Democracy = tyranny of the majorityQuote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Republic = the public gets a say, but our best and brightest patriots can step in if the majority votes for tyranny
Printable View
Democracy = tyranny of the majorityQuote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Republic = the public gets a say, but our best and brightest patriots can step in if the majority votes for tyranny
Free internet provided by rebates from the government. Everyone votes for select (don't know quite which, that would be an entirely different undertaking) local and state issues, with most of the representation locally being replaced by this direct democracy system. Obviously would be a vast amount of tweaking involved but I think in this day and age the general idea is feasible.
The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
How? The only way I'm aware of our "best and brightest patriots" (lol) stepping up is by suspending habeas corpus. Which is totalitarianism. In fact, enlightened rule by a select few is totalitarianism too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
And why isn't the majority's choice of which legislators shall govern them any less of an expression of the majorities tyranny?
Wow, Clipper Nation of course considers himself one of the "best and brightest patriots", ready to go vigilante and take over the nation if the anti-patriotic people do something HE doesn't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
I would like to see term limits for senators, something along the lines of two 6 year or three 4 year terms. Other than that I can't think of much else I would like to see changed.
Senators from states with tiny populations have as much (veto, filibuster) power as Senators from TX, CA, IL, NY. non-respresentional is not democratic.
Most of the proposals here would require Constitutional amendments, and involve a large shift in power, privilege, advantage. iow, won't happen.
Wow, blueteam_douche of course thinks our political system, as Ben Franklin put it, should be "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner"....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
-Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution
"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."
- Twelfth Amendment
No one disputes that the Constitution provides an electoral college. What's your point?
The point of the Minor quote was that the only constitutional reference to the republican form of government is couched as an expression of democracy. Hence your notion that a republic can somehow cure the excesses of democracy is silly.
I didn't say it should be the only option, only meant there is no reason it should not be an option in this day and age.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
You Lie GFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
The Senate is distorting, not proportional representation, which shows up again in the Electoral College.
Small states don't need to be protected, but the majority, the big states need to be protected from the small states holding disproportional power over the majority.
I think it will happen. You have to remember it takes a long time for any institution that is controlled by really old geezers to adopt new technologies. Most of the old fucks who control congress aren't living "in this day and age".Quote:
Originally Posted by leemajors
Yes there is: online voting is the most easily hacked and rigged system there could possibly be, tbh.....Quote:
Originally Posted by leemajors
Well of course YOU would want large population centers (like NYC and LA) to have all the power, because they tend to lean more towards the left, tbh....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
My point is that an Electoral College that's allowed to do its job is a constitutional protection against the tyranny of the majority, the possibility of 51% of the nation having all the power and shutting down the other 49%, and (nowadays) easily-rigged computer voting systems hand-selecting our President, tbh....Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Without the check against the majority that electors provide, we have mob-rule democracy at its worst, which the Founders never wanted or intended....
In a single, concise sentence, can someone explain to me what "trickle-down govt" is? I keep hearing it every 30 secs from Rom.
Do you not understand that depriving the popular vote in favor of a minority's choice of president is tyrannical? Or that the electoral college renders large swaths of Americans' votes irrelevant? How is having a select group of swing states determining the presidency any less tyrannical?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
"Most of the old fucks who control congress"
are "Christian" pandering, sociopathic, retrogressive, misogynistic assholes from The Racist South and red states. And they are of all ages, freshmen up to seniority people.
Economic incentives for the wealthy (i.e., tax cuts) will eventually flow to the middle and lower classes because the wealthy will use the incentives to create jobs or other economic opportunities for the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fpoonsie
Um...your talking about trickle down economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Romney's trickle down govt term is another way of referring to wealth redistribution.
My b. That's what I thought the question was. I haven't been paying attention enough to know what trickle-down government is.
Thanks, vy/SB.
I didn't really phrase my question well. I was more curious about what Mitt is/was referring to as he repeatedly used the term, almost as often as he reminded the audience about MASS's "We're #1!" educ ranking, regardless of how non sequitur it might've been.