Lack of good sportsmanship in the legislature

[Corvus]

Why are conservatives so reluctant to accept majority rule these days? The foundational concept of our democracy is governing by the will of the majority. (Yes, in practice, this is mitigated by wealth/power, indirect rule by elected representatives, etc.) But so many conservatives seem so emotionally incapable of accepting that their opinion is in the minority that they are resorting to pretty flagrant, sometimes illegal and manipulative conduct in order to "get their way" despite the will of the majority. How have people become so undemocratic (despite their often repeated "patriotic" feelings), and how do we move toward a more "sportsmanlike" behavior? I dislike using that word, but can't find another that captures quite the same sense. (Thesaurus lists synonyms: righteousness, honorableness, and most importantly Fairness.) Here is an example, from Oregon, which has an unusually polarized population... where conservative legislators in past years have blocked legislation they don't want passed by failing to show up for votes en mass. When the governor in past years threatened to send the state police to bring the legislators in to do their jobs, they resorted to leaving the state entirely in order to block votes.

Oregon GOP walkout threatens bills on abortion, trans care — and senators' careers

A boycott by Republican state senators in Oregon threatens to derail hundreds of bills, including on gun control and abortion rights. But a deadline looms that could also upend the protesters’ political futures. Republican and Democratic leaders in the Oregon Legislature met behind closed doors...

apnews.com

 

[Noodlegawd]

The foundational concept of our democracy is governing by the will of the majority.

This is not even close to being true, not at the federal level anyway. If nothing else, the existence of the Senate and the Bill of Rights makes what you said more or less impossible.

The best path to living under democracy to the greatest extent possible is to maximize the extent to which governing is applied at the state and local level, and to minimize the power of the federal government (as the founders intended).

 

[Corvus]

This is not even close to being true, not at the federal level anyway. If nothing else, the existence of the Senate and the Bill of Rights makes what you said more or less impossible.

The best path to living under democracy to the greatest extent possible is to maximize the extent to which governing is applied at the state and local level, and to minimize the power of the federal government (as the founders intended).

Ha, good point! Our federal system was indeed founded as government by representation, not by direct vote. That ancient Athenian/Greek style of government would be difficult to implement in such populous entities as we have today, to say the least. You caught me voicing a common myth in order to illustrate a problem. (The myth that we have a true democracy.)

But this is beside the point. The intent of my message was to discuss the lack of mature, honorable behavior in so many of the people who have been elected to represent our interests. I do think the intent of our founders was to approach an optimized solution to the problem of honest disagreements about policy. Their solution involves balancing powers so that more people have to agree on a particular solution, rather than a small group or single person (a monarch or dictator, perhaps) forcing their view on others willy-nilly. This requires compromises, meeting other viewpoints part way, and ACCEPTING the end result when you are in the minority. This is what seems to be lacking in many of our elected representatives today. Like toddlers having a tantrum: : "No! It has to be MY way, or I will refuse to play, or even lie, cheat, and steal to get my way!" What happened to "statesmanlike behavior"?