Majority Rule and Democracy

[dblack]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

 

[GuyPinestra]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

This nation was given a set of 'operating instructions' at it's inception.

When all else fails, read the directions!

ETA: The 'will of the majority' is the worst kind of government, according to those crotchety old men that started this thing...

 

[dblack]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

This nation was given a set of 'operating instructions' at it's inception.

When all else fails, read the directions!

ETA: The 'will of the majority' is the worst kind of government, according to those crotchety old men that started this thing...

Not sure how this answers the question. The "will of the majority" isn't a kind of government. But it is a guiding principle for a representative democracy is, where elected officials are tasked with pursuing the will of the people they represent. Do you think representative should vote against the will of their people?

 

[GuyPinestra]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

This nation was given a set of 'operating instructions' at it's inception.

When all else fails, read the directions!

ETA: The 'will of the majority' is the worst kind of government, according to those crotchety old men that started this thing...

Not sure how this answers the question. The "will of the majority" isn't a kind of government. But it is a guiding principle for a representative democracy is, where elected officials are tasked with pursing the will of the people they represent. Do you think representative should vote against the will of their people?

If 'the will of the people' is to discount and disobey the very Constitution that formed us, ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!

 

[dblack]

This nation was given a set of 'operating instructions' at it's inception.

When all else fails, read the directions!

ETA: The 'will of the majority' is the worst kind of government, according to those crotchety old men that started this thing...

Not sure how this answers the question. The "will of the majority" isn't a kind of government. But it is a guiding principle for a representative democracy is, where elected officials are tasked with pursing the will of the people they represent. Do you think representative should vote against the will of their people?

If 'the will of the people' is to discount and disobey the very Constitution that formed us, ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!

Sure, sure... but that's a separate question. As I mentioned initially, the question of Constitutional limits on government is independent of whether its a democracy or not. I'm asking, as long as government is acting within proper Constitutional limits, why shouldn't it follow the democratic majority's wishes? And if not, how should decisions get made?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Not sure how this answers the question. The "will of the majority" isn't a kind of government. But it is a guiding principle for a representative democracy is, where elected officials are tasked with pursing the will of the people they represent. Do you think representative should vote against the will of their people?

If 'the will of the people' is to discount and disobey the very Constitution that formed us, ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!

Sure, sure... but that's a separate question. As I mentioned initially, the question of Constitutional limits on government is independent of whether its a democracy or not. I'm asking, as long as government is acting within proper Constitutional limits, why shouldn't it follow the democratic majority's wishes? And if not, how should decisions get made?

Within it's Constitutional limits. The problem with that hypothesis is that this government has pushed the envelope on limits from the start.

We've gone from limiting the role of government to limiting the rights of the people.

Totally Bass-ackwards...

 

[USNavyVet]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

The will of the majority, or a democracy, is a terribe form of government. Mob rule. That's why our Founding Fathers only gave the people the right to vote on the House at first. Anyway, a constitutional republic is what we are and is the best form of government so far. Much better than a democracy.

 

[occupied]

Democracy is not so much a form of government but a quality that a free society must treasure in itself and an activity that a free people engage in without fear. Freedom of association, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest in various peaceful ways are all basic forms of democracy and are sadly at peril from conservatives any time they have the power to fight it.

 

[OKTexas]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

Your question demonstrates a lack of education of our founding. You need to spend some time reading the Constitution, the federalist papers and the anti-federalis papers. Don't accept what you've been taught or heard, read them for yourself. Most of your questions can be answered directly by the founders. Don't think you can do it in a day or even a month, it take some dedication and months. Here's a good place to start. Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

 

[OKTexas]

Democracy is not so much a form of government but a quality that a free society must treasure in itself and an activity that a free people engage in without fear. Freedom of association, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest in various peaceful ways are all basic forms of democracy and are sadly at peril from conservatives any time they have the power to fight it.

Your full it.

 

[Paulie]

For those of you on the "right" who are fond of stating the the US is a "Republic, not a democracy", or otherwise express distrust of democracy, what gives? I certainly wouldn't say that democracy will always produces good results, but what else you got? Does "anti-democratic" strike you as a better mode of governing? Why shouldn't government follow the will of the people?

To be clear, I'm not talking here about the representative vs direct question. Nor am I talking about Constitutional limits on government, which would presumably apply no matter how decisions were made. I'm talking about the concept that the will of the majority should direct government - whether through elected representatives or direct participation. if you reject this foundation, what would you offer as an alternative?

This nation was given a set of 'operating instructions' at it's inception.

When all else fails, read the directions!

ETA: The 'will of the majority' is the worst kind of government, according to those crotchety old men that started this thing...

Not sure how this answers the question. The "will of the majority" isn't a kind of government. But it is a guiding principle for a representative democracy is, where elected officials are tasked with pursuing the will of the people they represent. Do you think representative should vote against the will of their people?

The majority wasn't always meant to be the winner. I think the founders understood that sometimes the majority can be retarded, and they created a system where the minority has a fighting chance.

 

[Cowman]

 

[occupied]

Democracy is not so much a form of government but a quality that a free society must treasure in itself and an activity that a free people engage in without fear. Freedom of association, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest in various peaceful ways are all basic forms of democracy and are sadly at peril from conservatives any time they have the power to fight it.

Your full it.

You're grammar sucks as much as your debate skills.

 

[OKTexas]

Democracy is not so much a form of government but a quality that a free society must treasure in itself and an activity that a free people engage in without fear. Freedom of association, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest in various peaceful ways are all basic forms of democracy and are sadly at peril from conservatives any time they have the power to fight it.

Your full it.

You're grammar sucks as much as your debate skills.

What ev'a.

 

[Cowman]

Your full it.

You're grammar sucks as much as your debate skills.

What ev'a.

True Texan. Entirely willfully ignorant.

I say that as an individual who has lived in Texas the past 10 years and has made this observation countless times.

Texans can't drive either. Shitty fucking drivers!

 

[dblack]

Your question demonstrates a lack of education of our founding. You need to spend some time reading the Constitution, the federalist papers and the anti-federalis papers. Don't accept what you've been taught or heard, read them for yourself. Most of your questions can be answered directly by the founders. Don't think you can do it in a day or even a month, it take some dedication and months. Here's a good place to start. Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

I've done that, and I think I understand it pretty well, actually. But I'm not really asking about original intent or anything. I'm just trying to get a better handle on the modern conservative animosity toward democracy itself. I'm interested in this, in part, because I hear both sides talking past each other.

i don't think most conservatives are anti-democratic, at least not when they stop and think about it. But they do react negatively to those who treat "Democracy" as a capitalized essence that trumps all other concerns. Democracy is a tool for making decisions for the group, a pretty good one as far as it goes. But the "democratic will of the people" shouldn't be revered as the ultimate good.

I think when most conservatives gripe about democracy it's in reaction to people who hold up majority will as an excuse to ignore constitutional limits on government power.

 

[OKTexas]

Your question demonstrates a lack of education of our founding. You need to spend some time reading the Constitution, the federalist papers and the anti-federalis papers. Don't accept what you've been taught or heard, read them for yourself. Most of your questions can be answered directly by the founders. Don't think you can do it in a day or even a month, it take some dedication and months. Here's a good place to start. Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

I've done that, and I think I understand it pretty well, actually. But I'm not really asking about original intent or anything. I'm just trying to get a better handle on the modern conservative animosity toward democracy itself. I'm interested in this, in part, because I hear both sides talking past each other.

i don't think most conservatives are anti-democratic, at least not when they stop and think about it. But they do react negatively to those who treat "Democracy" as a capitalized essence that trumps all other concerns. Democracy is a tool for making decisions for the group, a pretty good one as far as it goes. But the "democratic will of the people" shouldn't be revered as the ultimate good.

I think when most conservatives gripe about democracy it's in reaction to people who hold up majority will as an excuse to ignore constitutional limits on government power.

Ok, using your reasoning, the majority just voted to place a higher burden on a small minority of the population who is already carrying aprox 40% of the individual tax load. How do you square that with the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. Isn't the Constitution there to protect the rights of the individual from the majority.

 

[OKTexas]

You're grammar sucks as much as your debate skills.

What ev'a.

True Texan. Entirely willfully ignorant.

I say that as an individual who has lived in Texas the past 10 years and has made this observation countless times.

Texans can't drive either. Shitty fucking drivers!

I've dirven in many places that drive much worse than Texas, you should try San Juan, PR if you think TX is bad, TX can't hold a candle to those folks. The island of Grenada is also a fun place to dirve, and they do it British style.

 

[dblack]

Your question demonstrates a lack of education of our founding. You need to spend some time reading the Constitution, the federalist papers and the anti-federalis papers. Don't accept what you've been taught or heard, read them for yourself. Most of your questions can be answered directly by the founders. Don't think you can do it in a day or even a month, it take some dedication and months. Here's a good place to start. Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

I've done that, and I think I understand it pretty well, actually. But I'm not really asking about original intent or anything. I'm just trying to get a better handle on the modern conservative animosity toward democracy itself. I'm interested in this, in part, because I hear both sides talking past each other.

i don't think most conservatives are anti-democratic, at least not when they stop and think about it. But they do react negatively to those who treat "Democracy" as a capitalized essence that trumps all other concerns. Democracy is a tool for making decisions for the group, a pretty good one as far as it goes. But the "democratic will of the people" shouldn't be revered as the ultimate good.

I think when most conservatives gripe about democracy it's in reaction to people who hold up majority will as an excuse to ignore constitutional limits on government power.

Ok, using your reasoning, the majority just voted to place a higher burden on a small minority of the population who is already carrying aprox 40% of the individual tax load. How do you square that with the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. Isn't the Constitution there to protect the rights of the individual from the majority.

Sure. And it doesn't square with the 14th, in my view. But that's irrelevant to the value of democracy. It would be just as unconstitutional (or not) regardless of whether it was a democratic decision or not. My point is, as long as it is held to constitutional limitations, why would you want something other than a democracy? If you do want something besides democracy, what is it?

 

[OKTexas]

I've done that, and I think I understand it pretty well, actually. But I'm not really asking about original intent or anything. I'm just trying to get a better handle on the modern conservative animosity toward democracy itself. I'm interested in this, in part, because I hear both sides talking past each other.

i don't think most conservatives are anti-democratic, at least not when they stop and think about it. But they do react negatively to those who treat "Democracy" as a capitalized essence that trumps all other concerns. Democracy is a tool for making decisions for the group, a pretty good one as far as it goes. But the "democratic will of the people" shouldn't be revered as the ultimate good.

I think when most conservatives gripe about democracy it's in reaction to people who hold up majority will as an excuse to ignore constitutional limits on government power.

Ok, using your reasoning, the majority just voted to place a higher burden on a small minority of the population who is already carrying aprox 40% of the individual tax load. How do you square that with the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. Isn't the Constitution there to protect the rights of the individual from the majority.

Sure. And it doesn't square with the 14th, in my view. But that's irrelevant to the value of democracy. It would be just as unconstitutional (or not) regardless of whether it was a democratic decision or not. My point is, as long as it is held to constitutional limitations, why would you want something other than a democracy? If you do want something besides democracy, what is it?

I'm prefectly happy with a representative republic, it allows the lesser populated areas to have a voice equal to those with more dense populations. If you look at the electorial map the liberal north and east and west coasts may have the ability to elect a president, but it doesn't give them a lock on the congress. Even traditionally liberal states have conservative representatives in congress and that's the way the founders intended it to be, it allows for all voices in the formation of policy, not just that of the majority.

If you haven't guessed already, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and believe in original intent. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is not open to interpretation and article 5 is the only way to change it. Law is written down for a reason and the job of a judge is to apply it and that's all.