The United States is NOT a democracy and never was

[Archie Moses]

Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a ****.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It's also been pointed out that our Constitution has failed many times to protect the rights that it says we have

On this I completely agree. The Constitution has not been iron clad. As pointed out so eloquently by Frederick Douglass in 1852, the United States failed to live up to the promise set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I never said any of it was perfect, but our type of republic is far better at protecting individual rights than any other type of government ever tried.

Mob rule has a terrible track record of protecting individual rights. Popular opinion is too easily swayed. I understand the appeal of democracy but I trust the written constitution not to be swayed by demagogues, panic, and greed more than I trust majority opinion to be swayed by those things. I don't even like the reinterpreting of the Constitution with a modern eye and instead favor originalist judges because I don't trust the human part of that. I've seen what humans do to each other when they get power.

If you like the way our government is structured then I don't care what you call it. If you are unhappy with it and want to make changes to it then I'll listen but will want to define the terms you are using so I can understand what you are saying. If the change you want to make is to increase the amount of say the popular majority gets then I'm not onboard with it. History shows where that goes.

 

[One Brow]

Mob rule has a terrible track record of protecting individual rights.

Is there some large group advocating for mob rule that I'm not aware of?

If you are unhappy with it and want to make changes to it then I'll listen but will want to define the terms you are using so I can understand what you are saying.

Is there some large group suggesting significant changes?

Maybe you didn't pick up on this, so I'll clarify it for you. When you start talking about how we're not a democracy, etc., and there is no context of changing things in our country, it reads a great deal as if you trying to propagandize a reduction in the level of democratic norms in this country, such as when legislatures give themselves the power to overturn elections. Can you provide a context aside from a push like this?

More generally, how do you feel about bills like Fillmore's of Arizona, which would allow legislatures to reject election results (yes, I know it doesn't have any chance of passing)?

 

[fishonjazz]

Funniest thread going on jazzfanz right now
Well done Al

 

[Red]

Hahaha…


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M_w3_-2JfZc

Recognizing demagogues may require an educated citizenry:

https://www.monticello.org/the-art-of-citizenship/the-role-of-education/

The Virtue of an Educated Voter - The American Scholar

The Founders believed that a well-informed electorate preserves our fragile democracy and benefits American society as a whole

theamericanscholar.org

Our very own demagogue. He loves the poorly educated, as do most demagogues:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

I guess we’re in troubled waters…

The Age of the Strongman by Gideon Rachman review – democracy muscled out?

This chilling examination of how the growing popularity of autocrats and their aspirants could upend western liberal values is forceful and timely

www.theguardian.com

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Is there some large group advocating for mob rule that I'm not aware of? Is there some large group suggesting significant changes?

Yes. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and they've got 15 states plus Washington DC signed on. It is also quite common to hear people in media calling for the electoral college to be abolished every presidential election year. Although less common, there are also those calling for Presidents to get a set number of Supreme Court nominations to make that branch too more subject to democracy. Yes there is a large group and yes they are vocal.

Maybe you didn't pick up on this, so I'll clarify it for you. When you start talking about how we're not a democracy, etc., and there is no context of changing things in our country, it reads a great deal as if you trying to propagandize a reduction in the level of democratic norms in this country, such as when legislatures give themselves the power to overturn elections. Can you provide a context aside from a push like this?

What I am trying to do is educate. Our form of government is a republic and it is shocking to me that so many people want to argue that point.

More generally, how do you feel about bills like Fillmore's of Arizona, which would allow legislatures to reject election results (yes, I know it doesn't have any chance of passing)?

I don't know enough about it but generally speaking if they were wanting the power to reject election results for in-state positions and make all government autocratic then I'm against it. The same would go for elections for House members but I would cheer any effort to repeal the 17th amendment. As for Presidential elections, I don't live in Arizona and the US Constitution gives the power of how to allocate electoral votes entirely up to the states. The President is not a democratically elected position. The President is elected by the electoral college and I am fond of that system.

 

[One Brow]

Yes. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and they've got 15 states plus Washington DC signed on. It is also quite common to hear people in media calling for the electoral college to be abolished every presidential election year. Although less common, there are also those calling for Presidents to get a set number of Supreme Court nominations to make that branch too more subject to democracy. Yes there is a large group and yes they are vocal.

1) We'd still still be a republic if the President were elected based on popular vote margin. Further, that candidate would need to have support of major political parties. That's not mob rule, or anything close.
2) Youi say below that you support Arizona and that the assignment of electoral votes should be up to the states. The individual states can choose to enter the NPVIC or not. This process is them deciding how their electoral votes should be assigned.
3) Giving each President 2 nominations to SCOTUS isn't more democratic than some Presidents nominating 3 in a 4-year term, others nominating 1 or none. It's just less random.

What I am trying to do is educate. Our form of government is a republic and it is shocking to me that so many people want to argue that point.

It's not shocking to me, because of the context we are in, where one party is trying to diminish the importance of democracy.

I don't know enough about it but generally speaking if they were wanting the power to reject election results for in-state positions and make all government autocratic then I'm against it.

So, you support "mob rule" for state positions?

The same would go for elections for House members but I would cheer any effort to repeal the 17th amendment.

So, you support "mob rule" for the positions that would elect a US Senator, but nor for the Senator themself?

The 17th Amendment didn't happen in a vacuum. Which of the issues discussed in this link do you feel no longer apply?

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In particular, there was a problem with appointments to the Senate dominating state issues in the election of state legislatures.

The President is not a democratically elected position. The President is elected by the electoral college and I am fond of that system.

I have no objection to the electoral college.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yes. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and they've got 15 states plus Washington DC signed on. It is also quite common to hear people in media calling for the electoral college to be abolished every presidential election year. Although less common, there are also those calling for Presidents to get a set number of Supreme Court nominations to make that branch too more subject to democracy. Yes there is a large group and yes they are vocal.

What I am trying to do is educate. Our form of government is a republic and it is shocking to me that so many people want to argue that point.

I don't know enough about it but generally speaking if they were wanting the power to reject election results for in-state positions and make all government autocratic then I'm against it. The same would go for elections for House members but I would cheer any effort to repeal the 17th amendment. As for Presidential elections, I don't live in Arizona and the US Constitution gives the power of how to allocate electoral votes entirely up to the states. The President is not a democratically elected position. The President is elected by the electoral college and I am fond of that system.

Can you tell me how many presidential elections would have had a different result if we used popular vote rather than electoral college? (Spoiler alert, popular vote and electoral vote typically have the same candidate as the winner)


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Can you tell me how many presidential elections would have had a different result if we used popular vote rather than electoral college? (Spoiler alert, popular vote and electoral vote typically have the same candidate as the winner)

The loser of the popular vote being elected President by the EC happens about 11% of the time.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So, you support "mob rule" for state positions? So, you support "mob rule" for the positions that would elect a US Senator, but nor for the Senator themself?

I support the appearance of democracy with the importance decreasing inversely with the number of people affected by the position. Your local mayor, school board, etc., should be democratically elected. The Congressmen for your district, fine. The Senator for the entire state, less so. The President of the United States and the Supreme Court, no.

I think democracy is a good way to release societal pressure. It makes people think they have a voice and don't need to resort to revolution to make changes. That is the good part about democracy. The bad part is how fickle, prone to panic, and easily manipulated people have proven to be throughout history. For the local and smaller jobs I'm all for democracy but in the bigger jobs, I like to see the types of hard constraints on power that popular opinion alone does not provide.

 

[Avery]

The loser of the popular vote being elected President by the EC happens about 11% of the time.

Most recently, this happened with Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 vs. Gore. We'd have to go all the way back to the 1800's prior to that with Harrison and Hayes.

I can't the EC going anywhere anytime soon as abolishing it isn't a new concept and passage through the House and Senate is unrealistic.

 

[Gameface]

Most recently, this happened with Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 vs. Gore. We'd have to go all the way back to the 1800's prior to that with Harrison and Hayes.

I can't the EC going anywhere anytime soon as abolishing it isn't a new concept and passage through the House and Senate is unrealistic.

It probably will never happen because the EC will always favor, even if only slightly, one party over the other so you'll likely never get a consensus that you'd need to pass an amendment.