And some on the right declare that the US was NEVER a 'democracy'?

[TU Curmudgeon]

And again.

[...] are you saying you never claimed to be a Canadian? ​

If you are again going to rely on the following as an answer, "I am neither saying that I am, nor that I am not.", I clearly am not going to engage with you in your subterfuge.

Whether or not I hold multiple citizenships is none of your business.

 

[cabse5]

Not exactly. Sure, it doesn't say "so and so has the right to vote." However, Article 1 does say that Representatives shall be chosen by the People, i.e., the citizenry, (Section 2) and that this choosing shall be in a manner of elections as specified by the state legislatures, subject to Congressional oversight (Section 4). So, while it does not specify who can vote, it does say that elections shall occur and that the choosers in said elections are the People. Is there another way to participate in elections besides voting?

Obviously you simply aren't keeping up.

NO ONE is arguing that the US is NOT a "Republic".

There are many types of "Republics", some are more "democratic" than others.

NO ONE is arguing that the US is a "Democracy", such a governmental system is totally unworkable in any society that has more than about 10,000 "eligible voters".

Possibly if you understood the difference between a "proper noun" and a "general noun" as well as understood what an adjective is (and does), you wouldn't be so confused.

A "democratic republic" is a "republic" (the nous) that is "democratic" (the adjective). The adjective modifies the noun. Thus it is correct to say "The US is a democratic republic.".

It is NOT, however, correct to say "The United States is a republican (the adjective) Democracy (the noun)." since the US had both a "Head of State" and a "Head of Government" and a Democracy has neither.

From your demonstrated grasp of proper English grammar and technical Political Science terms, I have to conclude that you DID graduate from USC with double majors (English and Political Science).

The poster I was conversing with said there was no 'right to vote' (meaning everyone had the right to vote) in The Constitution. Other posters like TU Curmudgeon have the point all wrong that the US gov't is a democracy or anything close to a democracy...IMO, posters like Curmudgeon wish the US gov't were more a democracy or think the US gov't should be more a democracy.

That non-universal right to vote in The Constitution is correct and you've verified it....There are provisions to vote in The Constitution but no democratic right to vote in The Constitution.

 

[cabse5]

"No where is the right to vote enumerated in The Constitution." is CORRECT.

"I can name the Electoral College which is in The Constitution which authorizes voting." and the Electoral College consists of 538 people out of a population of over 332,000,000. Having 0.0001% of the population "enfranchised" hardly fits into what the general concept of a "democratic governmental system" is.

BTW, neither The Constitution nor the US federal gov't are democratic institutions. They're both republican institutions.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (you do not capitalize every word in Latin

It was a cut and paste. Take your pedantic criticism up with the original author.

is a rule that applies to legal drafting/interpretation and is NOT limited in its application to "people".

As it relates to this conversation, expressio unius est exclusio alterius refers to people of a specific class.

However, you are getting close to actually showing a glimmer of understanding.

It is you who is glimmer free. A pretend “expert” who has been proven wrong repeatedly by acknowledged laypersons.

Those four amendments provide a SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to certain classes of people (provided that they don't fall into some other class. You do realize that a "Black" does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that a woman does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that someone over the age of 18 does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that there is a class of people in the United States of America who do NOT have the right to vote - not even if they happen to be an 18+ year old, "Black", female - don't you?

I know that I’ve already made the point to you that states determine voting rights of felons.

Information you obviously completely ignored, based on your above false claims, highlighted in red.

An informative link you could benefit from reading; https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_rights_for_convicted_felons

You’re welcome.

 

[cabse5]

Obviously you simply aren't keeping up.

NO ONE is arguing that the US is NOT a "Republic".

There are many types of "Republics", some are more "democratic" than others.

NO ONE is arguing that the US is a "Democracy", such a governmental system is totally unworkable in any society that has more than about 10,000 "eligible voters".

Possibly if you understood the difference between a "proper noun" and a "general noun" as well as understood what an adjective is (and does), you wouldn't be so confused.

A "democratic republic" is a "republic" (the nous) that is "democratic" (the adjective). The adjective modifies the noun. Thus it is correct to say "The US is a democratic republic.".

It is NOT, however, correct to say "The United States is a republican (the adjective) Democracy (the noun)." since the US had both a "Head of State" and a "Head of Government" and a Democracy has neither.

From your demonstrated grasp of proper English grammar and technical Political Science terms, I have to conclude that you DID graduate from USC with double majors (English and Political Science).

It was a cut and paste. Take your pedantic criticism up with the original author.

As it relates to this conversation, expressio unius est exclusio alterius refers to people of a specific class.

It is you who is glimmer free. A pretend “expert” who has been proven wrong repeatedly by acknowledged laypersons.

I know that I’ve already made the point to you that states determine voting rights of felons.
View attachment 67339857
Information you obviously completely ignored, based on your above false claims, highlighted in red.

An informative link you could benefit from reading; https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_rights_for_convicted_felons

You’re welcome.

NM...

 

[LostInSeattle]

The poster I was conversing with said there was no 'right to vote' (meaning everyone had the right to vote) in The Constitution. Other posters like TU Curmudgeon have the point all wrong that the US gov't is a democracy or anything close to a democracy...IMO, posters like Curmudgeon wish the US gov't were more a democracy or think the US gov't should be more a democracy.
e
That non-universal right to vote in The Constitution is correct and you've verified it....There are provisions to vote in The Constitution but no democratic right to vote in The Constitution.

The Constitution leaves it open as to who can be considered to constitute "the People." It does not say that the US cannot be a democracy in the sense of universal suffrage. Rather, it leaves room for growth, and gives Congress the power to regulate and expand on what the states do. In 1789, most states restricted voting to white, land owning males. However, in today's United States, we consider all citizens to be the People, i.e., universal suffrage, with the exceptions for age and felony conviction. So, we have, in practice, reached that democratic state and extended a democratic right to vote using the processes laid out in the Constitution.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You misconstrue my position. My position is that if a "right" isn't explicitly stated, and protected, in a constitution then it is NOT a "constitutional right". That "right" might well be a cornerstone of the type of society that you want to live in but if it is NOT stated, and protected, in the constitution then it is NOT a "constitutional right", rather it is an "essential freedom" the loss of which will fundamentally alter the type of society that loses it.

I understand your position perfectly. You are a strict constructionist. You wrongly believe that only those rights explicitly delineated in our (not your) Constitution are guaranteed.

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that the rights of citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution. The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to dismiss the notion that the rights not explicitly named in the Constitution did not exist.

Courts have also found that these non-enumerated rights can be derived from express constitutional provisions. For example, although the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it is silent about the nature of the speech protected. In this regard, the Supreme Court has held that a freedom of speech protects both verbal and non-verbal expressions and communicative conduct at the same time.
Some of the non-enumerated rights recognized by Supreme Court are as follows:

- right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii]

Amendment IX – Non-Enumerated Rights (1791) – System

www.google.com

If you are actually following along, you will see that there is a move afoot (in many "Republican" [whatever that means] jurisdictions) to effectively stifle the ability of certain segments of society (those that have a tendency NOT to "Vote 'BIG-R'") to actually be able to exercise their franchise. Considering that the people who are leading that movement have already (effectively) packed the US Supreme Court, you should be very afraid of your "right to vote" turning into a Chimæra.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on potential impacts of recently enacted voting laws in Republican governed states. Being “very afraid” isn’t justified at this point, but I will continue following reports of Republican attacks on Americans constitutional rights and will let you know when/if being “very afraid” becomes a valid POV.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The poster I was conversing with said there was no 'right to vote' (meaning everyone had the right to vote) in The Constitution. Other posters like TU Curmudgeon have the point all wrong that the US gov't is a democracy or anything close to a democracy...IMO, posters like Curmudgeon wish the US gov't were more a democracy or think the US gov't should be more a democracy.

That non-universal right to vote in The Constitution is correct and you've verified it....There are provisions to vote in The Constitution but no democratic right to vote in The Constitution.

OK, we have finally reached agreement on ONE point, and that is that there is no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote.

There is, however, a general belief amongst the populace that they will be (not only ALLOWED to, but) ABLE to vote. In other words, there is a "cultural expectation" that eligible (however that is defined) voters will vote to select their legislative representatives.

However, you still do not seem to understand the difference between a "proper noun" and a "general noun".

A "proper noun" is a noun that identifies a SPECIFIC thing (like your name identifies you) and is capitalized. A "general noun" is a noun that identifies a CLASS of things (like "human being" [yes, I know that that is a "noun phrase"] identifies you).

Thus "Democracy" identifies a SPECIFIC type of governmental system while "democracy" identifies a whole CLASS of governmental systems. The US is NOT "a Democracy" since its governmental system does NOT consist of the entirety of the eligible voters deciding EVERY issue (and, also, because the US has both a "Head of State" and a "Head of Government" while "a Democracy" has neither).

However, the US IS "a democracy" since its governmental system does include all of the eligible voters voting to select legislative representatives who are then empowered to make decisions binding on the remainder of the populace WITHOUT the remainder of the populace being (necessarily) consulted.

There is, also, no argument about the US being a republic, since the essential element of a "republican system of government" is that the legislative power is NOT in the hands of hereditary holders.

There is no requirement that a republic be a democracy and there is no requirement that a democracy be a republic.

The DPRK IS a republic, but only a fool would describe it as a democracy. Canada is NOT a republic, but only a fool would describe it as NOT a democracy. The United States of America IS a republic, but only a fool would describe it as NOT a democracy.

PS - When using "technical terms", it's always a very good idea to actually know what those terms mean (after all, and as an example, you could be very disapointed if went to a pediatrician for a foot problem).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

BTW, neither The Constitution nor the US federal gov't are democratic institutions. They're both republican institutions.

Please learn the meanings of the terms that you use.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It was a cut and paste. Take your pedantic criticism up with the original author.

As it relates to this conversation, expressio unius est exclusio alterius refers to people of a specific class.

It is you who is glimmer free. A pretend “expert” who has been proven wrong repeatedly by acknowledged laypersons.

I know that I’ve already made the point to you that states determine voting rights of felons.
View attachment 67339857
Information you obviously completely ignored, based on your above false claims, highlighted in red.

An informative link you could benefit from reading; https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_rights_for_convicted_felons

You’re welcome.

Indeed, "states" make the determination as to whether certain classes of people do NOT have "the right to vote" and may do so freely within the constraints of the prohibitions spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Where did you see me say otherwise?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I understand your position perfectly. You are a strict constructionist. You wrongly believe that only those rights explicitly delineated in our (not your) Constitution are guaranteed.

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that the rights of citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution. The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to dismiss the notion that the rights not explicitly named in the Constitution did not exist.

Courts have also found that these non-enumerated rights can be derived from express constitutional provisions. For example, although the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it is silent about the nature of the speech protected. In this regard, the Supreme Court has held that a freedom of speech protects both verbal and non-verbal expressions and communicative conduct at the same time.
Some of the non-enumerated rights recognized by Supreme Court are as follows:

- right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii]

Amendment IX – Non-Enumerated Rights (1791) – System

www.google.com

Thanks for sharing your opinion on potential impacts of recently enacted voting laws in Republican governed states. Being “very afraid” isn’t justified at this point, but I will continue following reports of Republican attacks on Americans constitutional rights and will let you know when/if being “very afraid” becomes a valid POV.

Only those rights which are specifically delineated in any constitution are constitutionally guaranteed. If a "non-enumerated" right is asserted, then the courts MAY decide that it exists (right to an abortion) or it MAY NOT decide that it exists (right to die). Until such time as that happens then that "non-enumerated" right is NOT "guaranteed" by anything.

However, the populace may have such a high "cultural expectation" that it will enjoy "right" which are NOT constitutionally guaranteed that it would be almost impossible to infringe on those right (but "almost impossible" and "impossible" do not mean the same thing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Indeed, "states" make the determination as to whether certain classes of people do NOT have "the right to vote" and may do so freely within the constraints of the prohibitions spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Where did you see me say otherwise?

Attempted evasion of responsibility fail.

We were talking specifically about the United States Constitution, not state laws. Your obvious attempt at pretending otherwise now just to avoid owning your previous false assertion is pathetic.

You do realize that a "Black" does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that a woman does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that someone over the age of 18 does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that there is a class of people in the United States of America who do NOT have the right to vote - not even if they happen to be an 18+ year old, "Black", female - don't you?

Had you actually reviewed the linked attachment that I provided, you would’ve found that not all states deny voting rights to felons, proving your claim wrong, again.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Only those rights which are specifically delineated in any constitution are constitutionally guaranteed. If a "non-enumerated" right is asserted, then the courts MAY decide that it exists (right to an abortion) or it MAY NOT decide that it exists (right to die). Until such time as that happens then that "non-enumerated" right is NOT "guaranteed" by anything.

However, the populace may have such a high "cultural expectation" that it will enjoy "right" which are NOT constitutionally guaranteed that it would be almost impossible to infringe on those right (but "almost impossible" and "impossible" do not mean the same thing.

Even in the face of irrefutable proof, you lie. That takes some balls.

 

[OscarLevant]

Not sidestepping anything. I’m correcting an important factual error on your part. The popular vote is important today and has been for most of the country’s history. But it wasn’t nearly as important at the time of the founding.

I don't care about 'the time of the founding' insofar as my point of 'the popular vote is important, politically' given that that is true, in the current. However, I dispute that they didn't intend on the popular vote to coincide with the EC count. If that were not true, we would have had far more than 5 times in history where the minority would have won in the EC. The fact that the vast majority of the time the popular vote coincided with the electoral college, it was the intent of the founders that it be so, if possible, most of the time. It's not that they didn't want the majority to win, it's just that they didn't want certain populations to vote. In the particular population they wanted to vote, in that group, they, in point of fact, wanted the majority to coincide with the electoral college. That is my opinion, anyway.

Even if I am proven wrong on the above point, I refer you to the first sentence in this rebuttal.

 

[OscarLevant]

Not a representative democracy by most standards...Not by founding father standards.

A true democracy was France and it's French Revolution with guillotines and bloodshed which occurred shortly after America was started.

I was, indeed, a representative democracy, that is precisely what the whole business of 'electors' and the house of representatives' is.

A representative democracy.

 

[OscarLevant]

Let's assume that "Party X" controls exactly 50%+1 of the vote in every single one of the electoral districts in (a particular assortment of)12 states.

Let's also assume that "Party D" and "Party R" split the rest of the vote in all of the other states between them and that "Party X" in any of the other 38 states.

The result of that situation would be that:

[1] "Party X" would elect the President​

​

[2] "Party X" elect 26% of the Senators (with "Party D" and "Party R" splitting the remaining 74 between them)​

​

[3] it would be necessary for either "Party D" or "Party R" to elect 67+% of the Senators from outside of the "Party X" stronghold in order to accomplish anything in the Senate WITHOUT the concurrence of "Party X"​

​

[4] "Party X" would elect 59+% of the members of the House of Representatives​

​

[5] it would be impossible for even the combined voting strength of "Party D" and "Party R" to accomplish anything in the House of Representatives WITHOUT the concurrence of "Party X"​

​

and​

​

[6] despite the fact that "Party X" only received around 29.88% of the national popular vote, the only party able to govern the United States of America would be "Party X" and it could do so REGARDLESS of the wishes of the ~70.12% of the American electorate that did not support it.​

Admittedly such an outcome is unlikely, but it IS quite possible under the current electoral system of the United States of America.

Do you honestly believe that that is what the "Original Intent" of the "Founding Fathers" was?

I look at it this way, given that in all but 5 elections, the popular vote coincided with the electoral college, one can infer, therefore, it was by founder design, that the popular vote coinciding with the electoral college was considered the most desired outcome under the general principle that 'democracy equals majority rule'. True, they didn't want a direct democracy for it's flaws, so they did a compromise, which gave us majority rule, most of the time, smoothing out the flaws, the price being paid that minority would win occasionally.

I cannot possibly come to any other conclusion, that they did, in fact, value the popular majority vote, given that fact.

 

[Gaius46]

I don't care about 'the time of the founding' insofar as my point of 'the popular vote is important, politically' given that that is true, in the current. However, I dispute that they didn't intend on the popular vote to coincide with the EC count. If that were not true, we would have had far more than 5 times in history where the minority would have won in the EC. The fact that the vast majority of the time the popular vote coincided with the electoral college, it was the intent of the founders that it be so, if possible, most of the time. It's not that they didn't want the majority to win, it's just that they didn't want certain populations to vote. In the particular population they wanted to vote, in that group, they, in point of fact, wanted the majority to coincide with the electoral college. That is my opinion, anyway.

Even if I am proven wrong on the above point, I refer you to the first sentence in this rebuttal.

I would suggest that if you don’t care about the founding you don’t reference it your OP.

The founders left it to the states to decide how they’d select electors. So no as far as the presidential election was concerned the founders simply didn’t care about the popular vote.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Attempted evasion of responsibility fail.

We were talking specifically about the United States Constitution, not state laws. Your obvious attempt at pretending otherwise now just to avoid owning your previous false assertion is pathetic.

Had you actually reviewed the linked attachment that I provided, you would’ve found that not all states deny voting rights to felons, proving your claim wrong, again.

I see that you obviously do not quite understand that "Well, not all states deny felons the right to vote." does NOT mean the same as "Felons are NOT denied the right to vote.".

The fact that "A" does not take the same permitted action as "B" does does NOT mean that the action is not permitted.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Even in the face of irrefutable proof, you lie. That takes some balls.

Since you have not presented anything that even remotely resembles "irrefutable proof" that something that is NOT included in a constitution enjoys the status of a "constitutional right", it really doesn't surprise me that you are astonished when someone presents facts.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I look at it this way, given that in all but 5 elections, the popular vote coincided with the electoral college, one can infer, therefore, it was by founder design, that the popular vote coinciding with the electoral college was considered the most desired outcome under the general principle that 'democracy equals majority rule'. True, they didn't want a direct democracy for it's flaws, so they did a compromise, which gave us majority rule, most of the time, smoothing out the flaws, the price being paid that minority would win occasionally.

I cannot possibly come to any other conclusion, that they did, in fact, value the popular majority vote, given that fact.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers DID want the wishes of the majority of the eligible voters to prevail. That is why they allowed "the masses" to vote for the House of Representatives, and reserved control of the Electoral College, the Senate, and the Judiciary for "The Right People". You see, they had two different definitions for "the people", for stuff that "The Right People" might not agree with, they extended that definition reasonably (for the time) widely. For the ability to put the kibosh on stuff that "The Right People" might not agree with, they restricted that definition to "The Right People" (and their definition of "The Right People" was "us and those like us - you know, the socioeconomic elite who actually have a financial stake in the country and are educated").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I would suggest that if you don’t care about the founding you don’t reference it your OP.

The founders left it to the states to decide how they’d select electors. So no as far as the presidential election was concerned the founders simply didn’t care about the popular vote.

In fact, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to prevent a state auctioning off its Electoral College appointments to the highest bidders (well, nothing, that is, until the people of the state get wind of it).

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I see that you obviously do not quite understand that "Well, not all states deny felons the right to vote." does NOT mean the same as "Felons are NOT denied the right to vote.".

Pretending now to have said something previously to me that you have not said?

At this point, I am no longer surprised by any of your sad tactics.

You flatly stated that felons cannot vote, period.

You do realize that a "Black" does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that a woman does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that someone over the age of 18 does not have the "right" to vote if they happen to be a felon as well - don't you? You do realize that there is a class of people in the United States of America who do NOT have the right to vote - not even if they happen to be an 18+ year old, "Black", female - don't you?

Own it.

 

[cabse5]

The Constitution leaves it open as to who can be considered to constitute "the People." It does not say that the US cannot be a democracy in the sense of universal suffrage. Rather, it leaves room for growth, and gives Congress the power to regulate and expand on what the states do. In 1789, most states restricted voting to white, land owning males. However, in today's United States, we consider all citizens to be the People, i.e., universal suffrage, with the exceptions for age and felony conviction. So, we have, in practice, reached that democratic state and extended a democratic right to vote using the processes laid out in the Constitution.

Three branches of gov't all with, initially, equal powers are indicators that the US gov't is definitely not a democracy.
The Electoral College is an indicator that the US gov't is definitely not a democracy.
That the executive branch wields more and more power and the legislative branch less and less are indicators the US gov't is definitely not a democracy. BTW if the US were a democracy, the legislative branch would be the most dominant (and possibly the only) branch of gov't.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

BTW, neither The Constitution nor the US federal gov't are democratic institutions. They're both republican institutions.

The constitution isn’t an “institution”. You are so unfamilar with these words and what they mean, you’re literally just throwing whatever into a post with no rhyme or reason now. IT’s what happens when your arguments have been spiked back into your face repeatedly.

At least you’ve stopped arguing that songs prove we are a Republic. That was super dumb.

 

[cabse5]

OK, we have finally reached agreement on ONE point, and that is that there is no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote.

There is, however, a general belief amongst the populace that they will be (not only ALLOWED to, but) ABLE to vote. In other words, there is a "cultural expectation" that eligible (however that is defined) voters will vote to select their legislative representatives.

However, you still do not seem to understand the difference between a "proper noun" and a "general noun".

A "proper noun" is a noun that identifies a SPECIFIC thing (like your name identifies you) and is capitalized. A "general noun" is a noun that identifies a CLASS of things (like "human being" [yes, I know that that is a "noun phrase"] identifies you).

Thus "Democracy" identifies a SPECIFIC type of governmental system while "democracy" identifies a whole CLASS of governmental systems. The US is NOT "a Democracy" since its governmental system does NOT consist of the entirety of the eligible voters deciding EVERY issue (and, also, because the US has both a "Head of State" and a "Head of Government" while "a Democracy" has neither).

However, the US IS "a democracy" since its governmental system does include all of the eligible voters voting to select legislative representatives who are then empowered to make decisions binding on the remainder of the populace WITHOUT the remainder of the populace being (necessarily) consulted.

There is, also, no argument about the US being a republic, since the essential element of a "republican system of government" is that the legislative power is NOT in the hands of hereditary holders.

There is no requirement that a republic be a democracy and there is no requirement that a democracy be a republic.

The DPRK IS a republic, but only a fool would describe it as a democracy. Canada is NOT a republic, but only a fool would describe it as NOT a democracy. The United States of America IS a republic, but only a fool would describe it as NOT a democracy.

PS - When using "technical terms", it's always a very good idea to actually know what those terms mean (after all, and as an example, you could be very disapointed if went to a pediatrician for a foot problem).

You're hoping again. A voting American must qualify to vote.