Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 2,839
- 2,249
- 1,928
Fear 'mobs'? I got bad news for you, if 81,000,000 people voting for Biden is a mob, then 74,000,000 who voted for Trump is ALSO a mob. This idea one is and the other isn't is absurdity on it's face. Yeah, all we have now are mobs, and in a nation of mobs, the only way to go IS democracy, because the alternative is tyranny, and try selling that idea.
the original design was only to give smaller states a larger voice, NOT to allow 'minority rule'. See Federalist #22 by Alexander Hamilton
Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense.
What was Hamilton arguing about in that sentence?
What is the 'sense of the majority'? it is the WILL of the majority, "the will of the people".
More accurately, the context of that quote, Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections.
yes, they had issues with 'factions' and they feared democracy, so they moderated it with a bicameral legislature and 3 co-equal branches of government one being a check on the other, but they never, at any time, never ever favored 'tyranny of the minority' which is about what we have now with the 6/3 court in favor of conservatives, totally out of sync with the will of the people.
One of my detractors stated that 'and small states are not going to have their lives by large states', and thus he favored the status quo of winner takes all electors.
Oh, really? Hows about this:
And large states are not going to have their lives run by smaller states.
One logic is as good as the other.
No, electors elect the president
electors are elected by people.
Therefore, people, not states, elect the president.
Therefore, there is no fairer system than one person one vote.
There is no idea more significant than an idea whose time has come, and that idea is.......
Democracy.
In 1827, the got rid of appointed electors in favor of electing them by the people.
In 1920, the women's suffrage became the law of the land.
Slowly, but surely, we are headed for MORE democracy, not less, and one person one vote is MORE democracy, not less. The status quo can't go on forever, the nation is evolving, embracing democracy, more and more each year.
I know Republicans hate democracy, which, of course, they clearly do given that they are incessantly trying to make the utterly bogus claim that America is not a democracy, as if a 'Constitutional Republic' is not a democracy, which is a lie, no wonder they don't like democracy, they haven't won the popular vote in decades, which is about the time they all of a sudden started in with that bogus claim.
Well, I can't help that repubs can't win the will of the people, so what y'all need to do is find a better message that sells.
Frankly, yours stinks.
the original design was only to give smaller states a larger voice, NOT to allow 'minority rule'. See Federalist #22 by Alexander Hamilton
Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense.
What was Hamilton arguing about in that sentence?
What is the 'sense of the majority'? it is the WILL of the majority, "the will of the people".
More accurately, the context of that quote, Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections.
yes, they had issues with 'factions' and they feared democracy, so they moderated it with a bicameral legislature and 3 co-equal branches of government one being a check on the other, but they never, at any time, never ever favored 'tyranny of the minority' which is about what we have now with the 6/3 court in favor of conservatives, totally out of sync with the will of the people.
One of my detractors stated that 'and small states are not going to have their lives by large states', and thus he favored the status quo of winner takes all electors.
Oh, really? Hows about this:
And large states are not going to have their lives run by smaller states.
One logic is as good as the other.
No, electors elect the president
electors are elected by people.
Therefore, people, not states, elect the president.
Therefore, there is no fairer system than one person one vote.
There is no idea more significant than an idea whose time has come, and that idea is.......
Democracy.
In 1827, the got rid of appointed electors in favor of electing them by the people.
In 1920, the women's suffrage became the law of the land.
Slowly, but surely, we are headed for MORE democracy, not less, and one person one vote is MORE democracy, not less. The status quo can't go on forever, the nation is evolving, embracing democracy, more and more each year.
I know Republicans hate democracy, which, of course, they clearly do given that they are incessantly trying to make the utterly bogus claim that America is not a democracy, as if a 'Constitutional Republic' is not a democracy, which is a lie, no wonder they don't like democracy, they haven't won the popular vote in decades, which is about the time they all of a sudden started in with that bogus claim.
Well, I can't help that repubs can't win the will of the people, so what y'all need to do is find a better message that sells.
Frankly, yours stinks.
