|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Mar 2, 2010 8:37:57 GMT -8
Hello friends’
How is it that Democracy has become a bad word? Democracy in principle is majority rule. We elect our President if they receive 50% plus one vote, we elect our Senators if they receive 50% plus one vote, we elect our Representatives if they receive 50% plus one vote, in fact every elected position in the country only needs 50% plus one vote to be elected. The most important decision a country can make, the decision to go to war requires only 50% plus one votes to pass. And yet we see all year long our government paralyzed because of an non-constitutional and arbitrary Senate rule that requires a supermajority of 60 to pass legislation. This requirement is anti-democratic, subverts the will of the majority and constitutes de facto tyranny of the minority.
Premise: The Senate supermajority rule needs to be abolished. Given the extreme philosophical and cultural differences of the two parties, bipartisanship is not achievable. I would argue that you are truly naïve if you believe otherwise. When you have demagoguery, and invective that demonizes the other side, it becomes impossible to compromise. How do Republicans meet President Obama half way when they have described him as a Bolshevik, a socialist intent on destroying the American way of life. The answer is they cannot compromise as how would they explain to their base that they made a deal with the Devil? A Republican’s greatest fear is someone running to their right in the primary, and Democrats (read socialists) right now are frankly an enemy that the base wants destroyed. In Gingrich’s own words socialism is antithetical to all that America stands for and it must be stopped at all cost. It is sad that inter-party discourse has degenerated to the point that language reserved to condemn terrorist is now routinely used to attack the other party. Again, such extreme language and public discourse make compromise impossible. I would say we are as divided a nation as we were in the days before the civil war. They could not compromise then, and we cannot compromise now.
Argument: Elections have consequences. They reflect the will of the governed. People voted for Democrats to run our government, and they should be allowed to enact their governing philosophy. This is why we have elections! Again, elections have consequences as Senator Lindsey Grahm stated.
Now, we have term limits in this country, they are called elections. If after two and four years the people do not like what the government has done, they get voted out! Bad governance will result in lost governance! This is how it should be. In the UK, the people get what they voted for! Their majority government implements their philosophy. It worked for Maggie Thatcher and it worked for Tony Blair. What does not work is governance by the minority which is also called gridlock.
For the record. I believe if the country returns Republicans to governance, that they should be allowed to fully implement their philosophy of governance. Fair is fair, majority governance must work both ways, it must work for all and all the time.
So what are your views?
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 2, 2010 15:51:18 GMT -8
And yet we see all year long our government paralyzed because of an non-constitutional and arbitrary Senate rule that requires a supermajority of 60 to pass legislation. This requirement is anti-democratic, subverts the will of the majority and constitutes de facto tyranny of the minority. I disagree. I like the 60 vote requirement in the Senate. At least It gives the minority party some rights and powers. A minority member in the House is almost useless... Yet we have always managed to pass bills... Despite the philosophical and cultural differences of opposing senators, LBJ was able to get his "liberal" civil rights agenda through Congress, and Reagan was able to get his "conservative" agenda through a Democratic Congress. Heck, Dubya was able to achieve bipartisanship on the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, yada, yada, yada... I disagree here. We have checks and balances for a reason. Democrats should only be allowed to enact their governing philosophy if the meet the House and Senate requirements. If it is the will of the people, then the opposing Senators will be booted. That's simple enough! Having Democrats rush thier agenda though a simple majority Congress in two years, then having Republicans cram thier "opposing" agenda through Congress in two years, seems like it would be worse than gridlock. A supermajority vote in one house of congress allows things to be more fluid and more lasting. Isn't that a good thing? -CG
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Mar 2, 2010 18:34:26 GMT -8
No, gridlock is never a good thing. We are challenged as a people with the gravest threat to our existence since WWII, a threat caused by bad governance and incompetent leadership. We need resolute action to right our ship. Tyranny of the minority subverts the very concept of democracy. The Greeks invented democracy sir and in their system of governance, the majority ruled! Please explain again why this fundamental precept is wrong.
The UK has stood and endured for centuries with majority rule. Why are you so afraid? What is wrong with majority rule sir?
Thank you for responding.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Mar 2, 2010 18:59:44 GMT -8
Not really. Why do we have the electoral college?
If you remove the effect of any minority group in this country, we probably would have had a lot less progress over the years, because after all, its what the majority wants and they should never be challenged...no thanks.
|
|
pr0ner
Scoring Assistant
Posts: 130
|
Post by pr0ner on Mar 2, 2010 21:51:29 GMT -8
Given that the United States is not a democracy, and never has been a democracy, the argument in the OP is a non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Mar 3, 2010 10:58:02 GMT -8
Mike is right that this is not a democracy. The US is a republic. There may be democratic aspects of the system, but it is not a democracy. And Craig, your original post has all sorts of factual errors. You constantly state that all officials are elected with at least "50% plus one vote," which is entirely untrue in many of the various offices you list, particularly the President, which is elected via The Electoral College.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 3, 2010 14:25:35 GMT -8
Ah yes, everyone remembers Al Gore! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 3, 2010 14:46:16 GMT -8
What is wrong with majority rule sir? Nothing is really wrong with it, but a 6-3 decision seems better than a 5-4 one. Craig, I'm opposed to the simple majority concept because it seems like it can make things too unstable. One year, voters for one thing. Thing next year, the fickle voters vote for the opposite. Also, a simple majority gives one party too much power...
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Mar 3, 2010 19:19:49 GMT -8
Well I stand corrected gentlemen and thank those of you who pointed out that we indeed have an electoral college! I must confess to embarrassment. Perhaps the pain of the 2000 election caused me to block out this inconvenient truth! Anyway, it seems most of you here have not lost faith and still believe Republicans and Democrats can agree to agree. What are you guys drinking? It also seems most of you do not believe in majority rule. Did we not have a revolution to separate ourselves from minority rule - a minority of one? So I pose a question, do you apply this minority rules in your private lives? If 6 say yes and 4 say no and the 4 will not compromise their "principles", do you acquiesce and let the 4 win? Some honest answers guys. For me, I would never accept such an outcome, never. So I pose a question, if 41 has greater power than 59 why even vote. Why is it acceptable for the majority to compromise its principles, but not the minority? If by just saying NO you can bring down a President and the other party, will they not when the tables are turned return the favor in kind? Then what is left, since you cannot compromise your "principles", kill the opposition? 2008 was my 10th Presidential election and I have never seen things worse. I thought Nixon was my country's political nadir, boy was I wrong. To be honest, I seriously think I may never vote again because it seems in the final analysis that it is all meaningless. Well, back to Georgia O'Keeffe, a most subtle and intimate score. In music there is solace. Take care.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Mar 4, 2010 6:31:27 GMT -8
If something is important enough and that the majority of people care about, a significant number of members of both parties will agree. All you have to do is look at the history of the US to see this. Just yesterday, the senate passed an unemployment benefit extension yesterday: news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100303/ts_csm/284704The reality is a significant number of people do NOT like the democrats health care bill. Its not just a handful of super rich republicans that oppose this bill. I LIKE checks and balances, its IDEAL for the power of "saying no to bring down a president and the other party". If it didn't exist, there would be far more wasteful spending or regulation than there already is.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 8, 2010 19:48:34 GMT -8
Democracy:
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Apr 6, 2010 21:19:21 GMT -8
Probably unrelated to the original topic, but... www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=2Good read shows that, statistically, liberals are stingy when it comes to charity, and republicans give about twice as much. My favorite part is the examination of Europe, where the cheapskates are the French. Whenever the French are part of a punchline, it's always hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by franz_conrad on Apr 14, 2010 17:41:24 GMT -8
I haven't clicked on the link, but I'd be curious to see the stingy is relative (that Democrats and French give less as a proportion on their non-essential-item income) or absolute (and therefore sensitive to a difference of income levels).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Apr 14, 2010 20:47:29 GMT -8
I haven't clicked on the link, but I'd be curious to see the stingy is relative (that Democrats and French give less as a proportion on their non-essential-item income) or absolute (and therefore sensitive to a difference of income levels). Then why don't you click on the link and read the article before making pointless, uninformed assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 14, 2010 22:09:15 GMT -8
Then why don't you click on the link and read the article before making pointless, uninformed assumptions. I did read the article. franz made no pointless assumption. He merely said it would be interesting to see if conservatives have more income to draw money from than liberals and if this could be a reason for the perceived disparity. And it would be interesting. And the article sort of answers that. It doesn't answer whether conservatives, as a whole, have more money than liberals, but it does say that under the same financial circumstances, conservatives give way more. But that's financial, religion is the deal breaker. Most of this "charity" (funny how litte attention is given to what charity means or why anyone would blindly believe it is perfectly run with 0 overhead costs) is money given to churches. Liberals give to preserving the arts and stuff like that. I don't know if you know, but this money churches receive is spent spreading the word of god and the bible to those in need of, uh, say, food? Both are a waste in my opinion. When religion gets snuffed, conservatives are the stingiest of all. Religous liberals are in the same league with religious conservatives. So, I don't really see the point in differentiating between "Conservative" and "Liberal". It should be "Religious" and "non-Religious". The article brings politics into play when that clearly makes no difference. Again, because "charity" is not defined or explained, gay Americans as a whole are one of the most charitable groups in the country. Ok... where does that money go? Notice, again, how the difference is explained by their sexual orientation and has nothing to do with politics. This paragraph is taken so much out of context I blame the author of stupid: "Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent." That's a feel-goody statement everyone can get behind on, right? Real world effect of increasing the American blood supply by 45 percent: remember when Katrina hit and the Red Cross had to turn people away from donating blood because they were too thick to understand that only certain blood types are really, really valuable and rare? Go donate to a Bill Gates kind of vaccination program if you want to accomplish something real. If you want to feel good about yourselves, by all means, give money to churches and museums, and pressure the Red Cross to spend administrative costs figuring out what to do with all their useless blood supply. Your choice. big edit: Though recent research (I can dig it up if you want) suggests there are no significant, statistical differences between the risk of infection (and contaminating the donor supply) of those who have had sexual relations with same-sex partners and those who have not (unlike in the 80s, when the danger was real and the main cause for concern, HIV, was not well understood), blood banks still screen people for homosexual intercourse (I'm not debating whether this is fair, right or wong) and, if you happen to get lucky with members of your own sex on a regular basis, you're barred from becoming a donor. Does that make homosexuals "bad" because they are less charitable if measured in this respect only by the amount of blood they donate? Drug users, past or present, conservative or liberal, would be less charitable, as well. Needle use? You're at greater risk to have contracted Hepatitis, among other things, you can't be a donor. So, think about that, Mr. Nicholas D. Kristoff. The nice (liberal/conservative/libertarian/whatever) pastor of a local community, who has been able to collect donations and is smart enough to use them not for book distribution but gathering enough reasons to allow people in need to freely pursue an education or a job because they are being paid for services provided to the pastor and his church through whatever it is he came up with. That pastor, that guy, may have a history of drug abuse in his past. Today, he's totally clean, earns an honest living, raises a sane family, and is a freakin' leader in his community. He's barred from giving blood, too. Reminder to Mr. Kristoff: stop generalizing. And yes, the "pastor with a past" storyline I got from the movie 21 Grams. So sue me. Sheesh.
|
|