ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators

[acbytesla]

And preferable to democracy.

This is Koo koo for Coco Puffs.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Anyway, I suppose these bat-crap crazy people have abandoned the Constitutional Convention idea because such a thing is just too hard to put together, so now they are discussing a new tactic in order to produce more Republican Senators since they cannot do so via direct elections.

A constitutional convention actually could happen. There is a movement supporting one. The key problem is that once it begins, there would be no restriction on what changes could be considered: An end to the Bill of Rights, prohibition of income taxes, voting restricted to white male property holders, replacing the President with ruling council, anything. Whatever came out of it would still need to be approved by the states, but it's a dangerous road to even think about, let alone start down.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...x-american-government/?utm_term=.8e865647bac0
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-super-constitutional-convention-20170315-story.html

 

[BobTheCoward]

What the hell are you talking about?

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Protections for the minority and future policy from majority rule is an undemocratic measure.

 

[Allen773]

I think that one of the better arguments for limited, divided, and even deliberately inefficient government is that federalism, separation of powers, and their related checks and balances (should) prevent the accumulation of power in one person or a narrow, elite, and this, unrepresentative unrepresentative minority.

Problem is, the Congress has become dysfunctional and gridlocked to the point of absurdity, the Presidency has become quasi-imperial and routinely bullies the executive branch and the career civil service, the executive branch as a whole (along with the judicial branch) has been given so much power by a Congress that seems more interested in political grandstanding and raising campaign funds from monied special interests, so consequently, the public has become so fed up that they're willing to hand the reigns of the absurdly powerful Presidency to authoritarian demagogues like Donald Trump.

Naturally, this should concern all of us.

 

[Belz...]

At what? In every known real world example Democracy > Oligarchy > Badly run Oligarchy (AKA Anarchy)

That's only if you care about the serfs.

We all favor anti democratic measures to some extent. The first amendment carves something out from policy decision making by direct democracy and simple majority.

It's like you're typing random posts in response to mine.

 

[acbytesla]

A constitutional convention actually could happen. There is a movement supporting one. The key problem is that once it begins, there would be no restriction on what changes could be considered: An end to the Bill of Rights, prohibition of income taxes, voting restricted to white male property holders, replacing the President with ruling council, anything. Whatever came out of it would still need to be approved by the states, but it's a dangerous road to even think about, let alone start down.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...x-american-government/?utm_term=.8e865647bac0
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-super-constitutional-convention-20170315-story.html

I'm skeptical that it could happen for the reasons you state. ( At least not in the foreseeable future...not that anyone of us have crystal balls) The closer it comes to reality (which it really isn't) the bigger the push back I think we can expect. People tend to prefer the devil they know.

That said, if the people really feel abused anything can happen. They could elect a Trump or a Hitler. We've been lucky that there hasn't been more leaders like them.

 

[acbytesla]

Protections for the minority and future policy from majority rule is an undemocratic measure.

Kind of a stretch. It's just securing individual rights.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's only if you care about the serfs.



It's like you're typing random posts in response to mine.

It was to the wrong post.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Kind of a stretch. It's just securing individual rights.

If you are securing individual rights by stripping power from a democratic form to alter it by majority (the normal democratic process) then it is anti democratic.

 

[Belz...]

If you are securing individual rights by stripping power from a democratic form to alter it by majority (the normal democratic process) then it is anti democratic.

There is nothing in the definition of democracy that requires it to a majority rule.

 

[acbytesla]

If you are securing individual rights by stripping power from a democratic form to alter it by majority (the normal democratic process) then it is anti democratic.

I think you've gone to the absurd.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There is nothing in the definition of democracy that requires it to a majority rule.

Correct. That is why I have included modifiers such as "normal." Requiring 100% consensus is a democracy, but presents issues with the definition. Wikipedia says it best

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are substantively and procedurally "fair," i.e., just and equitable. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and internet democracy are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests

 

[Ziggurat]

Pure pedantry. ALEC is a right wing organization that actively promotes the interests of the Republican party, the fact that they are not formally part of the Republican party is irrelevant and quite frankly a little silly.

Of course they're right-wing. I never contested that. And as a general rule, the best way to advance right-wing policies is through the Republican party. But that doesn't make ALEC and Republicans identical, just like socialists and the Democratic party are not identical, even though the former often advocate for the latter. That they make common cause at times is not in doubt, but the difference is real, in both cases. And in this specific case, what you cut from my post and ignored is actually quite important: this plan will not get significant traction within the Republican party.

 

[lomiller]

If you are securing individual rights by stripping power from a democratic form to alter it by majority (the normal democratic process) then it is anti democratic.

A Democracy with checks and balances is still a Democracy. Democracies without such checks and balances has typically stopped being a Democracy fairly quickly so checks and balances seem to be an essential feature of real world Democracy. That would make them the opposite of anti-Democratic.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A Democracy with checks and balances is still a Democracy. Democracies without such checks and balances has typically stopped being a Democracy fairly quickly so checks and balances seem to be an essential feature of real world Democracy. That would make them the opposite of anti-Democratic.

No, it isn't a democracy. It is government composed of a couple of things, one of which is democracy.

ETA: let me modify my statement. How many decisions can I carve into a near untouchable bill of rights before it isn't something you label a democracy anymore?

 

[lomiller]

Of course they're right-wing. I never contested that.

So in addition the being pedantic you freely admit it was your intent to be pedantic. Rather than making it better this is the type of intellectual dishonesty that tells people not to trust anything you post.

 

[Ziggurat]

So in addition the being pedantic you freely admit it was your intent to be pedantic. Rather than making it better this is the type of intellectual dishonesty that tells people not to trust anything you post.

To the extent that my post was pedantic, you've made it quite clear that you need such remedial instructions. Political parties have fundamentally different purposes that advocacy groups. The distinction between them matters. Your inability to grasp that difference is not my problem, it's yours. And don't try to lecture me about intellectual dishonesty when you repeatedly misrepresent my argument and fail to address its actual content.

The real kicker, though, is that your latest post isn't even internally coherent. You're saying I'm admitting something you believe is true, but then call that admission dishonesty, and that people will trust me less because I've been honest. Did you even think about what you were writing? Or was this some sort of stream-of-consciousness exercise?

 

[lomiller]

To the extent that my post was pedantic, you've made it quite clear that you need such remedial instructions. Political parties have fundamentally different purposes that advocacy groups. The distinction between them matters. Your inability to grasp that difference is not my problem, it's yours. And don't try to lecture me about intellectual dishonesty when you repeatedly misrepresent my argument and fail to address its actual content.

Political advocacy groups whose goal is to elect a specific political party can rightly be linked to the party they advocate for. Arguing any “but they are not officially part of the party!!!! when someone does is pedantry pure and simple and waving your hands around like that won’t change this.

The real kicker, though, is that your latest post isn't even internally coherent. You're saying I'm admitting something you believe is true, but then call that admission dishonesty, and that people will trust me less because I've been honest.

I’m not sure what’s hard to understand. You engaged in pedantry, then when called on it you admitted you knew you were being pedantic. This tells us that it wasn’t accidental or incidental but a deliberate attempt to mislead.

 

[Ziggurat]

Political advocacy groups whose goal is to elect a specific political party can rightly be linked to the party they advocate for.

The claim went beyond this. The claim was basically that this was essentially a Republican plan. But it isn't. And it won't get widespread Republican support, either. That fact alone, which you have studiously and repeatedly ignored, invalidates the whole claim.

 

[Babbylonian]

The claim went beyond this. The claim was basically that this was essentially a Republican plan. But it isn't. And it won't get widespread Republican support, either. That fact alone, which you have studiously and repeatedly ignored, invalidates the whole claim.

Yeah, well, it's tough for people who need to win elections to throw their support behind a cynical, naked power grab.