I'd like someone to explain to me why states (which, despite Cain's comments about being weaker, still have signifcant autonomy) should be unrepresentated in a legislative body. Since, you know.

Federalism?

Simple. Some states vote in ways Cain doesn't like.

His highness emperor Cain I doesn't like it when the will of the people is subverted this way, you know.

[DC]

aah thanks for the answer, its indeed the arrogance.

[jsfisher]

Your undisguised contempt for truth and understanding has never been as charming. I especially like this fine touch: "Skeptic [sic] provided an excellent summary many posts back."

I see you continue to substitute vitriol and histrionics for argument and reason.

[technoextreme]

I just like my governmental philosophy to be based on some premises, and not just hodge-podged together with what they had at the time and however they could get people to agree to it and then worshiping that as a new Revelation from the Lord.
Snarky me is coming out again but unfortunatly the government is perfectly based off a philosophy. It is a liberal government which for all intents and purposes can't be democratic.
Ha ha, see, this is what our Fathers thought! The common unclean filth are too stupid to vote as freely as us educated people! Why, give them equal say and they'll vote to turn our mansions into common housing and make beer free to all! I say the blacks would turn us into slaves!

Only someone who has failed basic history would make that assinine argument. I've read the material from that time period about liberalism. These people were not elitist like you idiotically think. I was reading a book on liberalism written 200 years ago and it came disturbingly on target about some modern day issues like suicide. The tyranny of the majority basically refers to the issues like Prop 8. Protect the unpopular opinion. Freedom to do whatever you want without trouncing upon others freedom. Is it perfect in the United States? No. Will democratizing the process help? No. It will drive the United States backwards.

[Skeptic]

Maybe if enlightened elite Leftists actually did run the country via undemocratic institutions, I wouldn't care about the will of the people.

"Maybe"? That's your dream -- a dictatorship of people who agree with you.

100 years ago, people like you would rant in cheap cafes and beer halls in central Europe about the "evil government system" that "ignores the will of the people" and gives WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much power to those evil plutocrats, I mean communists, I mean atheists, I mean Catholics, I mean Jews, I mean landowners, I mean... you fill in the blanks.

Those would-be dictators disagreed between themselves about what "the people" want, but they all, from Hitler to Lenin to Ho Chi Minh to Franco, all agreed that (a) the current system must be smashed, and (b) there will only be REAL justice and democracy and freedom and equality (and so on) once, after the existing system is smashed, a system where people THEY LIKE will be in power.

You're just like those guys, only using modern technology -- you rant on the internet instead of ranting in beer halls, which, I suppose, is an improvement (from the point of view of combating alcoholism, if nothing else) -- and with a slightly different "evil group X" that must be smashed (in your case, Republicans).

Now, one of the main reasons the USA never experienced the havoc these folks from the beer hall and cafes later wrecked in Europe (and elsewhere) is precisely institutions like the Senate, the electoral college -- in short, the federal system of government -- which makes it harder for demagogues and "revolutionaries" to gain power.

The fact that you hate the senate and consider it evil is proof, if any was needed, of one of the main reasons the senate was set up in the first place: it's there, inter alia, to protect the Republic and its freedoms from the likes of you.

[dudalb]

But you're not a serious person, or a serious political thinker; you just think you are.



:bigclap

[dudalb]

I love people who want to totally scrap a system which, although flawed, has worked pretty well for over a couple of hundred years on the basis that it disagrees with a totally abstract thesis that the Senate and Check and Balances between the Feds and the State are somehow "undemocratic".

[jsfisher]

I love people who want to totally scrap a system which, although flawed, has worked pretty well for over a couple of hundred years on the basis that it disagrees with a totally abstract thesis that the Senate and Check and Balances between the Feds and the State are somehow "undemocratic".

Would this be any better if they still taught basic American history and civics in the public schools? I really think so much of it is pure ignorance. Ignorance begets surprise when things work out differently than assumed.

[dudalb]

Would this be any better if they still taught basic American history and civics in the public schools? I really think so much of it is pure ignorance. Ignorance begets surprise when things work out differently than assumed.


I still think they are taught, but taught so badly that the facts do not take hold.
I think the real problem is it's a new version of a old disease which I..and most people..have suffered from in our youth: 17 to 23 year old "Know It All Disease". You when you are that age, you often consider yourself a freaking genius who knows it all, who has a uniquely brilliant mind, and knows better then all those old fogies who have been teaching him.
Usually this is cured once you get out of school into The Real World.

[Skeptic]

If you ask me, it's a 50-50 toss-up about what Cain REALLY desperately needs and wants.

It is either (a) the destruction of the evil unfair system so that his genius could rebuild the world, or (b) a girlfriend.

[technoextreme]

I still think they are taught, but taught so badly that the facts do not take hold.
I think the real problem is it's a new version of a old disease which I..and most people..have suffered from in our youth: 17 to 23 year old "Know It All Disease". You when you are that age, you often consider yourself a freaking genius who knows it all, who has a uniquely brilliant mind, and knows better then all those old fogies who have been teaching him.
Usually this is cured once you get out of school into The Real World.
Ummm.... The aspect that they seem to be hicupping on is an aspect of philosophy not really politics.

[Cain]

This the second communique from the shadow government headed by cool, hip democratically chosen Internet Revolutionaries.

It's instructive to see the droolers not even pretend to offer up an argument. Well, apart from the "you-just-want-to-be-evil-dictator" ad hominem, which is one I've never heard anywhere, ever. I think it's only funny because it's sincerely intended. Then there's the notion we Californians should be disenfranchised because they're "too crazy." jsfisher talking about ignorance? Skeptic's moniker (and here's a person who actively supports an apartheid regime accusing ME of wanting to oppress people). Dudalb's adding the umpteenth variation of the same post he always writes.

[jsfisher]

It's instructive to see the droolers not even pretend to offer up an argument.

Agreed, you haven't, but I wasn't aware you tended to drool.

[technoextreme]

(and here's a person who actively supports an apartheid regime accusing ME of wanting to oppress people).
You do. You want to give power to a large group of people who are concerned about meddling around in people's lives who they should have no right to get involved with. Dumb, stupid, moronic, and myopic are just a few of the words to describe your plan.

[Texas]

This the second communique from the shadow government headed by cool, hip democratically chosen Internet Revolutionaries.

It's instructive to see the droolers not even pretend to offer up an argument. Well, apart from the "you-just-want-to-be-evil-dictator" ad hominem, which is one I've never heard anywhere, ever. I think it's only funny because it's sincerely intended. Then there's the notion we Californians should be disenfranchised because they're "too crazy." jsfisher talking about ignorance? Skeptic's moniker (and here's a person who actively supports an apartheid regime accusing ME of wanting to oppress people). Dudalb's adding the umpteenth variation of the same post he always writes.It's because your argument falls flat on its face. The constitution defines how senators are elected and apportioned. You would have a gripe if the both state Senators were required to be from the same party but they are not. The United States is not a direct democracy and it would be disastrous to even contemplate becoming one. You base your argument that the late GOP majority in the Senate was undemocratic since they represented less people than the DNC minority. That is specious argument given that we see the majority change hands on a regular basis in the Senate just as we do in the House and in the White House. What you are looking for is one party rule not more democracy.

[Stone Island]

Madison argues that the Senate breaks the violence of faction by providing a different means of electing representatives. A kind of demagogic leader who could sway public opinion might be able to dominate a popular body like the House, but would have more trouble, so goes the argument, to also dominate the Senate, given the vastly different means by which they were chosen.

Also the kind of men needed to oversee the President's treaty power would have to be, for want of a better word, elites. One, so that they would have the necessary knowledge and experience to make sense of international affairs, and two, so that they wouldn't be as easily swayed by the filthy lucre on offer from foreign states who have an interest in the direction of American foreign policy.

The internal rules of the Senate, I think, are just fine. The purpose of separate institutions sharing power, to paraphrase Youngstown, was to make legislation harder, not easier. Senators who are jealous of their minority rights may be an annoyance, but they also force legislation to be pitched to a broader audience.

[Skeptic]

What you are looking for is one party rule not more democracy.

One-party rule that agrees with his views, of course.

As he says quite openly, he wouldn't mind "undermocratic" rule as long a it's by "enlightened progressive elitists".

Why those stupid, non-progressives who disagree with him were ever given the right to vote, he has no idea.

This the second communique from the shadow government headed by cool, hip democratically chosen Internet Revolutionaries.

Ah, weak sarcasm -- the last resort of those thoroughly defeated in an argument.

The internet equivaent of, "I MEANT to do that!"

[Texas]

One-party rule that agrees with his views, of course.

As he says quite openly, he wouldn't mind "undermocratic" rule as long a it's by "enlightened progressive elitists".

Why those stupid, non-progressives who disagree with him were ever given the right to vote, he has no idea.



Ah, weak sarcasm -- the last resort of those thoroughly defeated in an argument.

The internet equivaent of, "I MEANT to do that!"The democrats are making a fatal mistake by assuming that they have driven the GOP into the sea. That attitude inevitably leads to over reach and with Obama, Pelosi and Reid their reach is coming close to shoulder dislocation.

[mumblethrax]

It's painful to see how these threads always devolve into restatement of the current state of affairs: the senate is comprised of two senators from each state, the constitution says so, etc.

Does it ever occur to anyone that this it is exactly this state of affairs being called into question? That X is insufficient justification for X? That the constitution can and might need to be amended with regard to the election of senators?

This is an almost exclusively American disease. I watched some British show on YouTube recently, a debate on the state of faith schools. I'm deeply envious, first that this kind of format for debate exists at all in other countries, and second that throughout the entire conversation, nobody said anything remotely like "The constitution says...!" I wonder if people here even realize the degree to which they've venerated a bunch of dead lawyers.

[Freddy]

It's painful to see how these threads always devolve into restatement of the current state of affairs: the senate is comprised of two senators from each state, the constitution says so, etc.

Does it ever occur to anyone that this it is exactly this state of affairs being called into question? That X is insufficient justification for X? That the constitution can and might need to be amended with regard to the election of senators?
It can't and doesn't need to be changed. To understand why it can't be so amended, read the requirements for a constitutional amendment.

I'm still waiting for a cogent argument for why we need to abolish the senate. "It isn't sufficiently democratic for my tastes" is not an argument. It seems to have worked well enough the way it is.

[Cain]

It's because your argument falls flat on its face. The constitution defines how senators are elected and apportioned.

As mumblethrax just said, this is not an argument. The Constitution, I remind you, was amended in the early part of the last century, revising how Senators are chosen. If we go back to the discussion at that time, what free-standing arguments can you make for and against? A policy is not (morally) right or wrong because the Constitution says so.

You would have a gripe if the both state Senators were required to be from the same party but they are not. The United States is not a direct democracy and it would be disastrous to even contemplate becoming one.

Look up the definition for "direct democracy" -- you have no idea what you're saying.

You base your argument that the late GOP majority in the Senate was undemocratic since they represented less people than the DNC minority... What you are looking for is one party rule not more democracy.

No, I do not base my argument on which political parties are in power. This has been the weak, unsubstantiated slur against my motives -- mostly, if not entirely, because others cannot defend their position. What's interesting about this lie is that I've always been a supporter of third parties because the two we have are too similar.

That is specious argument given that we see the majority change hands on a regular basis in the Senate just as we do in the House and in the White House.

This is a howler. Did you fail maff? What I said was the Senate does not accurately reflect the views of the citizenry, so it does not matter who is in the majority or the minority. What's also interesting is this all-consuming fear of a Democratic (capital D) majority. If you guys are going to say majorities shift between parties, then why the fear of a Democrats in charge? That can change, as it did in the 90s.

Again, the argument about who democratic institutions will empower says more about my opponents than it does about me. They cannot argue this on principles.

----------------
Skeptic:
As he says quite openly, he wouldn't mind "undermocratic" rule as long a it's by "enlightened progressive elitists".

I wonder why you would have to resort to this out-and-out lie if you have "so thoroughly defeated" my argument. What I did was play along with your ad hominem -- the first word of the sentence you reference was "maybe." Thoroughly defeated, indeed.

------------------
Freddy:
I'm still waiting for a cogent argument for why we need to abolish the senate. "It isn't sufficiently democratic for my tastes" is not an argument.

It's an undemocratic institution that arbitrarily discriminates against people based on geographic location, empowering some at the expense of others for no good reason.

But I do like this stunning argument:

It seems to have worked well enough the way it is.

And let's also look at the doom and gloomers who claim democratizing (or abolishing) the Senate will result in tyranny. More than once I have asked for evidence to support this idea and the silence has been overwhelming. We can look at other Western governments more representative than our own and see they are not on the road to serfdom. Of course, this is probably their real fear: we will become more like Western Europe, and the Senate frustrates that move.

The executive branch has expanded way beyond what the Founders intended, arguably changing the character of government far more than simply reforming (or abolishing) the Senate.
---------
Stone Island:

The internal rules of the Senate, I think, are just fine. The purpose of separate institutions sharing power, to paraphrase Youngstown, was to make legislation harder, not easier. Senators who are jealous of their minority rights may be an annoyance, but they also force legislation to be pitched to a broader audience.

If you want to make it more difficult to pass laws, nudge proponents in the direction of appealing to a larger audience, then have a democratically elected Senate that requires more than a simple majority. The thing about its current composition is that we do not NOT need to appeal to a broader audience because it's not democratically representative.

[mumblethrax]

It can't and doesn't need to be changed. To understand why it can't be so amended, read the requirements for a constitutional amendment.
I'm not sure I understand the significance of the highlighted portion; are you aware that this describes the 17th amendment?

Anyway, the practical hurdles to reform of the senate are serious but not insurmountable. The easiest path would be to first amend Article V, which does not contain any explicit prohibition on amending Article V (I'll leave the inevitable debate here to the constitutional scholars). More serious than the procedural hurdle is overcoming indoctrination. The debate dies on the vine because "the constitution says...."

I'm still waiting for a cogent argument for why we need to abolish the senate. "It isn't sufficiently democratic for my tastes" is not an argument. It seems to have worked well enough the way it is.
Here you're mischaracterizing the basic principles of justice at stake as matters of taste and incorrectly identifying where the burden of proof lies, given that those principles are well supported by argument and widely sanctioned by law. Cain has already made the salient argument against, it's now up to someone to offer a meaningful response.

To further drive this point home, the courts have held that the equal protection clause is violated where state legislatures apportion representation on the basis of geography. How, then, can we coherently argue that the Senate is the only legislative body in the US that can be so unrepresentative? Because the Founding Fathers (pbut), the constitution, necessary compromises, it's called federalism, etc. Non-arguments that do not address the basic injustice at hand.

I don't disagree that reform of the senate is unlikely to occur, by the way. I just think we ought to be able to recognize how absurd that situation is, if only as a warning to future lawmakers.

[Skeptic]

What I did was play along with your ad hominem

And "playing along with my ad hominem" made you post that you'd support a dictatorship by people you like?

the first word of the sentence you reference was "maybe."

When someone will MAYBE support a dictatorship by people he likes, that means he WILL support a dictatorship by people he likes.

[jsfisher]

It's painful to see how these threads always devolve into restatement of the current state of affairs: the senate is comprised of two senators from each state, the constitution says so, etc.

Does it ever occur to anyone that this it is exactly this state of affairs being called into question?

I think you mischaracterize things. Yes, Cain, for instance, doesn't like the current state of affairs, but he needs to advance some argument why a change is appropriate.

So far, all he's done is observed the obvious: The Senate doesn't represent the people of the United States. A statement like that demands the obvious response.

[mumblethrax]

I think you mischaracterize things. Yes, Cain, for instance, doesn't like the current state of affairs, but he needs to advance some argument why a change is appropriate.
And he has, for example here:

It's an undemocratic institution that arbitrarily discriminates against people based on geographic location, empowering some at the expense of others for no good reason.

So far, all he's done is observed the obvious: The Senate doesn't represent the people of the United States. A statement like that demands the obvious response.
The obvious response is inadequate. Cain is not merely describing the senate, he is identifying specific problems. It is clear that the Senate is not a democratic institution--clear because this is the very feature of the Senate being criticized.

Let me risk misrepresenting Cain and rephrase a bit to elucidate: what's being said is that it is necessary for a society and its representative bodies to be democratic to be considered just. As Madison said (I'm paraphrasing), it is evidently unjust that we should move away from the principle of proportional representation--once we do that, we move from democracy towards 'tyranny of the minority', away from the import placed on founding ideals like liberty and equality.

Any response of the form "So? The Senate is not a democratic institution" entails a failure to appreciate what it means for injustice to occur. Why would arbitrary discrimination be morally acceptable here, and not, for example, in the Jim Crow South? You can find, without too much effort, similarly wrong-headed pragmatic justifications for segregation. And there is real harm done by this arrangement: it's long been known that the senate systematically directs funds away from big states and towards small states, all other things being equal.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Let me rephrase this.

The Senate represents the states
The House represents the people

Therefore, equal representation is given to both. This is a simple concept of federalism

(We also are not a democracy, but a democratic republic. So.... )

[dudalb]

I think the basic argument is against Federalism.
That an all powerful Central Government might not be a good idea does not get through to these people.
IN the end, it is a case of wanting to replace something has, on the whole, functioned well with something based on nothing but ideology and abstract reasoning. Politics ,above all, is the art of the practical..something ideologues seem to forget.

[mumblethrax]

Therefore, equal representation is given to both. This is a simple concept of federalism
This is incoherent--giving equal representation to one necessarily entails denying equal representation to the other. Furthermore, there is no good reason to give arbitrarily determined political entities rights of equal representation, and saying "federalism" does not immunize against charges of arbitrary discrimination. It is possible, for example, to form a federal government without egregiously unrepresentative legislatures.

(We also are not a democracy, but a democratic republic. So.... )
A distinction without a difference, and one that is not relevant. If we lived in a benevolent dictatorship, the senate populated by appointment, the argument for democratic reform would still apply. The fact of our failure to apply democratic principles is not justification of same.

[pipelineaudio]

I love how we hear for 8 years and counting: Americans are stupid because of how they vote (since they voted for Bush)

And now we hear: you guys need to have more voting power

[Brainster]

Yes, we probably won't be able to change it...

So? Does that somehow make this discussion moot?

That's what a moot point is; an argument about something that's never going to happen. Stuff like IRV and proportional representation for third parties in the USA have a much higher likelihood of happening. Of course, .001% is greater than .000001%.

[mumblethrax]

I think the basic argument is against Federalism.
You're wrong.

Politics ,above all, is the art of the practical..something ideologues seem to forget.
Sometimes a misquote can be instructive.

I love how we hear for 8 years and counting: Americans are stupid because of how they vote (since they voted for Bush)

And now we hear: you guys need to have more voting power
On the contrary; democratic reform would collectively give 'you guys' (the red states) less voting power. Need I remind you that Bush would not have been elected at all without disproportionate representation? If that were a predictably repeatable occurrence, I could hardly think of a better argument for reform.

[Skeptic]

This is incoherent

Well, take it up with Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the no-good incoherent idiots who set up this absurd federalist system.

If you were only there, you would've tould them to their face it's an unfair, evil, undemocratic system that woud NEVER work in practice.

I'm sure they would've listened to you.

[mumblethrax]

Well, take it up with Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the no-good incoherent idiots who set up this absurd federalist system.

If you were only there, you would've tould them to their face it's an unfair, evil, undemocratic system that woud NEVER work in practice.

I'm sure they would've listened to you.
Amazingly dishonest, but thank you for making the ancestor worship I'm criticizing explicit.

[dudalb]

So admiring great men of the past is Ancestor Worship?
Then count me as a Worshiper.
ANd do you have any idea of how arrogant that sounds?

[mumblethrax]

So admiring great men of the past is Ancestor Worship?
No. Deferring to the great men of the past where they lack 220 years of hindsight is ancestor worship.

It's perfectly possible to admire Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the rest and still believe that the political compromises they made then are no longer appropriate today.

[pipelineaudio]

Need I remind you that Bush would not have been elected at all without disproportionate representation?

MAYBE in bush vs gore (still disputable)

But in bush vs kerry: 62 million vs 59 million? I dont think so

[jsfisher]

And he has, for example here:

No, he didn't. He doesn't like the Senate because it doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do. Well, neither does the greeter at Walmart. Any argument opposing the Senate's current purpose needs to address the incorrectness of its current purpose head-on.

[mumblethrax]

(still disputable)
Not remotely, except among wing-nuts.

He doesn't like the Senate because it doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do.
It's only necessary to read what he wrote to see that this is not true. You're evading the fact that the thing it was designed to do, the thing it does, and the thing being deplored are one and the same.

Well, neither does the greeter at Walmart.
If the Walmart greeter were hired to punch 60% of customers in the face every time they walked through the door, I would be singularly unimpressed by the tautological truth that he was hired to do so. I'd instead say things like "Hey, maybe they should change his job description" and "Ow, my nose."

[jsfisher]

It's only necessary to read what he wrote to see that this is not true. You're evading the fact that the thing it was designed to do, the thing it does, and the thing being deplored are one and the same.

Nonsense. The greeter at Walmart is just as "undemocratic" as the Senate (assuming we even accept this rather stilted view of what undemocratic means). So what? Pointing out such a state of affairs is not the basis for a debate or discussion. You need something with more substance if you want to argue Walmart greeters need to be chosen by popular election.

[jsfisher]

If the Walmart greeter were hired to punch 60% of customers in the face every time they walked through the door, I would be singularly unimpressed by the tautological truth that he was hired to do so. I'd instead say things like "Hey, maybe they should change his job description" and "Ow, my nose."

I am at a loss as to how you think this relates to whether the Senate should represent the states or the populace.

[technoextreme]

It's only necessary to read what he wrote to see that this is not true. You're evading the fact that the thing it was designed to do, the thing it does, and the thing being deplored are one and the same.

No he's deploring for a dumb reason. It's pretty evident to everyone else as to why the government is set up the way it is. It is set up to make it harder for people to trounce upon other people's rights. It is ridiculously easy to see how the will of the majority can run rough shot over what the minority wants where you live in a state where they were opposed to maternal.

No. Deferring to the great men of the past where they lack 220 years of hindsight is ancestor worship.

It's perfectly possible to admire Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the rest and still believe that the political compromises they made then are no longer appropriate today.
But they still are because unlike you I read books from that era. Not much has changed in two hundred years. And sadly Cain and you are so ignorant you can't even realize that some of us are forming arguments that are a couple thousand years old. :)

[mumblethrax]

Nonsense. The greeter at Walmart is just as "undemocratic" as the Senate (assuming we even accept this rather stilted view of what undemocratic means). So what? Pointing out such a state of affairs is not the basis for a debate or discussion. You need something with more substance if you want to argue Walmart greeters need to be chosen by popular election.
I do not see how this even addresses what I wrote.

Regardless, there is no expectation that the Walmart greeter be hired by popular election because he does not have the power to make public policy.

I am at a loss as to how you think this relates to whether the Senate should represent the states or the populace.
It's a simple analogy. Harm is done by in both cases, and the harm itself is sufficient motivation for reform. The usual argument that it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg is not available to you, since it does in fact pick my pocket.

No he's deploring for a dumb reason. It's pretty evident to everyone else as to why the government is set up the way it is. It is set up to make it harder for people to trounce upon other people's rights. It is ridiculously easy to see how the will of the majority can run rough shot over what the minority wants where you live in a state where they were opposed to maternal.
As has already been said, the senate was set up this way as a political compromise. There is no coherent political philosophy backing it, and it simply does not work as intended. Even if it did work, what's so great about violating the rights of the majority to protect the rights of the minority?

Furthermore, it's an absurdly ill-targeted way of protecting minorities. Imagine that I suggested that we give disproportionate voting power to women (for example), in order to "make it harder for people to trounce upon other people's rights." Here we have a real history of the rights of a political minority being violated, rather than counterfactual speculation about big states bullying small states. The contention between demographic groups is a much more serious force in modern political life than that between states. But my proposal would (correctly) be regarded as an outrage.

For some reason, I'm supposed to take it seriously when we're talking about nothing more than a matter of residency, where there is no specific history of populous states violating the rights of residents of less populous states.

Not much has changed in two hundred years.
Keep on reading! I don't want to post any spoilers.

[jsfisher]

As has already been said, the senate was set up this way as a political compromise.

No, the bicameral Congress was set up by compromise, with one house to represent the populace and one house to represent the states.

There is no coherent political philosophy backing it, and it simply does not work as intended.

It's the same philosophy behind the General Assembly of the United Nations and, if I am not mistaken, the European Union.

Even if it did work, what's so great about violating the rights of the majority to protect the rights of the minority?

This it does not do. The states are represented equally in the Senate.

Furthermore...rather than counterfactual speculation about big states bullying small states....

Talk to Cain about that point. It's his straw man, after all. Or maybe it's yours, now.

[Texas]

It's painful to see how these threads always devolve into restatement of the current state of affairs: the senate is comprised of two senators from each state, the constitution says so, etc.

Does it ever occur to anyone that this it is exactly this state of affairs being called into question? That X is insufficient justification for X? That the constitution can and might need to be amended with regard to the election of senators?

This is an almost exclusively American disease. I watched some British show on YouTube recently, a debate on the state of faith schools. I'm deeply envious, first that this kind of format for debate exists at all in other countries, and second that throughout the entire conversation, nobody said anything remotely like "The constitution says...!" I wonder if people here even realize the degree to which they've venerated a bunch of dead lawyers. How would you apportion the number of Senators per state if you didn't have that damned Constitution standing in your way? Speaking of the British, does the "House of Lords" ring a bell?

[technoextreme]

For some reason, I'm supposed to take it seriously when we're talking about nothing more than a matter of residency, where there is no specific history of populous states violating the rights of residents of less populous states.

Yeah because you frame in such a moronic fashion. There are plenty of times where a populous group of people have trounced upon minorities in the United States via a democratic process. It happens very rarely because of the fact that referendums are so rare but bloody dam hell did California provide the perfect example of it. The fact that it has happened one too many times in a lot of seperate states alone rings the warning bells that direct democracy is a moronic idea. Is our current structure perfect in that manner? No but your idea will be worst.
PS: If referendums didn't exist then the issue of Prop 8 wouldn't have come up in the first place. Duhhh... Duh... Duh Duh Duhhh...

[mumblethrax]

No, the bicameral Congress was set up by compromise, with one house to represent the populace and one house to represent the states.
This is not inconsistent with what I said, and imparts no relevant information.

It's the same philosophy behind the General Assembly of the United Nations and, if I am not mistaken, the European Union.
The European Parliament is proportionally representative, and neither of them is a state at all. They are both intergovernmental organizations.

And of course the UN is a woefully undemocratic organization. India gets the same number of votes in the General Assembly as Andorra with >10,000 times the population. Totally ludicrous.

This it does not do. The states are represented equally in the Senate.
You can't have it both ways. If the Senate protects the rights of the minority of citizens by granting power in the Senate disproportionate to population and proportional to statehood, then it is necessarily true that wherever the rights of the majority are violated as a result of this scheme, the Senate violates the rights of the majority in the same way. Since the Senate does, in fact, systematically violate the rights of the majority, there's nothing more to be said. You're trading the rights of the minority for the rights of the majority. How does that make any sense?

Talk to Cain about that point. It's his straw man, after all. Or maybe it's yours, now.
Or maybe this is a hollow objection.

[Texas]

If we follow the "proportionality" argument to it's absurd conclusion then since Obama was the only person elected by the entire country and the results were 53% to 46% A proportional Senate AND house would be 53% Democrat and 46% GOP. That would reflect the actual population of voters regardless of states.

[Skeptic]

So admiring great men of the past is Ancestor Worship?
Then count me as a Worshiper.

That's not half of it.

Don't tell anybody, but I admire Galileo and his scientific method, too.

New-agers keep telling me that's stupid ancestor worthip, or, as they call it, "closed-minded fixation in the white male eurocentric paradigm of knowlege". They thinks that 300 years of unimaginable success is no reason to think he was on to something.

They much prefer that inquiry proceed according to systems they just dreamt up last night -- you know, systems that are so much FAIRER and BETTER and MORE DEMOCRATIC than the mean ol' scientific method. I laugh at them and tell them that their beef is with Galileo: they should've asked him to work their way instead of looking for truth systematically as he did. That's when they give me up as a hopeless reactionary.

Of course the whole discussion is usually on bulletin boards, between computers -- inventions not even imaginable, let alone possible, before Galileo's disgustingly unfair method got into high gear. But they seem totally blind to the evidence that surrounds them from all over as to WHY I am such a "reactionary".

The exact same thing, mutatis mutandis, is true for those who have no idea why I support federalism -- while living in a country that became the richest and most powerful and freest on earth, to a large degree, because of that failed, undemoctratic system. Why do I refuse to recognize their own greatness, and realize they know better than those stupid founding fathers? Why do I not worship them, and prefer to "worship ancestors" instead?

The whole thing, in both cases, seems to me to have very little to do with reforming either government or science, and everything to do with self-imortant narcissism.

[mumblethrax]

How would you apportion the number of Senators per state if you didn't have that damned Constitution standing in your way?
Proportionally.

Speaking of the British, does the "House of Lords" ring a bell?
Yes.

If we follow the "proportionality" argument to it's absurd conclusion then since Obama was the only person elected by the entire country and the results were 53% to 46% A proportional Senate AND house would be 53% Democrat and 46% GOP. That would reflect the actual population of voters regardless of states.
No. A vote for Obama is not a vote for a Democratic congress.

There are plenty of times where a populous group of people have trounced upon minorities in the United States via a democratic process.
Which utterly fails to make the case for bracketing out the specific minority in question, or for this particular scheme for protecting those minority rights. Otherwise, you are committing yourself to the view I described earlier: the way to protect the rights of gay people is to give them disproportionate voting power. We aren't talking about the merits of representative democracy vs. direct democracy, but of proportional representation vs. disproportionate representation.

[Cain]

Nonsense. The greeter at Walmart is just as "undemocratic" as the Senate (assuming we even accept this rather stilted view of what undemocratic means). So what? Pointing out such a state of affairs is not the basis for a debate or discussion. You need something with more substance if you want to argue Walmart greeters need to be chosen by popular election.

You can't even keep your own wrongheaded analogies straight -- or in this case, the intention (design) behind having a greeter.

------
TechnoXTREME:

Yeah because you frame in such a moronic fashion. There are plenty of times where a populous group of people have trounced upon minorities in the United States via a democratic process. It happens very rarely because of the fact that referendums are so rare but bloody dam hell did California provide the perfect example of it. The fact that it has happened one too many times in a lot of seperate states alone rings the warning bells that direct democracy is a moronic idea. Is our current structure perfect in that manner? No but your idea will be worst.
PS: If referendums didn't exist then the issue of Prop 8 wouldn't have come up in the first place. Duhhh... Duh... Duh Duh Duhhh...

This simply does not follow. In this case we're talking about having representative institutions, not empowering institutions to repress minority rights. As mumblethrax observed, this is proportional representation vs. disproportionate representation, not representative democracy vs. direct democracy. You have to somehow to demonstrate that a representative Senate would possess and exercise the authority to curb gay rights (for example) in ways that are off limits to a non-representative Senate.

Would you prefer it if the populace clamored for gay rights only to be over-ruled by unelected elites? As I have said in previous related-threads, there's always this soft-charm of "tyranny by the minority" for the hopeless reactionaries who participate in these discussions.

----------
Texas, you're totally clueless:

If we follow the "proportionality" argument to it's absurd conclusion then since Obama was the only person elected by the entire country...

No. Read your Constitution.

and the results were 53% to 46% A proportional Senate AND house would be 53% Democrat and 46% GOP.

This does not follow.
---------------
"Skeptic":
And "playing along with my ad hominem" made you post that you'd support a dictatorship by people you like?

No, it was to demonstrate that you committed an irrelevance fallacy. A person's only motive for arguing in favor of equality for gays could be a burning desire to win power via elected office and one day become the supreme dictator of the earth... but assuming she makes her case for gay rights on equality grounds, her "real" motives, which only you seem to know, are completely irrelevant.

the first word of the sentence you reference was "maybe."
When someone will MAYBE support a dictatorship by people he likes, that means he WILL support a dictatorship by people he likes.

You play in the mud because you can't generate rational arguments.

[Texas]

Senate.

Texas, you're totally clueless:



No. Read your Constitution.



.

LOL. The irony of that statement is breath taking.

[KoihimeNakamura]

This is incoherent--giving equal representation to one necessarily entails denying equal representation to the other. Furthermore, there is no good reason to give arbitrarily determined political entities rights of equal representation, and saying "federalism" does not immunize against charges of arbitrary discrimination. It is possible, for example, to form a federal government without egregiously unrepresentative legislatures.

Urgh. I'm sorry, I assume people arguing in here stayed awake in Civics class. I will never do that again.

Okay.


It does not. It works like this

In the house, the people are equally reprsented
In the state, the states are equally represented.

In this way, the legislature balances the states interest, and the people's interest.

.. at least, that was the original thought. Then someone passed an Amendment forcing popular vote of the Senate...


As for why I just said federalist?

Federalist #51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm)

It explains it much clearer than I can, and lays out an argument.

[jsfisher]

You can't even keep your own wrongheaded analogies straight -- or in this case, the intention (design) behind having a greeter.

I see your rebuttals are as without substance as your base arguments.

[jsfisher]

This is not inconsistent with what I said, and imparts no relevant information.

It is dead-on consistent. You alleged that the Senate alone was an addition out of compromise. It was not.

[Cain]

LOL. The irony of that statement is breath taking.

What the irony in this non-reply of yours. You just demonstrated that you don't know how the president is elected, which is by the Electoral College. Then you had a howler of a non sequitur.
----
Rika:

Urgh. I'm sorry, I assume people arguing in here stayed awake in Civics class. I will never do that again.

Okay.


It does not. It works like this

In the house, the people are equally reprsented
In the state, the states are equally represented.

In this way, the legislature balances the states interest, and the people's interest

One small problem: you're ignoring his argument -- indeed, the central argument at hand, which is normative in nature. Nobody disputes how the Senate does work, and there's not much dispute on how it was intended to work. The inclusion of the 3/5ths compromise is also reasonably well-understood: few of us probably dispute the power interests at play, or the intentions of the Founders. What's disputed is the moral-political legitimacy of the idea.

------------
jsfisher:
I see your rebuttals are as without substance as your base arguments.

Your "replies," such as they are, would probably only impress four year olds just discovering rubber and glue.

[Stone Island]

A bit OT, I suppose:

It's interesting to note that of all our institutions the SCOTUS is the most undemocratic, and yet is the most likely to be appealed to in order to protect our rights under a democratic system of government.

The people-the electoral college-the president-advice and consent from the Senate-SCOTUS.

Or, the people-the state legislatures-the Senate's advice and consent-the President's selection-the SCOTUS.

Life tenure, complete independence, utter finality of their decisions (until they themselves wish to revisit the matter).

[Beerina]

This wasn't an issue when the Federal Government wasn't so powerful.


Hmmmm. Maybe that's the real problem. Everybody sitting around arguing how to distribute the spoils and loot the nation "democratically". How to control governmental intrusion into every aspect of human life, as driven by the latest demagogue preaching to cheering crowds.







Here's a hint to all of you, who for whatever reason, believe only pure democracy gives legitimacy: It's just as legitimate as pure democracy in science, art, or weight lifting.

But with a million times worse consequences.






I'm also stunned how "everybody" voting for how to control everything, and turning 100% of said control to the one who can scrape up 50.01% of the vote or less "legitimizes" anything.

Freedom is the only legitimate form of government because jamming your ideas down other people's throats at the point of a gun is illegitimate. A huffing and puffing demagogue's siren call affecting the population for a few moments is no legitimatizer of anything.




I predict this will be ignored or downplayed as people never have a problem jamming ideas down other people's throats as long as they're the one behind the gun, or behind the guy behind the gun.



How do I get off this ****** up planet?

Do not circumvent the auto-censor by disguising swear words.

[jsfisher]

What's disputed is the moral-political legitimacy of the idea.

Oscillating between bare statements of "it's illegitimate" and "the people are not equally represented" isn't the basis for a discussion. You need to advance your argument (without any more straw, please).

[Skeptic]

Cain HAS no argument. The whole thread is:

Cain: "The senate doesn't proportionally rerpesent the population!"
Everybody else: "Duh. That's the idea... besides, it's been true for 200 years; where have you been?"
Cain: "But I DON'T LIKE IT!"
Everyvody else: "So?"
Cainl "UFAIR! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!"

[Darth Rotor]

Oh noes, the smaller states will be overwhelmed! Heavens to Betsy!

The idea that democracy has to be inefficient to be good is silly.
Only to an idiot.

Tyranny and despotism are, by design, efficient. They are concentrations of power. The whole point of checks and balances is to diffuse power, and that is a deliberate move to inefficiency to avoid tyranny/despotism.

You are welcomed to them both, tyrrany and despotism, which is all the foolish deserve.

DR

[Stone Island]

Only to an idiot.

Tyranny and despotism are, by design, efficient. They are concentrations of power. The whole point of checks and balances is to diffuse power, and that is a deliberate move to inefficiency to avoid tyranny/despotism.

You are welcomed to them both, tyrrany and despotism, which is all the foolish deserve.

DR
It's too, too much to go into here, but there is something to the fact that the presidencies virtues, as seen by Hamilton and Madison, were secrecy, energy, and dispatch. According to Rossiter and Mansfield the presidency is a kind of tamed dictatorship, extraordinarily powerful and yet severely limited. Limited not in extent of its powers, but in scope. That's one of the reasons why re-eligibility for election was important; the kind of men who ran for the presidency were also the kind of men who would be interested in fame (meant in the highest sense) and so the argument was that they would limit themselves as a result. My favorite book on this is Nichols' Myth of the Modern President.

In any case, the legislative vortex that draws all power to itself was seen as the real ripe area for abuse, which is why the legislative branch is so hamstrung. Two branches, two means of election, two schemes of representation, two lengths of tenure, with the popular branch being in control of the money, while the elitist branch has a hand in treaties and the manning of the executive branch.

While it's certainly not metaphysically true that every pure democracy is a mob (Socrates or not), the Founders seemed to be rather assured, and The Federalist Papers are chock full of historical examples, that is was so highly likely that discretion and caution were the orders of the day.

[Lonewulf]

Cain HAS no argument. The whole thread is:

Cain: "The senate doesn't proportionally rerpesent the population!"
Everybody else: "Duh. That's the idea... besides, it's been true for 200 years; where have you been?"
Cain: "But I DON'T LIKE IT!"
Everyvody else: "So?"
Cainl "UFAIR! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!"

What was it you said about weak sarcasm, Skeptic? Something about it meaning that you had a valid point and obviously should be listened to, and have your points disseminated?

Oh wait. No.

Point the finger, don't notice the three fingers pointing back, I guess.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I love people who want to totally scrap a system which, although flawed, has worked pretty well for over a couple of hundred years on the basis that it disagrees with a totally abstract thesis that the Senate and Check and Balances between the Feds and the State are somehow "undemocratic".

Would this be any better if they still taught basic American history and civics in the public schools? I really think so much of it is pure ignorance. Ignorance begets surprise when things work out differently than assumed.

I still think they are taught, but taught so badly that the facts do not take hold.
I think the real problem is it's a new version of a old disease which I..and most people..have suffered from in our youth: 17 to 23 year old "Know It All Disease". You when you are that age, you often consider yourself a freaking genius who knows it all, who has a uniquely brilliant mind, and knows better then all those old fogies who have been teaching him.
Usually this is cured once you get out of school into The Real World.

:dl:

Okay, history time. Does anyone remember this thing called the Civil War? Well, the entire time leading up to that is a history of the Senate and Slave States. The Senate didn't work too well. And even after that the Senate was still used to block Civil Rights laws until they finally broke a fillibuster in 1964. The Senates own website admits so, Linky. (http://forums.randi.org/www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm)

So how is that for it protecting minorities from the mob of the majority?

Treating the Constitution as imperfect is not new. The angrier abolitionists saw it, in William Lloyd Garrison's words, as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." Walter Bagehot (and a prominent American admirer of his, Professor Woodrow Wilson) thought it deeply flawed. Charles A. Beard considered it mainly an instrument for the protection of property rights, an analysis that he did not intend as a compliment.Even so grotesque and obvious an injustice as apartheid in the public schools was beyond the ability of the national government to correct. And when, after ninety years, formal, official school segregation was outlawed the deed was not done by the elected representatives of the people. It was done through the exercise of unelected, unaccountable, unchecked, quasi-legislative judicial power—one of the numerous features of the American constitutional system that the framers had no idea they were creating.Linky. (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/07/29/020729crbo_books?currentPage=2)

The Senate has not worked well at all, its notable history is largely one of blocking the Civil Rights movement. Any claim to the contrary is complete BS.

Its record, especially over the past century and a half, makes disheartening reading. A partial list of the measures that—despite being favored by the sitting President, an apparent majority of the people, and, in most cases, the House of Representatives to boot—have been done to death in the Senate would include bills to authorize federal action against the disenfranchisement of blacks, to ban violence against strikers by private police forces, to punish lynching, to lower tariffs, to extend relief to the unemployed, to outlaw the poll tax, to provide aid to education, and (under Presidents Truman, Nixon, and Carter as well as Clinton) to provide something like the kind of health coverage that is standard in the rest of the developed world. The rejection of the Versailles treaty and the League of Nations after the First World War and then of preparedness on the eve of the Second are only the best known of the Senate's many acts of foreign-policy sabotage, which have continued down to the present, with its refusal to ratify international instruments on genocide, nuclear testing, and human rights.As for the silly claims of "federalism" or "checks and balances between the federal and the states", the second is just butchering your own sacred cow and the first is merely hiding behind a word. There is no reason why a federation necessarily requires an unequal upper house in the legislature, and indeed many of the founders thought so. As for people citing "The Federalist", please follow the history a tad more:

This is often referred to as a "concession" to the small states, but in truth it was more like surrender to blackmail. The small states saw it as a deal-breaker, and they would brook no compromise. Dahl notes that Gunning Bedford, Jr., of Delaware, told his fellow-delegates to the Constitutional Convention that, unless the big states yielded, "the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice." The Senate was formed less by rational argument than by threats of treason and war. You've probably never heard of Gunning Bedford, Jr. (I hadn't, until Dahl introduced me to him.) When it came to the composition of the Senate, though, the Gunning Bedford types exerted far more influence than James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, who were then left holding the bag. It was Madison and Hamilton, along with John Jay, who got the assignment of defending every last detail of the various Philadelphia compromises in the series of long op-ed pieces later collected as "The Federalist" and treasured to this day by columnists and speechwriters composing encomiums to the providential perfection of the framers' handiwork. Dahl points out, amiably but sharply, that the Federalist Papers were an exercise in spin. "If we employ a dictionary definition of propaganda as 'information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, nation, etc.,' then the Federalist Papers were surely propaganda," he writes. Madison and Hamilton had a job to do. It was a perfectly honorable job, but it obliged them to defend things they did not believe in. Madison had been the Constitutional Convention's most passionate advocate of giving the big states more senators than the small ones. Hamilton had been almost as adamant. "As states are a collection of individual men," he harangued his fellow-delegates, "which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition? Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter. It has been said that if the smaller states renounce their equality, they renounce at the same time their liberty. The truth is it is a contest for power, not for liberty. Will the men composing the small states be less free than those composing the larger?"
[emphasis mine]

I can quote many more founders against the Senate. But I think I've made my point. "The Founders" weren't a cohesive whole with grand philosophical foresight.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Only to an idiot.

Tyranny and despotism are, by design, efficient. They are concentrations of power. The whole point of checks and balances is to diffuse power, and that is a deliberate move to inefficiency to avoid tyranny/despotism.

You are welcomed to them both, tyrrany and despotism, which is all the foolish deserve.

DR

:rolleyes: Yes, I suppose the poor people of Ireland, Denmark, France, Israel, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, etc. are all living horribly under their respective tyranny of the majority.

[D'rok]

:rolleyes: Yes, I suppose the poor people of Ireland, Denmark, France, Israel, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, etc. are all living horribly under their respective tyranny of the majority.

Try comparing geographical size and population distribution between those countries and the USA. Not the same pressures on geographical vs. proportionate representation at all. Comparing the USA and the EU is more accurate.

In my country (Canada), the unfairness problem of rep by pop is really exacerbated.

Ontario pop. = 13,000,000
Prince Edward Island pop. = 140,000

Canadians living in PEI would have essentially no voice for regional concerns in a strict rep by pop system. Geographical representation in a Senate is just one solution to this problem. There are others (including departing from strict rep by pop in the legislature, which Canada also does), but the problem is real and the Senate (American or Canadian) is a legitimate attempt to deal with it. One can debate the effectiveness of the attempt, but pretending there is no issue is silly.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Try comparing geographical size and population distribution between those countries and the USA. Not the same pressures on geographical vs. proportionate representation at all. Comparing the USA and the EU is more accurate.

In my country (Canada), the unfairness problem of rep by pop is really exacerbated.

Ontario pop. = 13,000,000
Prince Edward Island pop. = 140,000

Canadians living in PEI would have essentially no voice for regional concerns in a strict rep by pop system. Geographical representation in a Senate is just one solution to this problem. There are others (including departing from strict rep by pop in the legislature, which Canada also does), but the problem is real and the Senate (American or Canadian) is a legitimate attempt to deal with it. One can debate the effectiveness of the attempt, but pretending there is no issue is silly.

And why should only geographic minorities be "protected"? Hey, lets have a Black Senate too! After all, since Black people only make up 12% of the population, their concerns are shoved aside by popular representation. I know, lets have a Gay Senate too! After all, GLBTQ concerns etc. etc. Why, these are even better than geography, because people can easily move but they can't change these things!

[D'rok]

I can quote many more founders against the Senate. But I think I've made my point. "The Founders" weren't a cohesive whole with grand philosophical foresight.

Soaring and competing rhetoric about liberty is all well and good during an exercise in nation-building. However, actual governance tends to boil down to pragmatic concerns. Smaller regions of a federation would likely take cold comfort in their "liberty" when they have little or no voice on the national stage.

[D'rok]

And why should only geographic minorities be "protected"? Hey, lets have a Black Senate too! After all, since Black people only make up 12% of the population, their concerns are shoved aside by popular representation. I know, lets have a Gay Senate too! After all, GLBTQ concerns etc. etc. Why, these are even better than geography, because people can easily move but they can't change these things!Better yet, let's have electoral reform so dispersed demographic minorities are better represented in the legislature. Or, perhaps we could have the rule of law under a rights-based constitution. Or both.

Back on topic...

Canadian experience shows that geographical voting blocs in the legislature (e.g. Bloc Quebecois, Reform Party, Canadian Alliance), are not healthy for national unity. The pressure for geographical representation in large federations won't go away simply because you reform/abolish the Senate. It would just manifest itself in some other unpredictable way.

[dudalb]

Soaring and competing rhetoric about liberty is all well and good during an exercise in nation-building. However, actual governance tends to boil down to pragmatic concerns. Smaller regions of a federation would likely take cold comfort in their "liberty" when they have little or no voice on the national stage.

And that is my problem with the Anti Federalists here. They are really arguing from an abstract position as opposed to political facts of life.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And that is my problem with the Anti Federalists here. They are really arguing from an abstract position as opposed to political facts of life.

Yup, the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movements were just abstract philosophy and had nothing to do with the facts of life...

Do you read the thread, or just insult the participants?

[Cain]

Oscillating between bare statements of "it's illegitimate" and "the people are not equally represented" isn't the basis for a discussion. You need to advance your argument (without any more straw, please).

It's almost as though your consistent misrepresentations, and irony-free invocation of straw, is a subtle but caustic satirization of the position you claim to defend. Or, more likely, i's a case-study in proof-by-assertion mediocrity.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Soaring and competing rhetoric about liberty is all well and good during an exercise in nation-building. However, actual governance tends to boil down to pragmatic concerns. Smaller regions of a federation would likely take cold comfort in their "liberty" when they have little or no voice on the national stage.

Again, what makes "regional" minorities so special as to deserve an entire entire house in the legislature to over-represent them? I can think of many other minorities more deserving on the national stage.

[Lonewulf]

Yup, the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movements were just abstract philosophy and had nothing to do with the facts of life...

Do you read the thread, or just insult the participants?

I don't think dudalb is much of a fan of reading people's positions and considering them. He's demonstrated at least twice a complete ignorance of simple facts I've stated multiple times, including what country I am a citizen of.

[D'rok]

Again, what makes "regional" minorities so special as to deserve an entire entire house in the legislature to over-represent them? I can think of many other minorities more deserving on the national stage.
Federalism. Both of our countries are unions of smaller states. The union only works, in part, because those states are allowed to maintain a significant degree of independence and clout. Geographic representation is one of the mechanisms that does that. Canada wouldn't exist without that particular mechanism, and I suspect it has nearly the same importance for the USA.

[jsfisher]

It's almost as though your consistent misrepresentations, and irony-free invocation of straw, is a subtle but caustic satirization of the position you claim to defend. Or, more likely, i's a case-study in proof-by-assertion mediocrity.

...and still devoid of argument or substance.

[dudalb]

I am now convinced that what we are dealing with is a few ideologues who Know their programs have no chance of suceeding with the present system,and therefore want to scrap the system.
Good luck with that.

[Darth Rotor]

:rolleyes: Yes, I suppose the poor people of Ireland, Denmark, France, Israel, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, etc. are all living horribly under their respective tyranny of the majority.
Hey, not so smart one, those systems too are based on diffusion of political powers, in a slightly different mode than is ours. See what it takes to become a prime minister.

You have learned nothing.

You waste bandwidth, yet again.

DR

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am now convinced that what we are dealing with is a few ideologues who Know their programs have no chance of suceeding with the present system,and therefore want to scrap the system.
Good luck with that.

Amazing how you announce these conclusions without giving or recognizing any arguments.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Federalism. Both of our countries are unions of smaller states. The union only works, in part, because those states are allowed to maintain a significant degree of independence and clout. Geographic representation is one of the mechanisms that does that. Canada wouldn't exist without that particular mechanism, and I suspect it has nearly the same importance for the USA.

And no one has told me why federalism requires an unequal upper chamber of the legislature. The Constitution is Federal because it makes a limited central government that has authority over the States, and since it is limited the States have authority in their own affairs outside of what is allowed for the Federal government.

None of that has anything to do with representation in the legislature. And many founders of the federal government as we know it thought so. And as you said when you denied protecting other minorites, the States have their rights protected in the Bill of Rights too. So back again to why they are so much more special than other minorities?

[D'rok]

And no one has told me why federalism requires an unequal upper chamber of the legislature. The Constitution is Federal because it makes a limited central government that has authority over the States, and since it is limited the States have authority in their own affairs outside of what is allowed for the Federal government.

None of that has anything to do with representation in the legislature. And many founders of the federal government as we know it thought so. And as you said when you denied protecting other minorites, the States have their rights protected in the Bill of Rights too. So back again to why they are so much more special than other minorities?
*facepalm*

How much plainer can I be? A bi-cameral legislature with a rep-by-pop lower house and a rep-by-region upper house (among other things) made the bloody federal union possible in the first place. And it sustains it. Sheesh.

If that isn't an important reason, I don't know what is.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

*facepalm*

How much plainer can I be? A bi-cameral legislature with a rep-by-pop lower house and a rep-by-region upper house (among other things) made the bloody federal union possible in the first place. And it sustains it. Sheesh.

If that isn't an important reason, I don't know what is.

That's just a fallacy. That's the way it was/is, so it is the way it should be. We might as well make the same argument for any and all election reform that can be had.

Federalism doesn't require the Senate be so and many other Federations don't follow the same model. Indeed, there is plenty of variation in how unequal the upper house is, and how representatives are chosen.

And I don't see how one could claim that the Senate somehow helps balance geographic concerns or maintains the Union when you look at the history of the Civil War, which so many people here seem to want to ignore.

[Lonewulf]

I am now convinced that what we are dealing with is a few ideologues who Know their programs have no chance of suceeding with the present system,and therefore want to scrap the system.
Good luck with that.

Nice guess.

Now go off and play.

[D'rok]

That's just a fallacy. That's the way it was/is, so it is the way it should be. We might as well make the same argument for any and all election reform that can be had.

Federalism doesn't require the Senate be so and many other Federations don't follow the same model. Indeed, there is plenty of variation in how unequal the upper house is, and how representatives are chosen.

And I don't see how one could claim that the Senate somehow helps balance geographic concerns or maintains the Union when you look at the history of the Civil War, which so many people here seem to want to ignore.

I made subtler arguments earlier, but you weren't listening.

If you want to argue that the USA can manage regional representation in some other fashion, I won't dispute that. I don't have enough expertise. But you're kidding yourself if you think it is no longer an important issue.

Canadian Federalism requires regional representation in the Upper House. That was one of the core compromises that brought the smaller colonies on board. It cannot be taken away. The ineffectiveness of our Senate currently is one of the forces driving representation in the House of Commons away from rep by pop. The other is the simple fact that we are a geographically huge country with a far-flung population and distinct regional differences. Any system of representation here in the House or the Senate will have to take regions into account or the country will disintegrate.

We even have a "Senate Floor" law that states that no province can be allocated less HOC seats in an electoral district redistribution than they have Senate seats.

American federalism faces similar challenges. Your much larger population mitigates the problems somewhat. But tell your smaller states that they no longer get their 2 Senate seats and see what happens. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[Lonewulf]

American federalism faces similar challenges. Your much larger population mitigates the problems somewhat. But tell your smaller states that they no longer get their 2 Senate seats and see what happens. Go ahead. I'll wait.You know, I really don't understand this line of reasoning. It seems to center around, "You won't convince these people that you're correct or that something needs to be done, ergo, you should cease discussing the issue (or that there's some negative consequence as a result, or the argument wouldn't be brought up in the first place)".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure why else to bring this up. I have a question. If we lived under a Monarch, would that mean that we shouldn't discuss the merits of a republic, if it was so certain that we couldn't institute a republic? Should we discuss potential freedoms or lost abilities? Negatives and positives? That would get rid of quite a few works by Machiavelli...

Looking through this thread, I read (not by you, D'rok) "Californians are crazy so shouldn't be listened to because of <Arbitrary Personal Beliefs>", or "You're elitist, ergo you don't have a single point", or like dudalb, "You're just doing this because of some hidden agenda to make the country what you want it to be!!11111 Ergo your points shouldn't be taken into consideration."

Meh, I usually respect your posts, D'rok, so maybe I got you wrong here. I probably do, as I'm barely awake currently and seriously need to get to bed.

[D'rok]

You know, I really don't understand this line of reasoning. It seems to center around, "You won't convince these people that you're correct or that something needs to be done, ergo, you should cease discussing the issue (or that there's some negative consequence as a result, or the argument wouldn't be brought up in the first place)".

I'm trying to point out that it is an actual, live issue. I only injected the snark after getting it directed my way a couple of times. I'm only human (and sleep-deprived too).

I'm interested in talking about different ways to deal with what I think is a very real issue. I also happen to be right in the midst of reading about this stuff, including some important American Supreme Court cases. (See e.g. Reynolds v. Simms 377 US 533 and Baker v. Carr 369 US 186). Tsukasa might not think it's a live issue, but American jurists sure seem to.

(The relevant Canadian cases for anyone who's interested include Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 SCR 158 and Raiche v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 F.C. 93)

[pipelineaudio]

In my own life, the tyranny of the majority has resulted in:

the complete decimation (or worse) of our thriving arts and music scene

RAMPANT environmental devastation, even in areas protected by law, even worse in areas donated to the people on conditional environmental protection

Massive increase in coyotees, human trafficing and kidnapping

Closure of trails donated for trail use

Quit pretending that mob rule is a good thing

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In my own life, the tyranny of the majority has resulted in:

the complete decimation (or worse) of our thriving arts and music scene

RAMPANT environmental devastation, even in areas protected by law, even worse in areas donated to the people on conditional environmental protection

Massive increase in coyotees, human trafficing and kidnapping

Closure of trails donated for trail use

Quit pretending that mob rule is a good thing

Those poor, poor souls trapped under mobocracy in Norway, New Zeland, Ireland, Denmark, etc. where they have proportional representation. Let us take a moment of silence for these failed States where human rights are removed right and left by the irrational mob.

[pipelineaudio]

Those poor, poor souls trapped under mobocracy in Norway, New Zeland, Ireland, Denmark, etc. where they have proportional representation. Let us take a moment of silence for these failed States where human rights are removed right and left by the irrational mob.

My reality trumps your anectdotes

I dont really care about proportional representation for electing leaders, but I DO have a strong objection to mob rule in order to ignore or violate constitutional protections

I'll say it and I'm not afraid to:

People are stupid. People are by and large, stupid, conformist sheep. Furthermore, they are greedy.

I dont want stupid, greedy, conformist sheep in charge of my rights. This directly gives whoever can afford the most TV and Radio advertisement direct control over my rights.

No thanks, I'll take a constitution that protects me from the idiocy of the herd

[Lonewulf]

My reality trumps your anectdotes

I dont really care about proportional representation for electing leaders, but I DO have a strong objection to mob rule in order to ignore or violate constitutional protections

I'll say it and I'm not afraid to:

People are stupid. People are by and large, stupid, conformist sheep. Furthermore, they are greedy.

I dont want stupid, greedy, conformist sheep in charge of my rights. This directly gives whoever can afford the most TV and Radio advertisement direct control over my rights.

No thanks, I'll take a constitution that protects me from the idiocy of the herd
Yeah, don't let those Epsilons and Deltas get equal representative voting. They can't be trusted with power, ever. In fact, we should get rid of as much power from them as possible.

...

Wait. This sounds familiar.

You're angry, like all self-important would-be dictators, because the world -- or at least those stupid hicks who vote for the other guy -- doesn't recognize your obvious intellectual superiority to all those stupid people you disagree with. Ah well.

Simple. Some states vote in ways Cain doesn't like.

His highness emperor Cain I doesn't like it when the will of the people is subverted this way, you know.

Hmmmmm.

$20 that Skeptic will suddenly spontaneously forget all of his arguments and ignore Pipelineaudio's line of reasoning just because they happen to fall on the same "side".

Which argument is it that seems like it can most be used to support a dictatorship, as Skeptic was ranting and raving and waving his arms all around about?

BTW: My reality trumps your reality, and your anecdotes. So there. ;)

[Lonewulf]

I'm trying to point out that it is an actual, live issue. I only injected the snark after getting it directed my way a couple of times. I'm only human (and sleep-deprived too).I'm sleep deprived as well, and going to march into an Archery class that I'm already making a C in without much sleep. Yay. :( (Stupid insomnia)

There's way too much snark all throughout this thread, from the beginning to the end, as well as wild speculations as to why someone could dare disagree with them... while Cain isn't the most humble man around and quick on the personal attacks, it's been my experience that he's often being given about as much as he's dealing out. But then, most schoolyard fights can be seen the same way, even with an instigator, so perhaps that's too simplistic an assumption.

Either way, there's always going to be a little bit of snark that comes off on you when the issue is already charged as it is. Still, one can't really blame you if you reciprocate.

I'm interested in talking about different ways to deal with what I think is a very real issue. I also happen to be right in the midst of reading about this stuff, including some important American Supreme Court cases. (See e.g. Reynolds v. Simms 377 US 533 and Baker v. Carr 369 US 186). Tsukasa might not think it's a live issue, but American jurists sure seem to.

(The relevant Canadian cases for anyone who's interested include Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 SCR 158 and Raiche v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 F.C. 93)

I honestly don't know enough to say one way or the other, I admit that. I would think that it would be a real issue, as it's a question of power in the process that exists.

[mumblethrax]

In the house, the people are equally reprsented
In the state, the states are equally represented.
It's no good to keep repeating this mantra; implicit in the criticism of the way things are is recognition of the way things are. I understand that it work this way, and I'm saying that it ought not to. Political equality of the citizenry is backed by strong arguments; political equality among states is merely asserted.

Federalist #51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm)

It explains it much clearer than I can, and lays out an argument.
Have you read it? It's notable that Madison does not argue for equal state suffrage in the senate anywhere in this document, which nicely underscores the point I'm making. Assume for the sake of argument that I'm the world's most committed federalist--now justify malapportionment to me. This is why I say it is insufficient to simply say "federalism." It's not necessary for a federalist to support this arrangement of the legislature, and as I said earlier, Madison was opposed to it, given that it was 'evidently unjust'. You simply are not engaging the argument.

You are right, at least, that Madison lays out an argument at all (one that does not touch on the relevant question), which puts him one step ahead of the senate's defenders in this thread. Unfortunately, much of what he says is speculative, and (with the benefit of hindsight) manifestly untrue. Madison fails to predict the rise of political parties, incorrectly asserts that power will necessarily accrue in the legislature, and if that weren't enough, we now have dozens of examples of democratically elected uni- and bicameral legislatures around the world (in democratic republics, no less!), which do not have a stronger tendency towards tyranny than our own system.

This is why it's frustrating to see people portray themselves as the defenders of enlightenment values. You cannot do so while blinding yourself to evidence and reason, liberty and equality.

This is not inconsistent with what I said [...]
It is dead-on consistent.
Golf clap.

You alleged that the Senate alone was an addition out of compromise.
A blatant falsehood.

[pipelineaudio]

Yeah, don't let those Epsilons and Deltas get equal representative voting. They can't be trusted with power, ever. In fact, we should get rid of as much power from them as possible.


Maybe I can put this in a way you can understand:

We have a constitution that defines some of our rights and who/why/how is in charge of them

We have legislators turning over ballots to mob rule, to rescind the rights directly given to us in the constitution, in violation of the constitution

Here are some quotes on the issue from dumb, dead guys:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

"Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

[Lonewulf]

Maybe I can put this in a way you can understand:

We have a constitution that defines some of our rights and who/why/how is in charge of them

We have legislators turning over ballots to mob rule, to rescind the rights directly given to us in the constitution, in violation of the constitution

Here are some quotes on the issue from "dumb, dead guys" (your words, not mine, although I love the way you slip in that strawman):

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

"Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"
Here's what a dead dumb guy said as well:

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

(OMG! It's actually possible for someone to disagree with you and recognize your quotes, and ACTUALLY HAVE HEARD THEM BEFORE! Perhaps you should work on another way for this Delta to "understand", because he has to agree with you to truly understand after all!)

So, if we had more representation based on population as opposed to state, it would get rid of the Constitution? Is that the claim?

[pipelineaudio]

Here's what a dead dumb guy said as well:

"Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

So, if we had more representation based on population as opposed to state, it would get rid of the Constitution? Is that the claim?

No, like I said, I have no opinion on the issue of electing leaders. I have no good argument against porportional representation when it comes to electing leaders

My issue is mob rule when it comes to taking rights away from individuals. The draconian mods stuck my post in this thread, so I suppose my issue must be related which is what I'm arguing.

[Lonewulf]

No, like I said, I have no opinion on the issue of electing leaders. I have no good argument against porportional representation when it comes to electing leadersOh. Uh, okay.

My issue is mob rule when it comes to taking rights away from individuals.
Oh. Well, the thing is, the "taking rights away" can be undertaken by anyone of any ability to Statecraft -- by "mob rule", through a dictator, or through an oligarchy. The point of the Bill of Rights is to counter all those possibilities.

The draconian mods stuck my post in this thread, so I suppose my issue must be related which is what I'm arguing.

They did? This thread doesn't seem to be about the same thing. Huh.

Well, accept my apology? I guess I got your stance wrong on this.

[pipelineaudio]

Well, accept my apology? I guess I got your stance wrong on this.

No need to apologize...if I had been on topic I'd probably be very wrong :)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

C'mon, such a good thread shouldn't die yet! Wait, I know...

Only anti-Zionists want to keep the Senate!

That should guarantee at least five more pages.

[pipelineaudio]

C'mon, such a good thread shouldn't die yet! Wait, I know...

Only anti-Zionists want to keep the Senate!

That should guarantee at least five more pages.

Can we use the phrase " TFT" as a verb ? :)