I ultimately should be just as irritated at Delaware getting to skew things with their 2 senate votes and I am making the mistake of thinking that, since they are small, that somehow is better or more okay than my Dakota irritations.
I think that what you're not realizing was that the FF's primary concern was with tyranny. They were familiar with two forms of tyranny, both bad. The first was the European-style autocracy where the King's word was law without limit or measure. The second was the Parliamentary tyranny where a small group of arbitrary elected officials held complete sway over people who could not affect the election. (That even made it into the Declaration, by the way.)
They therefore set up Congress in a way that would prevent any state or small group of states from being able to control the legislative process. It takes at least 26 states to dictate terms to the Senate, and it takes a group of at least 10 very specific states to dictate terms to the House (if my math is right). The effect, by design, is that nothing can pass Congress and reach the President's desk without broad support from both chambers.
What you're asking for is, effectively, to give those ten states the authority to run roughshod over the other 40, because that's where the population is. That's exactly what the FF wanted to prevent.
6.1 % of the population, if the states are split 51 .
What you're asking for is, effectively, to give those ten states the authority to run roughshod over the other 40, because that's where the population is. That's exactly what the FF wanted to prevent.OTOH, it currently takes 21 states with a minimum combined population of roughly 12% of the population to shut down any such legislation. And since some things do actually have to be done, even the threat of blocking everything gives them excessive power.
I'd rather have 50%+ of the population able to dictate terms than a much smaller percentage able to block them. But then I never really cared for state's rights as much as people's.
I am aware, by the way, that the filibuster was not part of the original plan.
Shrug. So lose the filibuster, along with a number of other Senate rules (like secret holds). The issue isn't with states rights, but with a disfunctional set of chamber rules. If the Senate was set up to represent people by initial letter of last name, so everyone beginning with a J (Jay, Jefferson, Jimenez, Johnson, Jones) got the same number of senators as everyone beginning with X (um,... Malcolm X?), you'd still have issues with single senators able to bring the whole machinery to a halt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even without the filibuster, an actual majority of Senators can still represent a pretty small minority of the population.
Still waiting to hear why that's a problem instead of a feature. The FF considered it a feature, because it meant that anything that got to the President's desk was approved by (representatives of) a very diverse supermajority, because they did not want 51% of the population to be able to pass laws in the teeth of the other 49%.
Essentially -- especially in the 1700s -- a small coterie in Parliament, like London, could pass laws for the entire Empire. They wanted to prevent this.
That's still a problem today back in the Homeland.
Because I don't care about states.Even without the filibuster, an actual majority of Senators can still represent a pretty small minority of the population.Still waiting to hear why that's a problem instead of a feature. The FF considered it a feature, because it meant that anything that got to the President's desk was approved by (representatives of) a very diverse supermajority, because they did not want 51% of the population to be able to pass laws in the teeth of the other 49%.
Nor do it. But state-affiliation is another independent check, and it's one that's not subject to manipulation by the state governments (you can gerrymander voting districts, but not state lines).
Once you stop focusing on the states, you need that 51% in the House and potentially a much smaller percentage in the Senate. That's not much of a roadblock.
Actually, it is. The groups that form an effective voting bloc in the House are exactly the ones that cannot form an effective voting block in the Senate, and vice versa, because the large states (by population) dominate the House votes and the small ones the senate.
OTOH, you could have something as popular as ~70% by population and still not be able to get it through the Senate.
Yup. Feature, not bug. Working as designed.
Because the FFs were focused on getting States to join and support the new Constitution, they wanted to assure the small states they wouldn't get lost in the shuffle. So you're need enough smaller states to reach 51% and then you could "pass laws in the teeth of the other 49%."
Nope. The 51% majority wouldn't be able to shift the needle in the House unless that majority included a substantial number of the populous states.
Which means that laws wouldn't be passed, because the House would block them.
I don't understand. 51% majority of the population wouldn't be able to pass the House? Cause that's what I meant there. Enough small states to reach 51% of the population will easily control both Senate and House.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, if you can get that large a coalition, you can get the necessary situation, but the FF considered (correctly) that that large a coalition was unlikely and unstable.
And I disagree that something supported by ~70% of the population being blocked in the Senate is a feature. If it's intentional, then it's bad design.
Fair enough, but it was indeed a design feature. The FF did not like the idea of government by popular mandate, which is why they also limited direct representation to the House initially.
. It was intended, but that's not because the FF were wise and feared a tyranny of the majority
I'm sorry, but repeating a mistake will not make you correct. There are plenty of sources describing the debates at the Constitutional Convention, and this is exactly why the Great Compromise was offered and accepted. The larger states would keep the smaller ones in check via the House; the smaller states would keep the larger ones in check via the Senate.
Georgia no border until the Pacific? What about the Louisiana Purchase and so on? They didn't have rights that extended that far...am I missing something there?
They did. Some states were defined by latitude lines with no western border. Some of them were also defined in such a way as to overlap each other. The Lousiana purchase was made well after the constiution was drawn up, and even then no one knew exactly WHAT they were buying, thats why they sent louis and clark.
@ BNW - I guess what I mean to say is, its all well and good to say "you have rights to over there" but that doesn't mean much when other people own stuff in the way. I get the whole L&C thing, thats why I sort of scoff that the charter may well have said anything it liked but that isn't the same as actually acting on that assumption.
It strikes me more as a placeholder and a "see we CLAIMED that" type of thing rather than a well thought out conceptual framework of how westward progression might have been actually carried out. So I get that something said they had those borders but in the way that someone might roll their eyes at if the ever actually tried to act on it, which they never truly did because it got carved up into other states.
--------------------------------------
I think the "feature or bug" argument implies that there was one right choice. A vote occurred, we made a choice but lets look at any number of other historical votes and consider that in hindsight or with modifications to the situation a vote could go another way. I'm proud to live a country that had the hard arguments that we have had and continue to have. I by no means look at each vote, even then, as a "Mission Accomplished" moment.
That Madison and his allies couldn't convince the others to see their point of view and ultimately lost and didn't continue to push the situation since it was in the spirit of playing nice (Something Madison notes in the Federalist Papers) doesn't mean that Madison didn't have a point, and doesn't mean that there aren't benefits and problems with the system as designed. The FF knew it was a hodgepodge and they had other fish to fry. Our system wasn't designed in a vacuum and there was plenty of horse trading and shenanigans.
I think our country tends to idolize the FF as static figures of history when really their brilliance was in their mutable humanity. I personally see no contradiction in saying they designed something as best they could but we could stand to tinker with it in 21st Century. You will note we have done that a few times with the constitutions we have helped draft for other countries.
Buts its all moot. You need to actually clean up the rules of order and conduct in the Congress, find good mechanisms to ensure voter turnout in off season elections and unilaterally enforce neutral drawing of districts to even get a true representation to test the original system let alone act on the will of the people to alter it if that is in the cards.
It's a well written article. I think the author overstates his point with his characterization of "democrats," but then, I'm a "political independent."
It's a well written article. I think the author overstates his point with his characterization of "democrats," but then, I'm a "political independent."The "Democrats get votes by giving money to interest groups" is a pretty standard rightwing attack line, dressed up a little prettier here than usual.
I was talking about the "Democrats redistribute wealth to make more Democrats from poor people" bit. My personal opinion is a lot more, "Any functional society provides for the working class, because otherwise nothing works," regardless of party affiliation.
I don't disagree with you about the rightwing attack line, but my state has closed primaries, so I have to choose party affiliation by which primary I'd rather vote in.
Georgia no border until the Pacific? What about the Louisiana Purchase and so on? They didn't have rights that extended that far...am I missing something there?What about it? The Colonial charter granted Georgia a border all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Native Americans didn't have recognized title, and neither did the Spaniards (under English law).
What about the Treaty of Paris that demarcated the western border of the United States? Just curious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cuomo Vows Offensive Against Labor Unions
Labor: Stop being chumps!
I think the "feature or bug" argument implies that there was one right choice.
No, the difference between a feature and a bug is not whether it's right or wrong, but whether it was planned or unplanned.
That Madison and his allies couldn't convince the others to see their point of view and ultimately lost and didn't continue to push the situation since it was in the spirit of playing nice (Something Madison notes in the Federalist Papers) doesn't mean that Madison didn't have a point, and doesn't mean that there aren't benefits and problems with the system as designed.
Certainly. But the point that you're missing is that the FF looked at the system, and specifically looked at your issued, and made a deliberate design decision (a "feature") that you disagree with.
God knows there are enough other aspects of the Constitution that people have disagreed with over the years, some of which have been changed in light of experience. I'm delighted, for example, that slavery was finally eliminated (in the teeth of the FF's decision to permit it) and that direct election of Senators was allowed. But for Pete's sake don't try to pretend that the FF didn't think about the issue of whether or not to elect Senators directly, or about whether or not to permit slavery, or about whether or not small states should be permitted to punch above their weight in national politics. All three were deliberate, well-reasoned decisions on the part of the FF. Even if you disagree with them, they still knew what they were doing and planned it that way.
They weren't entirely successful which is why all of the first few Presidents were Virgininans.
They therefore set up Congress in a way that would prevent any state or small group of states from being able to control the legislative process.
Ahem.
I think the technical term is "misfeature".No, the difference between a feature and a bug is not whether it's right or wrong, but whether it was planned or unplanned.
I think the "feature or bug" argument implies that there was one right choice.
That's a technical term, yes. A more common term is "a bad design decision," which has the advantage of being able to be used in an actual engineering report.
Here's an article by John Stossel that some might find interesting (and others certainly won't).
If you want to know what Republicans think, read the article and comments at Foxnews.com
If you want to know what Libertarians think, read the article and comments at Reason.com
Politicians are like everyone else...they respond to incentives. As long as $$ are the key to getting and staying in office, politicians will do whatever it takes to get $$. Meanwhile, where is the incentive to work together to solve problems? I mean, come on: We allow what are effectively unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions in the name of "free speech," yet we are somehow surprised when we end up a plutocracy?
And yeah, that article is a little "Democrats = free stuff!," but I've seen worse.
Behold the problems of the either or fallacy.
Either we have a right to sell water with arsenic in it, or the government will pick out your sweater.
The possibility of some sort of medium between the two doesn't come up. It evades the conversation about where the line should be if you deny that the line should exist. If you need to evade a conversation to still have a point your point probably isn't worth having.
Here's an article by John Stossel that some might find interesting (and others certainly won't).
If you want to know what Republicans think, read the article and comments at Foxnews.com
If you want to know what Libertarians think, read the article and comments at Reason.comIt's an interesting article. I like his take on elections: Markets are better so you should avoid voting.
More libertarians really should follow his advice.
Seeing as most Libertarians either avoid voting or vote for Libertarian candidates who have no chance of winning, the effect is the same. And even still the Democrats aren't winning landslide elections.
The possibility of some sort of medium between the two doesn't come up. It evades the conversation about where the line should be if you deny that the line should exist. If you need to evade a conversation to still have a point your point probably isn't worth having.
We're past the point where any middle ground can be reached. Republicans and Democrats both have their party platforms setup such that if you agree with one thing they want you have to agree with everything. It's pretty much impossible to be for gun rights and legal abortion, for gay marriage and against welfare, etc. You're either with us on everything, or you're against us on everything. If you don't give free birth control to women, you're denying women basic health care rights. If you don't allow students to pray in school, you're denying them the right to practice religion at all.
Republicans seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers.
Yeah, that was my general impression as well.
Not that I have any particular insight into the inner-working of the Libertarian faithful; and I do feel it is necessary to say that I have met some Libs who were consisent, principled and spat on the Repubs as much as the Dems. But not many.
Republicans seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers.I don't even know what that means.
Probably depends on who you consider "their backers" to be.Frankly, people voting for you because you do things they like is pretty much how politics is supposed to work.
And there are plenty of things on the general Democratic agenda that I'm in favor of, even if they don't benefit me directly: raise the minimum wage, expand access to healthcare, covering women's health care, allowing gay marriage, the social safety net.
The lack of middle ground you speak of is the direct result of a winner take all electoral system. It's always been that way in this country, though obviously the issues have changed over the decades.
And since you're in favor does that mean everyone else has to be in favor too? And anyone who still isn't in favor must be forced to be in favor? And when you say health care, do you mean health care or health insurance?
And since you're in favor does that mean everyone else has to be in favor too? And anyone who still isn't in favor must be forced to be in favor? And when you say health care, do you mean health care or health insurance?Republicans seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers.I don't even know what that means.
Probably depends on who you consider "their backers" to be.Frankly, people voting for you because you do things they like is pretty much how politics is supposed to work.
And there are plenty of things on the general Democratic agenda that I'm in favor of, even if they don't benefit me directly: raise the minimum wage, expand access to healthcare, covering women's health care, allowing gay marriage, the social safety net.
The lack of middle ground you speak of is the direct result of a winner take all electoral system. It's always been that way in this country, though obviously the issues have changed over the decades.
Obviously, since I'm right.
But more seriously of course not. No one has to be forced to be in favor of anything. Feel free to oppose anything I support, not that you need my permission.
I have no idea where you got that idea from anyway. That was as a counter to "Democrats seem to want laws that only favor them and their backers". I want laws that don't directly favor me. I get very little personally from supporting Democrats. Even in theory. In practice I get less, since they don't live up to the platform.
See, the people who believe they know what's best for everyone and decide that everyone else needs to want those things as well actually say your first sentence seriously.
You (impersonal you) might not think anyone has to be forced to want what you want, but they do need to be forced to do what you (impersonal again) think is the right thing to do. Both sides follow this line of thinking. Both sides believe they know what's best for you and will make as many laws as needed to force you to do what they believe is best. They just need the chance to control the power for a while. So they go about collecting up all the extremists they can and drowning out any reasoned thought from any side.
I believe low voter turnout for elections just goes to show that the majority of people think the whole thing is a waste of time. I believe the majority of people aren't extremists and are more turned off than turned on by the extremists screaming at each other. I believe the majority of people are losing faith in the system as it is now, that's why so many politicians try to show how outside the system they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's nice to see you've made up your mind about what a group of people you don't like thinks.
That's generally what happens after you amass a bunch of information about what a political group wants: you reach an evaluation of their position and decide if its a good position. It doesn't have to have anything to do with whether you like the group or not.
In my experience self identified libertarians have, by and large, been spouting enough right wing political memes that are devoid of basis in reality often enough to make me conclude that they're listening to right wing new sources. These memes don't relate at all to reality, they are often irrelevant, and they don't come out of nowhere: they come out of a well funded, concerted, astroturfed effort to end all forms of regulation that have to do with money. People have spent a lot of time and money putting those memes out there because they benefit greatly from getting rid of said regulations. They've been tricked.
People have spent a lot of time and money putting those memes out there because they benefit greatly from getting rid of said regulations. They've been tricked.
That's a more charitable framing than I would have given it. They've been manipulated, certainly, but they also took no pains to avoid being manipulated. They bear as much responsibility for their positions as those who manipulated them do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe low voter turnout for elections just goes to show that the majority of people think the whole thing is a waste of time. I believe the majority of people aren't extremists and are more turned off than turned on by the extremists screaming at each other. I believe the majority of people are losing faith in the system as it is now, that's why so many politicians try to show how outside the system they are.
Politicians have been trading on their "Washington outsider" status for generations now. It's nothing new.
What's most interesting about this post is that you attempt to paint this as a fight between two "extreme" factions, when the reality is that this is a battle between a faction too terrified to be anything but moderate, and a truly extreme faction. More to the point, you try to paint yourself (or, rather, your libertarian political beliefs) as the moderate, populist voice - which raises an interesting problem for you: Libertarian governance is a dead dream. If it were going to get off the ground, it would have already happened. So you need to start addressing the problem of why your political beliefs are so unpopular, despite your fervent belief that the majority of Americans agree with you. Are you, and all those aligned with you, simply abysmal at political messaging? Is your messaging sabotaged by corporate interests (corporate interests which, mind you, would fall over themselves to support a true libertarian state)? Or is it possible that you have misjudged the American voters, and that your positions are not seen as moderate at all (but rather as radical fringe beliefs)?