Senate's 46 Dems Got 20 Million More Votes Than Its 54 Republicans

[Redfish]

Somebody give him a civics lesson.

You mean the part about gerrymandering?

How do you gerrymander in the Senate?

maybe they think that was what Reid was doing when he didn't allow a vote on over 300 house-passed bills

 

[martybegan]

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

Let me clarify. I agree certain freedoms/rights are inherent. What the constitution via the bill of rights does is list rights explicitly either granted to the people, more directly, what rights the government is forbidden to screw with. In the case of the original bill of rights, this was directed at congress. The 14th amendment was designed to extend this to the States. While I agree with the concept, the execution has unfortunately been not as agreeable.

certain rights are inherent because a society believes them to be. Those rights are made law by a majority vote of the society.

Actually in the case of the US Federal Government 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the States. Amendments enshrine rights, laws do not because of the ease of their repeal.

OK, technically correct. But societies decide what is to be considered as "rights". Some places in feudal europe it was the lord's right to bed a virgin before her wedding. In some tribes in New Guinea a bride must give the future husband's family a pig for the "right" to marry.

The main difference is the first was not by popular choice, but by fiat. It wasn't society that liked prima nocte, but the rulers, and they were not a majority.

In the example of the tribe, more than likely that right was never codified.

Rights under the constitution were created, because the founders realized that certain conditions might lead to a groundswell of opposition to a certain right "for the greater good" that in the founder's view, was fatal to our way of government and life.

The arguments over the 2nd amendment are a perfect example of this.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. They used to be protect our rights, see the 14th amendment and 16th amendment, for now the Constitution has been re-written to explicitly take away our rights to life, liberty, property, and income.

The 14th Amendment was established under the guidelines given under the Constitution, not a judge making an attempt to write legislation which it wasn't granted specific powers to do so. We have an equal separation of powers, and specific constitutional rules dictating procedures for legislation and ratification,. It's all found within its Articles written by our Founders, how our government is to function.

That's a lie. The 14th Amendment was passed only through threat of death at the point of cannons.

That's what the South got for the whole pesky "rebellion" thing, and for indicating they would do an end run around the 13th amendment.

Ayup. Our government declared itself slave owner of every man woman and child to make sure no one could own a slave besides them.

The intent was to pass down the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights to people in the States. The result has been to limit freedoms as well, based on a sense of fairness.

The amendment is fine, its the judges that have been fucked up.

Not true. Check the language of the 14th due process. It's extremely clear. The language explicitly states that the states can, with due process, take our life, liberty, and property. No guilt is required merely the states saying they have some sort of due process. It's absolutely insane. Yes, the other parts of the 14th amendment are fine. It's the anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-property part that makes us slaves of our government system.

 

[Redfish]

Actually the bill of rights declared rights that already existed and prohibited the federal government from screwing with them. The first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law".

Let me clarify. I agree certain freedoms/rights are inherent. What the constitution via the bill of rights does is list rights explicitly either granted to the people, more directly, what rights the government is forbidden to screw with. In the case of the original bill of rights, this was directed at congress. The 14th amendment was designed to extend this to the States. While I agree with the concept, the execution has unfortunately been not as agreeable.

certain rights are inherent because a society believes them to be. Those rights are made law by a majority vote of the society.

Actually in the case of the US Federal Government 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the States. Amendments enshrine rights, laws do not because of the ease of their repeal.

OK, technically correct. But societies decide what is to be considered as "rights". Some places in feudal europe it was the lord's right to bed a virgin before her wedding. In some tribes in New Guinea a bride must give the future husband's family a pig for the "right" to marry.

The main difference is the first was not by popular choice, but by fiat. It wasn't society that liked prima nocte, but the rulers, and they were not a majority.

In the example of the tribe, more than likely that right was never codified.

Rights under the constitution were created, because the founders realized that certain conditions might lead to a groundswell of opposition to a certain right "for the greater good" that in the founder's view, was fatal to our way of government and life.

The arguments over the 2nd amendment are a perfect example of this.

yes, and the views of the founders reflected the views of a majority of americans at that time in history. So, societies do decide what are to be considered "rights". There is no universal set of "rights" that apply to all societies.

the tribe's "pig rights" were codified in the way that tribes codify rights---by practice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the RWnuts are trying to say is that the beauty of being what they say is not a democracy is that the federal government can pass the ACA even though a majority of Americans might oppose it if it went to referendum.

Does that sum it up? lol

 

[RKMBrown]

What the RWnuts are trying to say is that the beauty of being what they say is not a democracy is that the federal government can pass the ACA even though a majority of Americans might oppose it if it went to referendum.

Does that sum it up? lol

No, ya prick. We are saying the reason ACA passed against the wishes of the majority of states in this great country is because pieces of shit like you changed our Constitution at the point of a gun.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Republic has more than one meaning, and the Constitution does not define republic. In addition it guarantees the states a republican form not the United States. How many republics did the USSR have?

This should help clarify and leave little doubt as to which form of government the United States has.


"The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election . . . They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided."

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 9
Date: November 21, 1787



"If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior."

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 39
Date: January 16, 1788



"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

 

[Antares]

Somebody give him a civics lesson.

You mean the part about gerrymandering?

MORON alert.

Senate Races cannot be gerrymandered.

Did you flunk civics?

 

[Meathead]

Somebody give him a civics lesson.

You mean the part about gerrymandering?

MORON alert.

Senate Races cannot be gerrymandered.

Did you flunk civics?

On hush. They're just upset about losing the Senate, and pretty much everything else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

 

[Meathead]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

 

[RKMBrown]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

I live in upstate NY 10 miles from the nearest city, which is a city of 20,000.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

What's the flaw of one person, one vote?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

On Tuesday, 33 US senators elected in November will be sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden — including 12 who are new to the chamber. The class includes 22 Republicans and 11 Democrats, a big reason why the GOP has a 54-46 majority in the Senate overall.

But here's a crazy fact: those 46 Democrats got more votes than the 54 Republicans across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections. According to Nathan Nicholson, a researcher at the voting reform advocacy group FairVote, "the 46 Democratic caucus members in the 114th Congress received a total of 67.8 million votes in winning their seats, while the 54 Republican caucus members received 47.1 million votes."

Here's what that looks like in chart form:

More: The Senate x27 s 46 Democrats got 20 million more votes than its 54 Republicans - Vox

Just another reason why 2016 should be great for Democrats!

Your party was thumped because they screwed shit up. Now the R's will get their turn at screwing shit up.

 

[Meathead]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

I live in upstate NY 10 miles from the nearest city, which is a city of 20,000.

So you want the NYC electorate choosing your mayor? Well, you do seem like a de Blasio kind of guy.

 

[RKMBrown]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

What's the flaw of one person, one vote?

What's the flaw with me wanting to be free from oppression by the elected leaders of the majority of voters in this country?

 

[NYcarbineer]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

What's the flaw of one person, one vote?

What's the flaw with me wanting to be free from oppression by the elected leaders of the majority of voters in this country?

You want the vote to be meaningless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

To believe that majorities in legislatures should actually be majorities is the only sensible position to take.

If the legislators of one party can achieve a legislative majority despite having gotten a minority of the votes, you no longer have a democratic government.

You win some and lose some. Last time around you lost (very badly). Deal with it and stop the incessant whinging.

It's understandable that an authoritarian asshole in the biggest city in the country would want his city rulers to rule over ALL of the smaller cities. Why would authoritarians from NYC want to let someone from a small town in texas be free from laws demanded from on high by the great leaders of NYC? Nah.. you can't even have a reasonable conversation about liberty with an authoritarian asshole from a big city.

I live in upstate NY 10 miles from the nearest city, which is a city of 20,000.

So you want the NYC electorate choosing your mayor? Well, you do seem like a de Blasio kind of guy.

You're an idiot. That post makes no sense. I guess I'll take that as you losing the debate.