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

[Cellblock2429]

"....that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." --Alexander Hamilton

Does the majority prevail in a Democracy? Yes.

Does the majority prevail in a Republic? Depends on the type, for a constitutional and/or a democratic Republic (but not a socialist republic), the answer is yes.

"Democracy, as in Republic", they are not mutually exclusive terms, ASSHOLE.

Both are broad terms with alternate narrow usages. Each have a narrow use which are redundant. That 'democracy' is not in the constitution doesn't change the fact, nor does it in any pledge.





View attachment 930677

/—-/ We understand your distaste for the EC. Deal with it.

 

[dblack]

A democratic republic is a democracy.

America is a democracy, in the broadest sense of the term. To say it's a Republic, but not a democracy, is not accurate. They are pretty much used interchangeably in many respects.

Now, if you want to be specific, as in representative democracy, that's fine, but I'm using 'democracy' in the broadest sense of the term.

The federalist papers are a point in history. If we look at history since antiquity, the grander spectrum of the term, how the terms are used in academia, etc., we see it's broader meaning than that which is offered by Mssr Madison.

Even madison's contemporaries believed his use of the term was aberrant.

Let's skip the bickering over labels, and talk about something that matters. Some of the posts here have been circling back around to the Electoral College system of electing the President. You acknowledged earlier that democracy isn't sustainable without constraints and limits to address its flaws. The electoral college is one of those constraints, one of the most important. Yet, given that you're constantly messaging the popular vote thing, you seem to oppose it. Why?

 

[Rumpole]

Let's skip the bickering over labels, and talk about something that matters. Some of the posts here have been circling back around to the Electoral College system of electing the President. You acknowledged earlier that democracy isn't sustainable without constraints and limits to address its flaws. The electoral college is one of those constraints, one of the most important. Yet, given that you're constantly messaging the popular vote thing, you seem to oppose it. Why?

Thanks, now we are moving the debate forward.

Well, let's look at all the 'constraints' on democracy:
1. A bicameral legislature consisting of a house of representatives apportioned by districts in each state, and a senate consisting of 2 senators per state, regardless of size.
2. A electoral college.

When the constitution was ratified in 1787, America was a tiny nation, The EC raised the voice of smaller states so they wouldn't be totally squashed by the larger states. That wasn't to mean minority should rule, but they wanted to make the field more level than it was.

But, the framers didn't configure the EC around a nation with states having 39 million people, 20 million people, whereby the idea of increasing the voice of say, Rhode Island, which made sense in 1787, becomes a moot point today. In 1787, factions were a threat, but when there are 165,000,000 voters, the concept of factions becomes a moot point. Factions are all that we have in modernity.

That the electorate is so large, it's hugeness, itself, tempers the idea of any one faction gaining control (the factions argued by Hamilton and Madison were not political parties, they were groups organized for a purpose, societies, unions, guilds, that sort of thing), so the idea of any faction gaining control is diluted by the huge size of the electorate, which consists of thousands and thousands of factions, no one faction could ever gain control. So, an EC isn't really necessary.

But, it has evolved to aid in the retaining of power of the minority political party (which was NEVER the framer's intent), where they now have the advantage. In order for Biden to win the election, he must have a clear majority, likely at least 5 million votes more than his Republican opponent, to win in the EC. That isn't democracy. If Democrats have a small majority in the election, Republicans will win, THEY WILL ALWAYS WIN, given the distribution of electors favoring Republicans.

Hillary lost to Trump though having 3 million votes more. Bush won against Kerry with 3 million more votes, almost the same number. But,. when Biden got 8 million more votes, he won. Good thing he didn't have only 3 million, Trump would have won like he did against Hillary.

I contend that, given the fact of size, the only thing left that tempers the excesses of democracy and protects the rights of minority groups (to the degree that it can) are a bicameral legislature consisting of a house of representatives and a senate, and that the EC is no longer functional (because protecting the rights of the minority doesn't mean minority rule), particularly because the EC, as Messrs. Hamilton and Madison intended for it, it no longer exists. Electors in states are commanded to go with the popular vote on each state, so what is the point of them in the first place? That they are awarded 'winner takes all' means that candidates who win win unearned electors. The EC is not functioning as Madison and Hamilton designed it.

Additionally, no one expected the idea of the total number of votes, being a minority, could actually not be in accord with the EC, at least not with any serious frequency. Since it only happened twice in some 212 years after ratification and Washington elected in 1788, it's safe to presume that it's design was intended for majorities both in the EC and the vote, itself.

The framers could not have predicted the rise of the two party system and the shifting demographics where rural states are stronger with one party, and states with large urban populations are stronger with the other, such that the EC, not reflecting states with accurate proportion demographically, have resulted in the unprecedented scenario that in the last 2 1/2 decades, Republicans have twice won the presidency in which the vote count was not in accordance with the electoral college.

The frequency of this occurrence reflects that the electoral college is in need of reform. Republics argue that the design rests solely on the fact that the EC elects the president. That's true, but that opinion IGNORES the reality that when the EC was created, proportionality of the EC assumed the vote count would agree.

That it hasn't in 2 decades, twice, demonstrates that the EC no longer functions as intended. Remember, it is safe to presume that intent given that following ratification, it happened only twice in 212 years.

So, The ONLY reason Republicans are clinging to the EC is they fear losing power. But democracy is about majority rule, either you believe in democracy or you don't, and if you don't, all that's left is tyranny. It's one or the other. Some say 'but there is a Republic, which is not a democracy'. No, democracy is a principle, a republic is a structure, and neither exclude the other. If a Republic's leaders are appointed by elections, directly or indirectly, it is conceptually (in principle) a democracy, and is by structure a republic. And thus the two terms are not mutually exclusive, and difference only in nuance. We use the term 'democracy' more poetically, and the term 'Republic' for documents and pledges, but they are essentially the same thing.

THIS IS WHY guys like Mark Levin are declaring 'America is not a democracy', because to argue FOR democracy makes it easier to justify eliminating the EC and they fear the elimination of the EC as a threat to Republican's grip on power. No, I doubt Levin, et al., will admit it.

But this is an inconsistency with Republicans on this point. They pontificate about the 'free market' all day long, but defy the free market when it comes to ideas. Why? Because an EC that allows a minority to rule is not democratic, so apparently when it comes to the free market of ideas, they oppose it. If Republicans were truly about 'free market' products and services, how can they not be for the free market of ideas? Let the best ideas, just as the best products and services, win.

Now do you understand why I'm making this point?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Thanks, now we are moving the debate forward.

Well, let's look at all the 'constraints' on democracy:
1. A bicameral legislature consisting of a house of representatives apportioned by districts in each state, and a senate consisting of 2 senators per state, regardless of size.
2. A electoral college.

When the constitution was ratified in 1787, America was a tiny nation, The EC raised the voice of smaller states so they wouldn't be totally squashed by the larger states. That wasn't to mean minority should rule, but they wanted to make the field more level than it was.

But, the framers didn't configure the EC around a nation with states having 39 million people, 20 million people, whereby the idea of increasing the voice of say, Rhode Island, which made sense in 1787, becomes a moot point today. In 1787, factions were a threat, but when there are 165,000,000 voters, the concept of factions becomes a moot point. Factions are all that we have in modernity.

That the electorate is so large, it's hugeness, itself, tempers the idea of any one faction gaining control (the factions argued by Hamilton and Madison were not political parties, they were groups organized for a purpose, societies, unions, guilds, that sort of thing), so the idea of any faction gaining control is diluted by the huge size of the electorate, which consists of thousands and thousands of factions, no one faction could ever gain control. So, an EC isn't really necessary.

But, it has evolved to aid in the retaining of power of the minority political party (which was NEVER the framer's intent), where they now have the advantage. In order for Biden to win the election, he must have a clear majority, likely at least 5 million votes more than his Republican opponent, to win in the EC. That isn't democracy. If Democrats have a small majority in the election, Republicans will win, THEY WILL ALWAYS WIN, given the distribution of electors favoring Republicans.

Hillary lost to Trump though having 3 million votes more. Bush won against Kerry with 3 million more votes, almost the same number. But,. when Biden got 8 million more votes, he won. Good thing he didn't have only 3 million, Trump would have won like he did against Hillary.

I contend that, given the fact of size, the only thing left that tempers the excesses of democracy and protects the rights of minority groups (to the degree that it can) are a bicameral legislature consisting of a house of representatives and a senate, and that the EC is no longer functional (because protecting the rights of the minority doesn't mean minority rule), particularly because the EC, as Messrs. Hamilton and Madison intended for it, it no longer exists. Electors in states are commanded to go with the popular vote on each state, so what is the point of them in the first place? That they are awarded 'winner takes all' means that candidates who win win unearned electors. The EC is not functioning as Madison and Hamilton designed it.

Additionally, no one expected the idea of the total number of votes, being a minority, could actually not be in accord with the EC, at least not with any serious frequency. Since it only happened twice in some 212 years after ratification and Washington elected in 1788, it's safe to presume that it's design was intended for majorities both in the EC and the vote, itself.

The framers could not have predicted the rise of the two party system and the shifting demographics where rural states are stronger with one party, and states with large urban populations are stronger with the other, such that the EC, not reflecting states with accurate proportion demographically, have resulted in the unprecedented scenario that in the last 2 1/2 decades, Republicans have twice won the presidency in which the vote count was not in accordance with the electoral college.

The frequency of this occurrence reflects that the electoral college is in need of reform. Republics argue that the design rests solely on the fact that the EC elects the president. That's true, but that opinion IGNORES the reality that when the EC was created, proportionality of the EC assumed the vote count would agree.

That it hasn't in 2 decades, twice, demonstrates that the EC no longer functions as intended. Remember, it is safe to presume that intent given that following ratification, it happened only twice in 212 years.

So, The ONLY reason Republicans are clinging to the EC is they fear losing power. But democracy is about majority rule, either you believe in democracy or you don't, and if you don't, all that's left is tyranny. It's one or the other. Some say 'but there is a Republic, which is not a democracy'. No, democracy is a principle, a republic is a structure, and neither exclude the other. If a Republic's leaders are appointed by elections, directly or indirectly, it is conceptually (in principle) a democracy, and is by structure a republic. And thus the two terms are not mutually exclusive, and difference only in nuance. We use the term 'democracy' more poetically, and the term 'Republic' for documents and pledges, but they are essentially the same thing.

THIS IS WHY guys like Mark Levin are declaring 'America is not a democracy', because to argue FOR democracy makes it easier to justify eliminating the EC and they fear the elimination of the EC as a threat to Republican's grip on power. No, I doubt Levin, et al., will admit it.

But this is an inconsistency with Republicans on this point. They pontificate about the 'free market' all day long, but defy the free market when it comes to ideas. Why? Because an EC that allows a minority to rule is not democratic, so apparently when it comes to the free market of ideas, they oppose it. If Republicans were truly about 'free market' products and services, how can they not be for the free market of ideas? Let the best ideas, just as the best products and services, win.

Now do you understand why I'm making this point?

/—-/ 1. If popular vote determines the presidency then candidates would run thief campaigns differently focusing on the bigger population states. The smaller populated states who grow our food would lose their voice in government. And that’s what you want.
2. Republic and Democracy aren’t simple labels, they are forms of government that are diametrically opposed.

 

[dblack]

Thanks, now we are moving the debate forward.

Well, let's look at all the 'constraints' on democracy:
1. A bicameral legislature consisting of a house of representatives apportioned by districts in each state, and a senate consisting of 2 senators per state, regardless of size.
2. A electoral college.

When the constitution was ratified in 1787, America was a tiny nation, The EC raised the voice of smaller states so they wouldn't be totally squashed by the larger states. That wasn't to mean minority should rule, but they wanted to make the field more level than it was.

But, the framers didn't configure the EC around a nation with states having 39 million people, 20 million people, whereby the idea of increasing the voice of say, Rhode Island, which made sense in 1787, becomes a moot point today. In 1787, factions were a threat, but when there are 165,000,000 voters, the concept of factions becomes a moot point. Factions are all that we have in modernity.

That the electorate is so large, it's hugeness, itself, tempers the idea of any one faction gaining control (the factions argued by Hamilton and Madison were not political parties, they were groups organized for a purpose, societies, unions, guilds, that sort of thing), so the idea of any faction gaining control is diluted by the huge size of the electorate, which consists of thousands and thousands of factions, no one faction could ever gain control. So, an EC isn't really necessary.

But, it has evolved to aid in the retaining of power of the minority political party (which was NEVER the framer's intent), where they now have the advantage. In order for Biden to win the election, he must have a clear majority, likely at least 5 million votes more than his Republican opponent, to win in the EC. That isn't democracy. If Democrats have a small majority in the election, Republicans will win, THEY WILL ALWAYS WIN, given the distribution of electors favoring Republicans.

Hillary lost to Trump though having 3 million votes more. Bush won against Kerry with 3 million more votes, almost the same number. But,. when Biden got 8 million more votes, he won. Good thing he didn't have only 3 million, Trump would have won like he did against Hillary.

I contend that, given the fact of size, the only thing left that tempers the excesses of democracy and protects the rights of minority groups (to the degree that it can) are a bicameral legislature consisting of a house of representatives and a senate, and that the EC is no longer functional (because protecting the rights of the minority doesn't mean minority rule), particularly because the EC, as Messrs. Hamilton and Madison intended for it, it no longer exists. Electors in states are commanded to go with the popular vote on each state, so what is the point of them in the first place? That they are awarded 'winner takes all' means that candidates who win win unearned electors. The EC is not functioning as Madison and Hamilton designed it.

Additionally, no one expected the idea of the total number of votes, being a minority, could actually not be in accord with the EC, at least not with any serious frequency. Since it only happened twice in some 212 years after ratification and Washington elected in 1788, it's safe to presume that it's design was intended for majorities both in the EC and the vote, itself.

The framers could not have predicted the rise of the two party system and the shifting demographics where rural states are stronger with one party, and states with large urban populations are stronger with the other, such that the EC, not reflecting states with accurate proportion demographically, have resulted in the unprecedented scenario that in the last 2 1/2 decades, Republicans have twice won the presidency in which the vote count was not in accordance with the electoral college.

The frequency of this occurrence reflects that the electoral college is in need of reform. Republics argue that the design rests solely on the fact that the EC elects the president. That's true, but that opinion IGNORES the reality that when the EC was created, proportionality of the EC assumed the vote count would agree.

That it hasn't in 2 decades, twice, demonstrates that the EC no longer functions as intended. Remember, it is safe to presume that intent given that following ratification, it happened only twice in 212 years.

So, The ONLY reason Republicans are clinging to the EC is they fear losing power. But democracy is about majority rule, either you believe in democracy or you don't, and if you don't, all that's left is tyranny. It's one or the other. Some say 'but there is a Republic, which is not a democracy'. No, democracy is a principle, a republic is a structure, and neither exclude the other. If a Republic's leaders are appointed by elections, directly or indirectly, it is conceptually (in principle) a democracy, and is by structure a republic. And thus the two terms are not mutually exclusive, and difference only in nuance. We use the term 'democracy' more poetically, and the term 'Republic' for documents and pledges, but they are essentially the same thing.

THIS IS WHY guys like Mark Levin are declaring 'America is not a democracy', because to argue FOR democracy makes it easier to justify eliminating the EC and they fear the elimination of the EC as a threat to Republican's grip on power. No, I doubt Levin, et al., will admit it.

But this is an inconsistency with Republicans on this point. They pontificate about the 'free market' all day long, but defy the free market when it comes to ideas. Why? Because an EC that allows a minority to rule is not democratic, so apparently when it comes to the free market of ideas, they oppose it. If Republicans were truly about 'free market' products and services, how can they not be for the free market of ideas? Let the best ideas, just as the best products and services, win.

Now do you understand why I'm making this point?

Yes. For you, "We're a democracy!" means, "get rid of the electoral college".

I couldn't disagree more. The importance of the EC (and the maybe more important counter-balance of two senators per state) comes back to the political reason that it was introduced in the first place. In order to entice lower population states to join a "democracy", it was necessary to mitigate the advantage of a large population in democratic votes. Otherwise, smaller states would just get hosed in national elections - take one for the team as it were.

Well, they weren't that interested in taking one for the team then, and they're still not.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes. For you, "We're a democracy!" means, "get rid of the electoral college".

Given the facts mentioned, the EC is not serving democracy very well.

I couldn't disagree more. The importance of the EC (and the maybe more important counter-balance of two senators per state) comes back to the political reason that it was introduced in the first place. In order to entice lower population states to join a "democracy", it was necessary to mitigate the advantage of a large population in democratic votes. Otherwise, smaller states would just get hosed in national elections - take one for the team as it were.

I gave the reason, why it was necessary in time it was ratified, and given the change in demographics and size of the electorate, it's no longer serving the nation as it was intended, and you are ignoring, nay, not providing any counter to these developments raised in my points.

Well, they weren't that interested in taking one for the team then, and they're still not.

 

[Rumpole]

/—-/ 1. If popular vote determines the presidency then candidates would run thief campaigns differently focusing on the bigger population states. The smaller populated states who grow our food would lose their voice in government. And that’s what you want.
2. Republic and Democracy aren’t simple labels, they are forms of government that are diametrically opposed.

States don't vote, people do. People are people, it doesn't matter where they live. Now they ignore California, cause for dems, 'it's in the bag', so you argument doesn't change anything. As for #2, I've provided incontrovertible evidence, plus historicity and facts as to why you are wrong on that point.

 

[Cellblock2429]

States don't vote, people do. People are people, it doesn't matter where they live. Now they ignore California, cause for dems, 'it's in the bag', so you argument doesn't change anything. As for #2, I've provided incontrovertible evidence, plus historicity and facts as to why you are wrong on that point.

/——/ “Now they ignore California, cause for dems,”
Rumphole, your ignorance knows no boundaries. Southern California is liberal and northern half is conservative. Same in NY state. East side of LI is conservative and west half liberal.

 

[Rumpole]

/——/ “Now they ignore California, cause for dems,”
Rumphole, your ignorance knows no boundaries. Southern California is liberal and northern half is conservative. Same in NY state. East side of LI is conservative and west half liberal.

Not the salient point, dumbass. my gawd you're a nitwit.

 

[dblack]

Given the facts mentioned, the EC is not serving democracy very well.

I gave the reason, why it was necessary in time it was ratified, and given the change in demographics and size of the electorate, it's no longer serving the nation as it was intended, and you are ignoring, nay, not providing any counter to these developments raised in my points.\

You didn't make any good points. The threat of factions has nothing to do with the EC.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Not the salient point, dumbass. my gawd you're a nitwit.

Not the salient point, dumbass. my gawd you're a nitwit.

/——-/ If Now they ignore California, cause for dems, wasn’t your salient point, why the hell did you say it?

 

[Rumpole]

/——-/ If Now they ignore California, cause for dems, wasn’t your salient point, why the hell did you say it?

The salient point was States don't vote, people do. Other points raised in support of that point are not salient points. To pettifog on lesser points and thus lose sight of the salient point, misses the point.

The lesser point about california was that that the status quo you are defending already results in candidates ignoring some states, such as California, so that point, similar to the one you were making, isn't really a strong one.

So, in the current system, some states are ignored anyway, but votes are not equal.

Without the EC, some states might be ignored, but ALL VOTES WOULD BE EQUAL, "one man = one vote" which is an improvement over the status quo.

Not only that, because without the EC, states are moot. One man one vote is democracy. What Madison feared was if a faction garnered more than 50%, then it could result in a 'tyranny of the majority'. But, is tyranny of the minority better? To me, that statement makes no sense. In a democracy, it makes more sense to keep as many people as possible happy. Not everyone is going to be happy in a democracy, but what is the alternative? tyranny of the minority? Hell no. That makes no sense. Anyway., history proves that every one gets a crack at the bat, sooner or later. Democracy is the free market of ideas, and gives each group the incentive to improve their ideas so that they will sell better. Tyranny of the minority does not. Thats' why it's not a good thing.

 

[dblack]

The salient point was States don't vote, people do. Other points raised in support of that point are not salient points. To pettifog on lesser points and thus lose sight of the salient point, misses the point.

The lesser point about california was that that the status quo you are defending already results in candidates ignoring some states, such as California, so that point, similar to the one you were making, isn't really a strong one.

So, in the current system, some states are ignored anyway, but votes are not equal.

Without the EC, some states might be ignored, but ALL VOTES WOULD BE EQUAL, "one man = one vote" which is an improvement over the status quo.

Not only that, because without the EC, states are moot. One man one vote is democracy. What Madison feared was if a faction garnered more than 50%, then it could result in a 'tyranny of the majority'. But, is tyranny of the minority better? To me, that statement makes no sense. In a democracy, it makes more sense to keep as many people as possible happy. Not everyone is going to be happy in a democracy, but what is the alternative? tyranny of the minority? Hell no. That makes no sense. Anyway., history proves that every one gets a crack at the bat, sooner or later. Democracy is the free market of ideas, and gives each group the incentive to improve their ideas so that they will sell better. Tyranny of the minority does not. Thats' why it's not a good thing.

Nope. States vote. That's what the electoral college established. If you want to change it, feel free to make your case, but states do in fact vote, via their electors.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The salient point was States don't vote, people do. Other points raised in support of that point are not salient points. To pettifog on lesser points and thus lose sight of the salient point, misses the point.

The lesser point about california was that that the status quo you are defending already results in candidates ignoring some states, such as California, so that point, similar to the one you were making, isn't really a strong one.

So, in the current system, some states are ignored anyway, but votes are not equal.

Without the EC, some states might be ignored, but ALL VOTES WOULD BE EQUAL, "one man = one vote" which is an improvement over the status quo.

Not only that, because without the EC, states are moot. One man one vote is democracy. What Madison feared was if a faction garnered more than 50%, then it could result in a 'tyranny of the majority'. But, is tyranny of the minority better? To me, that statement makes no sense. In a democracy, it makes more sense to keep as many people as possible happy. Not everyone is going to be happy in a democracy, but what is the alternative? tyranny of the minority? Hell no. That makes no sense. Anyway., history proves that every one gets a crack at the bat, sooner or later. Democracy is the free market of ideas, and gives each group the incentive to improve their ideas so that they will sell better. Tyranny of the minority does not. Thats' why it's not a good thing.

/——-/ “The salient point was States don't vote, people do.”
You blithering idiot. I can’t stop laughing.

 

[Rumpole]

Nope. States vote. That's what the electoral college established. If you want to change it, feel free to make your case, but states do in fact vote, via their electors.

You're just repeating yourself. I addressed each point. I stated my case.

Your comment doesn't rebut my points, you're just ignoring them.

so fail.

 

[Rumpole]

/——-/ “The salient point was States don't vote, people do.”
You blithering idiot. I can’t stop laughing.

Please find a real argument.

 

[westwall]

Given the facts mentioned, the EC is not serving democracy very well.

I gave the reason, why it was necessary in time it was ratified, and given the change in demographics and size of the electorate, it's no longer serving the nation as it was intended, and you are ignoring, nay, not providing any counter to these developments raised in my points.

Wrong, it is serving this constitutional republic very well.

Were it not we would already have descended into the fascist dictatorship you are so desperate for.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Given the facts mentioned, the EC is not serving democracy very well.

I gave the reason, why it was necessary in time it was ratified, and given the change in demographics and size of the electorate, it's no longer serving the nation as it was intended, and you are ignoring, nay, not providing any counter to these developments raised in my points.

Soo you would rather have two or three urban shitholes determine the Presidency and the national agenda? Meanwhile the states where REAL Americans live become disenfranchised. so fuck that, fuck you, and fuck your definition of democracy.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Please find a real argument.

/----/ I posted real arguments, Rumphole. You just make them up. No one said states vote. Of course they do when it comes to constitutional amendments, but we're not talking about that, you idiot.

 

[dblack]

You're just repeating yourself. I addressed each point. I stated my case.

Your comment doesn't rebut my points, you're just ignoring them.

so fail.

Well, if your rallying call of "we're a democracy" actually means, "abolish the electoral college", then you're just being disingenuous. In that case, I'll pitch in with the "no, we're not" crowd. Just be aware that all that really means is, "no, we're not getting rid of the electoral college, it's an important check on unlimited majority rule."

You can now return to your fake argument, and pretend that anyone who disagrees with you hates democracy.