Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

[Blaster]

America elects people who keep pushing us to a dictatorship. We have less freedoms than ever.

We are no better than Russia or other dictatorial countries.

 

[d0gbreath]

Bamboozled by a Republican. Surely you jest.

 

[Rumpole]

Fortunately, we do not have a sustained minority rule situation at the national level. Even a president who is elected without a majority of votes cast has to answer to the other 2 branches of our gov't, AND he or she can be removed from office via the 25th Amendment or Impeachment. IMHO, a 50% plus 1 majority is not a good way to run a country, cuz the tyranny of the majority is a good way to end up with a one-party, totalitarian state. Our current Constitution does not prevent a president from being elected without a majority of the popular vote, and that IS a feature of our constitution design rather than a perversion. It was on purpose to preclude the more populous states from running roughshod over the smaller ones.

In Federalist #22, doesn't seem Hamilton agrees with your contention:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. 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 Delaware 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. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America3; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration.

In this paragraph from Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton is arguing against the principle of equal suffrage among states, as established in the Articles of Confederation. He contends that giving each state, regardless of its population, equal representation and power is contrary to the principles of fair representation and majority rule, which are essential for a republican government.

Hamilton points out that granting a small state like Rhode Island the same weight in decision-making as more populous states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York is unjust and defies common sense. He further argues that a majority of states might represent only a small minority of the people, which would lead to larger states feeling undervalued and eventually revolting against the idea of receiving laws from smaller states.

He believes that smaller states should be willing to give up the notion of equal representation, as their safety and welfare depend heavily on maintaining a strong union. By insisting on equal representation, smaller states risk the collapse of the union itself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post]

This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump
has joined the *RNAD regurgitators.

*Republic, Not A Democracy.

Some Republicans claim that 'proof' is in the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..."

Uh, no...I'm sorry to inform you on the right, especially republicans, but "Republic", "Constitutional Republic", "Democracy", "Liberal Democracy", "Western Democracy", etc., these are NOT mutually exclusive terms. I know you think they are, but no, they aren't. They are general terms for basically the same principle, that a Democracy, using the broadest sense of the term, which is the most common use of the term, means a nation of liberty, where free speech, freedom of assembly, everyone of age has the vote, and other assorted virtues, prevail, as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship or totalitarian non democratic nations.


To wit:

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

When Madison/Hamilton (i.e., "Publius") was making a distinction between 'Democracy' and 'Republic', favoring a Republic, he wasn't dissing 'Democracy' in the general sense, he/they were using the term in parochial sense, he was making a distinction between a government where laws are voted on by the electorate, a direct democracy, and one that has laws enacted by a Republic consisting of representative body, each of whose members are elected by popular vote. In America, this is the House of Representatives, Congress, and The Senate, i.e., our bicameral legislature which includes the Vice President when a tie vote needs to be broken. They weren't using the term as it has been used in academia, journalism and public spheres as it has ben used for a very long time.
Now, just in case some of you on the right assert that my Fed #22 quote is out of context, but no, because the meat of the statement stands alone and the context it was written in doesn't really change that fact, so context wasn't necessary.

And what was that context? 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. This IS democracy.

Note that, as any encyclopedia will define, the term 'Republic', is a broad term, and is merely any government that is not a monarchy, where the leaders are either voted in OR appointed. also note that all elections, yes, the many thousands of them from local municipalities on up, excluding only the Vice Pres. and President, are voted via direct democracy. Thus only the VP and the Prez are voted via the EC. (Of course, laws are enacted via the legislature and the Prez but we do have laws, known as 'ballot initiatives' enacted by direct vote in many states). So, we can rightfully state that the vast majority of elections in the United States are done via direct democracy.

There are all types of Republics; there are Constitutional Republics (AKA Democratic Republics aligned with a Constitution) , Islamic Republics, There are Socialist Republics, Calvinist Republics, and so on. But, listening to any Republican, (of late) they will assert that a 'Republic" and a "Democracy' are not the same thing. Let's be clear on this point, A Republic may not include a democracy but a democracy is just about always a Republic, and so, most of the time, these days, when we say 'Republic' we are thinking of a democracy of a certain type, which is defined by whatever charter the Republic is aligned with and usually that is a representative democracy of some kind.

America is a Constitutional [Federal] Republic, AKA "Representative Democracy: AKA "Liberal Democracy" AKA "Western Democracy", noting that Representative Democracy refers to the House of Representatives, and not so much the Electoral College. If we didn't have an EC, America would still be a representative democracy. A number of western democracies, or rather, most of them, elect their president by direct, majority vote, yet are still known as 'representative democracies' precisely because of the fact that they have, like that of the US, an elected body of representatives who propose legislation on behalf of constituents. Now, if anyone is going to claim otherwise, no, I don't buy it, because I've learned this since middle school, read it everywhere I've ever read about politics, heard it spoken on the tongues of pundits, academicians, and leaders of every type since I was a teenager interested in the subject --- we were taught, without exception, "America is a Democracy", and "Democracy is core value in America".

I mean, this stupid RNAD thing, well, it's getting out of hand, and I can clearly see what is driving it: IN FACT, this idea that 'America is not a Democracy' became popular with Republicans right about the time they started losing the popular vote. Gee, what a coincidence, it seems they need to dis democracy in order to feel about about their winning the presidency via a particular fluke in the electoral college system. And don't tell me that not winning the popular vote doesn't bother Republicans. I know it really annoys Trump which is why he lied when he said that he would have won the popular vote had not 3 million illegals voted (in the 2016 election, which was a lie). No, y'all would definitely prefer to win the popular vote. Don't tell me otherwise, I just don't believe you.

It's really gotten a lot of traction now, the RNAD myth, given that in the last few decades Republicans are not winning the popular vote, so now they're trying to poo poo democracy, and doing a lot to diminish it, as a matter of fact, and this trope allows them to feel good about doing it. Republics don't like democracy given that of late, it appears that Democracy doesn't like Republicans. Well, they are bringing it on themselves.

Well, I got bad news for Republicans, either you have a democracy or Fascism. It's one or the other and you really need to decide which side you are on. You can move towards one, and when you do, you are moving away from the other, and that, in my view, describes Trumpism, a move away from democracy towards fascism. The Lincoln Repubs recognize this and have rejected Trumpism hence the "Lincoln Project".

America is all about elections. We have local elections in every municipality in America, thousands of them. We have elections in every state for various state level positions form Governor on down. And then we have elections for the House and the Senate, and finally, The President and Vice president via the electoral college. All sorts of elections, so don't tell me, those of you on the right, and Republicans, that America is "not" a democracy because the BS meter is redlining......

View attachment 772373

Any country that has as many elections as America has is a democracy. No, that it's a 'representative democracy' doesn't alter the statement. Remember, the term 'Democracy' has both broad and parochial usages.

The Trumpist claim that we're 'a republic, not a democracy' is even more dangerous than it sounds

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to ...

www.dailykos.com

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to statements like, “Trumpism is a threat to democracy!” While your first reaction might have been, “Huh?” or, “Are these stone-cold nincompoops out of their ever-loving minds?” the refrain remains a consistent rebuttal from the extreme right.

Responding to RNAD requires understanding what right-wing extremists mean when they say “a republic, not a democracy.” It means they don’t care about democracy. This line of argument provides an ideological justification for some of the most extreme actions being taken by members of the MAGAsphere—actions aimed at thwarting American democracy itself.

BINGO!

A democracy is often a term referring to....

1. A nation where citizens enjoy rights.
2. A nation where citizens enjoy certain freedoms, of speech, free assembly, freedom to work, be self-employed, to achieve one's aims, etc.
3. Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion
4. The right to vote once one is 18.
5. A nation with a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.
6. A Republic, Federal, Constitutional, or otherwise, which is, essentially, a government of elected leaders, indirectly or directly, whose legislation is enacted by the elected representatives constituting a 'representative democracy' generally under the governance of a constitution.

Definition of republic

1a(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

View attachment 772394

AKA 'representative democracy' AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies' AKA or just 'democracy'.

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

www.theatlantic.com

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.


And it so states right on the Government's own website:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

Democrats, do not let Republicans bamboozle anyone on this point, America IS a democracy. Yes, there are times when it might be in doubt, but in principle, though our democracy is far from perfect, so with all of it's flaws, America is a Democracy.

If the US is a democracy, it's a very, very weak one.

Why?
1) There's only a viable choice between two parties. That's hardly democracy, it's closer to an African dictatorship than democracy.
2) For president, especially, but also for Congress elections, you literally only get to choose from those the two parties have chosen. Yes, you could choose to vote in those primaries, but really, it's a JOKE.
3) Wyoming has a stronger vote than CA, by a long way, and yet neither has any influence on the Presidential election. Only about 20% of the people really get to choose.
4) The electoral college literally makes millions of people's votes count for nothing.

 

[j-mac]

In Federalist #22, doesn't seem Hamilton agrees with your contention:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. 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 Delaware 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. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America3; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration.

In this paragraph from Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton is arguing against the principle of equal suffrage among states, as established in the Articles of Confederation. He contends that giving each state, regardless of its population, equal representation and power is contrary to the principles of fair representation and majority rule, which are essential for a republican government.

Hamilton points out that granting a small state like Rhode Island the same weight in decision-making as more populous states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York is unjust and defies common sense. He further argues that a majority of states might represent only a small minority of the people, which would lead to larger states feeling undervalued and eventually revolting against the idea of receiving laws from smaller states.

He believes that smaller states should be willing to give up the notion of equal representation, as their safety and welfare depend heavily on maintaining a strong union. By insisting on equal representation, smaller states risk the collapse of the union itself.

What you’re trying would result in the tyranny of the majority.

 

[JoeC]

No, the proof is in the Constitution, which defines the very ground rules by which this country operates. We are explicitly set up, not as a democracy, but as a republic.

To put a finer point on it. A representative republic.

 

[Resnic]

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post]

This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump
has joined the *RNAD regurgitators.

*Republic, Not A Democracy.

Some Republicans claim that 'proof' is in the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..."

Uh, no...I'm sorry to inform you on the right, especially republicans, but "Republic", "Constitutional Republic", "Democracy", "Liberal Democracy", "Western Democracy", etc., these are NOT mutually exclusive terms. I know you think they are, but no, they aren't. They are general terms for basically the same principle, that a Democracy, using the broadest sense of the term, which is the most common use of the term, means a nation of liberty, where free speech, freedom of assembly, everyone of age has the vote, and other assorted virtues, prevail, as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship or totalitarian non democratic nations.


To wit:

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

When Madison/Hamilton (i.e., "Publius") was making a distinction between 'Democracy' and 'Republic', favoring a Republic, he wasn't dissing 'Democracy' in the general sense, he/they were using the term in parochial sense, he was making a distinction between a government where laws are voted on by the electorate, a direct democracy, and one that has laws enacted by a Republic consisting of representative body, each of whose members are elected by popular vote. In America, this is the House of Representatives, Congress, and The Senate, i.e., our bicameral legislature which includes the Vice President when a tie vote needs to be broken. They weren't using the term as it has been used in academia, journalism and public spheres as it has ben used for a very long time.
Now, just in case some of you on the right assert that my Fed #22 quote is out of context, but no, because the meat of the statement stands alone and the context it was written in doesn't really change that fact, so context wasn't necessary.

And what was that context? 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. This IS democracy.

Note that, as any encyclopedia will define, the term 'Republic', is a broad term, and is merely any government that is not a monarchy, where the leaders are either voted in OR appointed. also note that all elections, yes, the many thousands of them from local municipalities on up, excluding only the Vice Pres. and President, are voted via direct democracy. Thus only the VP and the Prez are voted via the EC. (Of course, laws are enacted via the legislature and the Prez but we do have laws, known as 'ballot initiatives' enacted by direct vote in many states). So, we can rightfully state that the vast majority of elections in the United States are done via direct democracy.

There are all types of Republics; there are Constitutional Republics (AKA Democratic Republics aligned with a Constitution) , Islamic Republics, There are Socialist Republics, Calvinist Republics, and so on. But, listening to any Republican, (of late) they will assert that a 'Republic" and a "Democracy' are not the same thing. Let's be clear on this point, A Republic may not include a democracy but a democracy is just about always a Republic, and so, most of the time, these days, when we say 'Republic' we are thinking of a democracy of a certain type, which is defined by whatever charter the Republic is aligned with and usually that is a representative democracy of some kind.

America is a Constitutional [Federal] Republic, AKA "Representative Democracy: AKA "Liberal Democracy" AKA "Western Democracy", noting that Representative Democracy refers to the House of Representatives, and not so much the Electoral College. If we didn't have an EC, America would still be a representative democracy. A number of western democracies, or rather, most of them, elect their president by direct, majority vote, yet are still known as 'representative democracies' precisely because of the fact that they have, like that of the US, an elected body of representatives who propose legislation on behalf of constituents. Now, if anyone is going to claim otherwise, no, I don't buy it, because I've learned this since middle school, read it everywhere I've ever read about politics, heard it spoken on the tongues of pundits, academicians, and leaders of every type since I was a teenager interested in the subject --- we were taught, without exception, "America is a Democracy", and "Democracy is core value in America".

I mean, this stupid RNAD thing, well, it's getting out of hand, and I can clearly see what is driving it: IN FACT, this idea that 'America is not a Democracy' became popular with Republicans right about the time they started losing the popular vote. Gee, what a coincidence, it seems they need to dis democracy in order to feel about about their winning the presidency via a particular fluke in the electoral college system. And don't tell me that not winning the popular vote doesn't bother Republicans. I know it really annoys Trump which is why he lied when he said that he would have won the popular vote had not 3 million illegals voted (in the 2016 election, which was a lie). No, y'all would definitely prefer to win the popular vote. Don't tell me otherwise, I just don't believe you.

It's really gotten a lot of traction now, the RNAD myth, given that in the last few decades Republicans are not winning the popular vote, so now they're trying to poo poo democracy, and doing a lot to diminish it, as a matter of fact, and this trope allows them to feel good about doing it. Republics don't like democracy given that of late, it appears that Democracy doesn't like Republicans. Well, they are bringing it on themselves.

Well, I got bad news for Republicans, either you have a democracy or Fascism. It's one or the other and you really need to decide which side you are on. You can move towards one, and when you do, you are moving away from the other, and that, in my view, describes Trumpism, a move away from democracy towards fascism. The Lincoln Repubs recognize this and have rejected Trumpism hence the "Lincoln Project".

America is all about elections. We have local elections in every municipality in America, thousands of them. We have elections in every state for various state level positions form Governor on down. And then we have elections for the House and the Senate, and finally, The President and Vice president via the electoral college. All sorts of elections, so don't tell me, those of you on the right, and Republicans, that America is "not" a democracy because the BS meter is redlining......

View attachment 772373

Any country that has as many elections as America has is a democracy. No, that it's a 'representative democracy' doesn't alter the statement. Remember, the term 'Democracy' has both broad and parochial usages.

The Trumpist claim that we're 'a republic, not a democracy' is even more dangerous than it sounds

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to ...

www.dailykos.com

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to statements like, “Trumpism is a threat to democracy!” While your first reaction might have been, “Huh?” or, “Are these stone-cold nincompoops out of their ever-loving minds?” the refrain remains a consistent rebuttal from the extreme right.

Responding to RNAD requires understanding what right-wing extremists mean when they say “a republic, not a democracy.” It means they don’t care about democracy. This line of argument provides an ideological justification for some of the most extreme actions being taken by members of the MAGAsphere—actions aimed at thwarting American democracy itself.

BINGO!

A democracy is often a term referring to....

1. A nation where citizens enjoy rights.
2. A nation where citizens enjoy certain freedoms, of speech, free assembly, freedom to work, be self-employed, to achieve one's aims, etc.
3. Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion
4. The right to vote once one is 18.
5. A nation with a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.
6. A Republic, Federal, Constitutional, or otherwise, which is, essentially, a government of elected leaders, indirectly or directly, whose legislation is enacted by the elected representatives constituting a 'representative democracy' generally under the governance of a constitution.

Definition of republic

1a(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

View attachment 772394

AKA 'representative democracy' AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies' AKA or just 'democracy'.

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

www.theatlantic.com

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.


And it so states right on the Government's own website:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

Democrats, do not let Republicans bamboozle anyone on this point, America IS a democracy. Yes, there are times when it might be in doubt, but in principle, though our democracy is far from perfect, so with all of it's flaws, America is a Democracy.

I always try to read your posts so I can reply but you're so long winded, repetitive and you say much unnecessary fluff I can never manage to muscle through it all.

In the end it may not be worth it through since everything you post is pretty much just "I don't like republicans". I mean at one point you had like 3 separate threads going on about trump's arraignment. Contrarians do tend to either say way too much, or don't say more than a comment or two.

Obvious you're an alt account because since the day you joined it's been nonstop long posts about how you don't like republicans. You do know maybe 5% of people actually read it all right? The rest just skim it for a hot button. I I think you just like the catharsis of it all though, not the actual conversation.

Don't think I'd put such a new account on ignore before.

 

[22lcidw]

We are no better than Russia or other dictatorial countries.

We have to be to morph into part of the globalist government. In the past much of any issues on freedoms may have been localized. Now it is local and federal. Red area local can screw over its own and potential allies and does. With the Progs slowly infecting them.

 

[task0778]

In Federalist #22, doesn't seem Hamilton agrees with your contention:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. 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 Delaware 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. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America3; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration.

In this paragraph from Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton is arguing against the principle of equal suffrage among states, as established in the Articles of Confederation. He contends that giving each state, regardless of its population, equal representation and power is contrary to the principles of fair representation and majority rule, which are essential for a republican government.

Hamilton points out that granting a small state like Rhode Island the same weight in decision-making as more populous states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York is unjust and defies common sense. He further argues that a majority of states might represent only a small minority of the people, which would lead to larger states feeling undervalued and eventually revolting against the idea of receiving laws from smaller states.

He believes that smaller states should be willing to give up the notion of equal representation, as their safety and welfare depend heavily on maintaining a strong union. By insisting on equal representation, smaller states risk the collapse of the union itself.

Hamilton might not agree, but James Madison does (did), and also others such as Alexis de Tocqueville and British philosopher John Stuart Mill. This guy (JM) is credited with playing a large part in the construction of our US Constitution, right? Wherein the Electoral College was devised to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority', meaning that the larger and more populous states could run roughshod over the smaller ones.

Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is a situation that can result from a system of majority rule, wherein the majority group places its own interests above the interests of a minority group without consideration for the welfare or rights of the minority. In a direct democracy, for example, this form of oppression could involve the majority using the democratic process to shape public policy solely in their own interests, excluding the minority group from the distribution of benefits."
To limit the possibility of a tyranny of the majority in the United States, the framers of the Constitution established a government with checks and balances designed, they claimed, to prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful. Additionally, they made it more difficult for Congress to easily ignore the needs of minority groups by requiring the support of a supermajority for major decisions. They also added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to protect various individual rights of those in minority groups. Further, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College system to theoretically prevent presidential candidates from ignoring the needs of less populous states in favor of highly-populated ones. [So, it IS a feature in our Constitution.]

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/tyranny-of-the-majority-explained

So, strictly speaking we are not exactly a democracy, are we? Cuz presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. But there are good and sufficient reasons why a pure democracy is a bad idea in a nation such as ours. Starting with the observation that there wouldn't have been a United States in the 1st place cuz the smaller states wouldn't have agreed to possibly being ignored when it comes to national policies. Since we do elect our representatives to govern for us, one can make the argument that at least democratic principles are at work here, and none of them have control over the others. Some hate the idea of a president who didn't win the popular vote. Tough shit.

 

[BlindBoo]

We democratically elect our representatives in our Democratic Republic.

"I think there is a difference between democracy and republicanism, although it is easily overlooked. Our system is republican in that the Founders understood that the public is the only legitimate sovereign of government. But it is not wholly democratic, in that they feared the abuse of that authority by the people and designed an instrument of government intended to keep temporary, imprudent, and intemperate outbursts of public opinion from dominating the body politic.

Their primary method of doing this was the separation of power across three branches of government. The public retains control over each branch, but the link between the people and each branch is conditioned by different factors."

Democracy or Republic?

Our system is republican in that the Founders understood that the public is the only legitimate sovereign of government. But it is not wholly democratic, in that they feared the abuse of that authority by the people and designed an instrument of government intended to keep temporary, imprudent...

www.aei.org

 

[Flash]

In Federalist #22, doesn't seem Hamilton agrees with your contention:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. 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 Delaware 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. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America3; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration.

In this paragraph from Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton is arguing against the principle of equal suffrage among states, as established in the Articles of Confederation. He contends that giving each state, regardless of its population, equal representation and power is contrary to the principles of fair representation and majority rule, which are essential for a republican government.

Hamilton points out that granting a small state like Rhode Island the same weight in decision-making as more populous states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York is unjust and defies common sense. He further argues that a majority of states might represent only a small minority of the people, which would lead to larger states feeling undervalued and eventually revolting against the idea of receiving laws from smaller states.

He believes that smaller states should be willing to give up the notion of equal representation, as their safety and welfare depend heavily on maintaining a strong union. By insisting on equal representation, smaller states risk the collapse of the union itself.

One of the biggest fuck ups ever done to undermine our Republic was when it was changed that Senators were to be elected by popular vote.

Before that Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. Their job was to protect the interest of their respective states.

Nowadays Senators don't give a shit about their state because their campaign money comes from special interest outside the state. Totally destroying the concept of our Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

By the way, if it was up to the states then the Senate would be firmly controlled by the Republicans nowadays.

When the bad guys won the Civil War a lot of things were screwed up.

 

[task0778]

When the bad guys won the Civil War a lot of things were screwed up.

Say what? Are you saying that any state(s) should be allowed to secede from the union? Or the slavery should be acceptable?

 

[AMart]

I didn't know Chomsky was a republican lol​

Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky: How the U.S. Became an Oligarchy That Makes War on the Middle Class​

Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky: How the U.S. Became an Oligarchy That Makes War on the Middle Class - Truthdig

In the first of a two-part conversation, the two intellectuals discuss the shift in the U.S. and U.K. in the late 1970s toward neoliberalism, an ideology that Chomsky (pictured) says claims to increase freedom while actually increasing tyranny.

www.truthdig.com

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy​

• • Published
    17 April 2014
  
  
  The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
  So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
  This is not news, you say.
  Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
  
  Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
  In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
• 
  
  
  
• Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Flash]

Say what? Are you saying that any state(s) should be allowed to secede from the union? Or the slavery should be acceptable?

Any state should be able to secede. The Union is not a suicide pact.

Slavery exist now. Whenever I work the filthy ass government takes my money and gives it away to other people that did not earn the money. That is slavery. Socialism is slavery.

 

[Rumpole]

One of the biggest fuck ups ever done to undermine our Republic was when it was changed that Senators were to be elected by popular vote.

Before that Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. Their job was to protect the interest of their respective states.

Nowadays Senators don't give a shit about their state because their campaign money comes from special interest outside the state. Totally destroying the concept of our Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

By the way, if it was up to the states then the Senate would be firmly controlled by the Republicans nowadays.

When the bad guys won the Civil War a lot of things were screwed up.

Yes, the original design of the founders, today, hardly reflects their vision. They viewed the House similar to the House of commons, and the Senate similar to the House Of Lords, where elder statesman, wiser, etc., would keep the unruly house from going off the rails. But now both houses are an unruly bunch and the EC is nothing more the rubber stamp for each state's popular vote.

They'd probably crap in their pants if the can see what American has descended into. However, one amazing things as it has lasted as long as it has. But, is it that long? Roman Empire lasted 500 or 1400 years (if you include the Byzantine era), and the Egyptian empire lasted what, about 3000 years?

 

[Flash]

Yes, the original design of the founders, today, hardly reflects their vision. They viewed the House similar to the House of commons, and the Senate similar to the House Of Lords, where elder statesman, wiser, etc., would keep the unruly house from going off the rails. But now both houses are an unruly bunch and the EC is nothing more the rubber stamp for each state's popular vote.

They'd probably crap in their pants if the can see what American has descended into. However, one amazing things as it has lasted as long as it has. But, is it that long? Roman Empire lasted 500 or 1400 years (if you include the Byzantine era), and the Egyptian empire lasted what, about 3000 years?

You Moon Bats don't know jackshit about History. Just like you don't know anything about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

There was no concept of a House of Lords. It was a concept of States Rights and the Senate being appointed by the State Legislatures to being a check on the House of Representatives. Protection of the States was very important to our Founding Fathers who identified with their states instead of the Federal government..

With the goddamn Senate being elected by popular vote it might as well be an extension of the House of Representative and that is one of the reasons our government is so fucked up.

Like I said, one of the consequences of the bad guys winning the Civil War.

 

[Rumpole]

Any state should be able to secede. The Union is not a suicide pact.

Slavery exist now. Whenever I work the filthy ass government takes my money and gives it away to other people that did not earn the money. That is slavery. Socialism is slavery.

Flash, okay, you mentioned that when the government takes your money and gives it to someone else, it's socialism. I can see where you're coming from, but it's important to note that this idea is an oversimplification of both socialism and democracy. Let's take a closer look at what these terms really mean:

1. Socialism: This is a system where the state, the community, or worker cooperatives own or control how goods and services are produced, distributed, and exchanged. The main goal of socialism is to make sure that wealth and resources are shared more fairly among everyone.
2. Democracy: This is all about giving power to the people. In a democratic system, citizens elect their government through fair and open elections. Democracy is about protecting individual rights, promoting political participation, and upholding the rule of law.

Now, your argument seems to mix up redistributive policies (which can be part of both socialist and democratic systems) with socialism itself. The truth is, governments in many modern democracies, whether they lean more towards capitalism or socialism, use taxes and spending to redistribute wealth and provide public goods and services.

The problem with your argument is that it equates all forms of wealth redistribution with socialism, without considering the bigger picture of how these policies work in different political and economic systems. It also oversimplifies socialism and democracy by focusing on just one aspect of each.

In short, saying that "government taking your money and giving it to someone else" is socialism doesn't quite capture the whole story. Wealth redistribution can be a part of both socialism and democracy, but it's not what defines socialism. It's essential to think about the broader context of political and economic structures to better understand the differences between the two.

But, look at it this way, the truth is taxation NEVER pleases everyone. We vote for our elected officials and the enact tax policies on our behalf. Some policies will please one group, but another group will hate them. This is democracy in action!

So, welcome to the club, we're all in it and bitching about it, one way or the other, just like you are.

You are NOT alone!

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution creates the form of government we have in the United States, which is a constitutional and federal republic.

Dems abuse the word democracy to mean majority rule, don't be fooled. Our federal republic guarantees that 51% cannot simply dictate to 49%. Dems hate that.

Technically it would be 50.00%+1 needed to do that.

 

[JWBooth]

America is a Democracy.

All hail mob rule.

 

[Rumpole]

You Moon Bats don't know jackshit about History. Just like you don't know anything about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

There was no concept of a House of Lords. It was a concept of States Rights and the Senate being appointed by the State Legislatures to being a check on the House of Representatives. Protection of the States was very important to our Founding Fathers who identified with their states instead of the Federal government..

With the goddamn Senate being elected by popular vote it might as well be an extension of the House of Representative and that is one of the reasons our government is so fucked up.

Like I said, one of the consequences of the bad guys winning the Civil War.

Hi Flash, thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter. I appreciate your input and the opportunity to engage in a civil discussion. While I understand your viewpoint on the roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the context of states' rights, I'd like to offer a different perspective for your consideration.

It is true that the Founding Fathers were concerned with states' rights and sought to create a balance of power between the federal government and the individual states. The Senate, with each state having equal representation regardless of its population, was indeed designed to protect the interests of the states. However, it's also important to note that the Founding Fathers were influenced by various political systems and philosophies, including those from Britain.

Drawing a comparison between the House of Commons and the House of Representatives, as well as the House of Lords and the Senate, is not entirely unfounded. While the specifics may differ, the idea of a bicameral legislature with one chamber representing the people and another chamber providing an additional check on legislation is common to both systems. It's possible that the Founding Fathers looked to the British model as a source of inspiration, adapting it to the unique needs and values of the newly formed United States.

Regarding your concerns about the Senate's popular election, the 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of senators, was enacted to address issues of corruption and political maneuvering that had arisen with the original method of appointment by state legislatures. While this change may have shifted the balance of power within the government, it also aimed to make the Senate more accountable to the citizens it represents.

In conclusion, while the protection of states' rights was undoubtedly a key concern for the Founding Fathers, it is also important to recognize the broader context in which the United States Constitution was created. A respectful and open-minded examination of history can offer valuable insights and a deeper understanding of the foundations of our government.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts, and I look forward to any further discussion on this topic.