Comment by touchofevil
9 years ago
I completely support this idea. Additionally, I think the USA needs to move away from anything that doesn't reflect majority rule. For example, abolish the Senate, end the electoral college, end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing.
The USA could be a lot more democratic than it is at present and until that is fixed, you will keep seeing a minority of the population control policies that affect the whole nation.
>For example, abolish the Senate, end the electoral college, end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing.
I can get behind a lot of those but the Senate? What's your problem with it? Seems like the founders had very good reason to create it.
The Senate doesn't reflect majority rule based on population. California has 38.3 million residents, Wyoming has 600K residents [1] but both states have 2 senate votes. Due to this, Wyoming residents have much greater voting power in the Senate than residents of CA.
Edit: And since bills must be passed by both the House and the Senate, Wyoming residents have much more power over what becomes law than CA residents do. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
Hmm, well perhaps (I'm venturing into the unknown here) the problem isn't really protecting the majority from the minority (or vice versa) but protecting the weak from the powerful. When I see proposals like:
>end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing
I think those are good because they weaken the powerful (the current majority party and the rich) to enable the weak. But I also believe that without the senate the political power of Wyomingers (Wyomans?) is going to be a lot weaker than the political power of Californians so I see the senate as overall good.
Why should we focus so much on the majority and not the relative power of those that compose the majority (or minority?)
6 replies →
You are ignoring the fact that Wyoming only has 1 representative in the house, which is where the balancing piece comes in.
4 replies →
Why is pure democracy a good thing in and of itself?
Because it's harder to corrupt a "pure" democracy. If you have a policy that is bad for the population at large, but good for your own interests, in a "pure" democracy then you will have to convince a majority of the voters to vote against their own interests.
It appears relatively easy to get a majority to vote against their best interest. Case in point: Trump getting elected. If all that's needed to win a vote is populism and ad money, then you can be damn sure that people will vote not just against unalienable rights of minorities but will also against sell out their best long-term interests to short-term ones or to "principles" that sound good because they've been constantly repeated on Fox News or CNN.
Even without demographics taken into account, a country that's not accountable to a base set of unchangeable rules is a scary thing.
I honestly don't really think you've thought this out.
You might want to understand the existing structure of government before you propose replacing it on a whim.
Here are some questions to get you started:
* Why is there a Constitution?
* Why are there 3 co-equal branches of government? What are they all there for?
* Why is there an electoral college?
* Why are Senators allocated by state while House members are allocated by population?
* Why do House members have 2 year terms and Senators have 6 year terms?
* Why do the courts exist?
* Why does the executive branch exist?
1 reply →