Democracy is not mob rule

[Slartibartfast]

Certainly a new concept

And a perfectly valid one. The founders were wrong about fearing the masses but they existed in a time before modern education.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

There is and it exctactly what the OP said doesn't happen. The 51% now more than ever looks to oppress the 49%. 20 years ago and before I would have agreed that it was an baseless fear but not anymore

You are fundamentally failing to grasp the point I was making. The Electoral College is undemocratic. The president should be decided by popular vote. @tacomancer has the right of it. The protections for democracy are things like the bill of rights, not the EC. The EC college in no way protects the principles of democracy; in fact in many cases it undermines them. The EC alone only means different people have to be convinced in order to gain political power but does nothing to limit what they can do with that power.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies.

And that only exists in a limited scope like public referendums for the most part.
Democracy as we know it today is buffered as representative democracy. We ELECT representatives to make our laws.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

It is often said that democracy is just mob rule or tyranny of the majority. That is not the case. This is nothing but a talking point to derail discussions of things like abolishing the electoral college.

Democracy, a strong democracy, is not a system which allows 51% of people to do whatever they want. The most democratic system is not one which every policy is decided by a referendum. As is often pointed out, what if 51% of people decided to oppress the 49%?

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government. Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

So the next time someone tells you that abolishing the electoral college or some other expansion of democracy is actually somehow authoritarianism, simply direct them here.

First, we are not a pure democracy. A democratic republic. If you want to support minorities, that should include minority states, such as a electorial college brings.

 

[Crovax]

And a perfectly valid one. The founders were wrong about fearing the masses but they existed in a time before modern education.

So you are fine with being oppressed by anything not covered by the bill or rights and incorporated by the SCOTUS?

 

[grip]

There you are moving to another political spectrum, that of anarchism.

Huh? Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state, which it holds to be unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful.
Where did I do that?

 

[Crovax]

You are fundamentally failing to grasp the point I was making. The Electoral College is undemocratic.

That's literally by design, and the founding fathers have gone into great detail why they did this

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you are fine with being oppressed by anything not covered by the bill or rights and incorporated by the SCOTUS?

The situation would be no different then today, except the people in charge and supposedly "oppressing others" as you characterize it would have a more sensible make up.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is no inherent reason they should have more of a say than they deserve per population size.

Unless, of course, you respect the Constitution.

Besides in a pure presidential popular vote situation, it would be about cities versus rural areas anyway. Rural people in Massachusetts have more in common with rural people in Colorado, then they do with people in Boston anyway.

That is not taking into account major differences in the industrial (economic?) base of different states and the cities within them.

 

[Craig234]

Good thing we have a bill of rights.

*had?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Unless, of course, you respect the Constitution.

I see the constitution as modern republican democracy version 1.0. 1.0 versions of things tend to be buggy. There is a way to patch it and I am calling for a patch.

That is not taking into account major differences in the industrial (economic?) base of different states and the cities within them.

Societies have different groups of different sizes. It also means the Amish will continue to not get much of a say. I would rather have a power balance that makes rational sense then this weird mess we have due to legacy reasons.

 

[grip]

And that only exists in a limited scope like public referendums for the most part.
Democracy as we know it today is buffered as representative democracy. We ELECT representatives to make our laws.

Yeah, in theory. But our reps are hand selected by the big donors, influence peddlers, and corporate lobbyists that support them. The sheeple are too busy with TikTok, Instagram and texting to pay attention.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That's literally by design, and the founding fathers have gone into great detail why they did this

Yeah, and those reasons were generally both racist and elitist. The electoral college a more authoritarian system than one without it.

 

[Craig234]

First, we are not a pure democracy. A democratic republic. If you want to support minorities, that should include minority states, such as a electorial college brings.

No, it should include individual rights. If protections are needed for minority states, such as in the rare case of the confederacy if the majority North exploited them, that should be done with specific protections, not broad over-weighting of votes in small states, leading to minority rule.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

Ha! How many states now receive attention after the presidential primaries? Maybe 10 at most. The swing states are the only states that are campaigned in after the primaries to any significant degree.

 

[Craig234]

Societies have different groups of different sizes. It also means the Amish will continue to not get much of a say. I would rather have a power balance that makes rational sense then this weird mess we have due to legacy reasons.

I demand every small group get enough 'extra' added to their votes that they get to win the presidency. Oh wait, we only do that for two groups - small states and the rich - and really, only for the rich because the rich have targeted small states to get them to vote Republican to benefit them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yeah, in theory. But our reps are hand selected by the big donors, influence peddlers, and corporate lobbyists that support them. The sheeple are too busy with TikTok, Instagram and texting to pay attention.

True however that is all outside the model and it exists because lazy and apathetic voters don't try to elect representatives who will push back against it.
The casino was built with outside money and it is outside money that keeps it strong.
A sane and educated public would have long ago ruled that outside money isn't allowed.
Probably too late now, given Citizens United et al.

 

[Crovax]

Yeah, and those reasons were generally both racist and elitist. The electoral college a more authoritarian system than one without it.

No, they are only called that by those who need to create a reason to abolish them.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

First, we are not a pure democracy. A democratic republic. If you want to support minorities, that should include minority states, such as a electorial college brings.

Minorities isn't random arbitrary geographic groupings of people. If California split itself into 20 smaller but all still Democrat majority states the GOP would be screaming for the Electoral College to be immediately abolished and for good reason.

I mean political minorities. There must be civil protections to protect minorities from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against by the state.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

It's not perfect but it certainly does help get some smaller states, much more than a national vote would.

Abolish the Electoral College and the people in the small state's votes count exactly the same as the people's votes in big cities. One person one vote. No reason people in small states should have more voting power just because of state boundaries.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Here is the catch 22.

If we are going to operate along this line of reasoning, than the filibuster serves as a positive check on 51 defeating 49.

Anyone see the problem here?

It treats major (nationwide) legislation from being passed without a 60% supermajority. IMHO, that is not a bad thing, especially given the constant ‘mission creep’ of the federal government which has given itself the (extra-constitutional?) power to deal with anything deemed ‘important’.

 

[Captain Adverse]

There is no inherent reason they should have more of a say than they deserve per population size.

Besides in a pure presidential popular vote situation, it would be about cities versus rural areas anyway. Rural people in Massachusetts have more in common with rural people in Colorado, then they do with people in Boston anyway.

Yes there is.

The very reason this nation is call the United STATES of America, is because this is comprised of currently 50 STATES, with various needs, resources, populations, etc.

I have lived in 15 different States in my lifetime and visited in a dozen more.

While we share many commonalities like language, there are still differences of all kinds based on population dynamics in each State.

When this nation was formed, it was designed to unite 13 distinct States, which were literally semi-independent under the original Articles of Confederation.

A pure popular vote would prompt a President to focus campaign narrowly in the States with the largest populations if all that was required is winning the popular vote.

That would turn the USA into a version of PanEm in the Hunger Games. The populated cities being the focus and everywhere else servants/serfs supplying those city's needs.

So no way in HELL would I want this form of government, especially if I lived in one of the many "small population States."

 

[Crovax]

Abolish the Electoral College and the people in the small state's votes count exactly the same as the people's votes in big cities. One person one vote. No reason people in small states should have more voting power just because of state boundaries.

Why have states at all then, or make every state have an equal population.

 

[mrjurrs]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

Tell me why the vote of a single rural person is worth more than a single urban voter.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

No, they are only called that by those who need to create a reason to abolish them.

Ok. So you would still support the Electoral College if California because 20 smaller Democrat majority states? Or do you still not understand how the EC is just arbitrary geographic lines around populations?