Self Governance

[Moot]

What do you think self governance means and is it possible to still have "self government" going forward after what we've been witnessing from Trump supporters these last two months?

Self-governance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rich2018]

What do you think self governance means and is it possible to still have "self government" going forward after what we've been witnessing from Trump supporters these last two months?

You mean split the USA into different countries ?

 

[Moot]

You mean split the USA into different countries ?

Is that what the term "self governance" means to you? To me, self governance means the people freely agree to be governed by a representative government and the rule of law....not men, kings, dictators or military force. But there are quite a few in our country that don't seem to see it that way. So that's why I'm asking what other people think it means.

I think a good historical example of self governance was the Mayflower Compact...the precursor to our constitutional democratic republic.

 

[Rich2018]

Is that what the term "self governance" means to you? To me, self governance means the people freely agree to be governed by a representative government and the rule of law....not men, kings, dictators or military force. But there are quite a few in our country that don't seem to see it that way. So that's why I'm asking what other people think it means.

I think a good historical example of self governance was the Mayflower Compact...the precursor to our constitutional democratic republic.

Yes "self-governance" means you govern yourselves. You don't have a higher government over you
So if the state of Georgia elected for self-governance, it would mean that they would reject any attempt to govern them from outside Georgia (ie: Washington). It would mean Georgia becomes its own country
The Revolutionary War was fought over self governance

The people agreeing to governed by a government of their representatives is called "Representative Democracy" and is the model of how all Westernized democracies are run.

 

[mrjurrs]

What do you think self governance means and is it possible to still have "self government" going forward after what we've been witnessing from Trump supporters these last two months?

Self-governance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not in the US. Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. Article 4 Section 4

 

[Moot]

Not in the US. Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government. Article 4 Section 4

Self governance is a republican form of government.

 

[mrjurrs]

Self governance is a republican form of government.

A republican form of government involves the population choosing someone to make decisions on their behalf. If that is how you define self-governance why do you want to change?

 

[Rich2018]

Self governance is a republican form of government.

Your definition of self governance is a definition of Representative Democracies

Both Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy) and the USA (a Constitutional Republic) are Representative Democracies

A Republican form of government simply refers to the way the head of state is selected - either by birthright (eg the Queen/Monarchy in Canada) or election (eg the President/Republic in the USA).

 

[Rich2018]

A republican form of government involves the population choosing someone to make decisions on their behalf. If that is how you define self-governance why do you want to change?

No, a Republican form of government involves the population choosing someone for the office of head of state. not their representative in the legislature. Which is common to Constitutional Republics and Constitutional Monarchies.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, a Republican form of government involves the population choosing someone for the office of head of state. not their representative in the legislature. Which is common to Constitutional Republics and Constitutional Monarchies.

I disagree. Selecting a representative to make decisions on your behalf is fundamental to a republic. Besides, using your definition would mean that the US is not a republic. We don't vote for our head of state. We vote for a slate of electors.

 

[Moot]

Yes "self-governance" means you govern yourselves. You don't have a higher government over you
So if the state of Georgia elected for self-governance, it would mean that they would reject any attempt to govern them from outside Georgia (ie: Washington). It would mean Georgia becomes its own country
The Revolutionary War was fought over self governance

The people agreeing to governed by a government of their representatives is called "Representative Democracy" and is the model of how all Westernized democracies are run.

Except that the State of Georgia signed and ratified the Constitution which means they freely agreed to be governed by a national representative government...aka...constitutional democratic republic.

Self governance in one context means self control and that requires self reflection. In another context it means a group of individuals freely agreeing to elect a representative to govern and make the rules and laws that they will all follow.

 

[Moot]

A republican form of government involves the population choosing someone to make decisions on their behalf. If that is how you define self-governance why do you want to change?

That's what self governance is, too. I never said I wanted that to change...but other people do or they wouldn't be denying free and fair elections and laying siege on the nations capitol to keep one man in power. That is the antithesis of self governance in a free republic, imo.

 

[Rich2018]

I disagree. Selecting a representative to make decisions on your behalf is fundamental to a republic.

No, it's fundamental to a Representative Democracy - such as enjoyed by the citizens of Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy) and the USA (a Constitutional Republic)

Representatives in the US Congress function, differs in no way from the function of the representatives in the Canadian Parliament.

Besides, using your definition would mean that the US is not a republic. We don't vote for our head of state. We vote for a slate of electors.

You do vote for your head of state, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot paper.

 

[Rich2018]

Except that the State of Georgia signed and ratified the Constitution which means they freely agreed to be governed by a national representative government...aka...constitutional democratic republic.

Yes, so the people of Georgia do not exercise self-governance

Self governance in one context means self control and that requires self reflection. In another context it means a group of individuals freely agreeing to elect a representative to govern and make the rules and laws that they will all follow.

No, self governance does not mean selecting a representative in your country's (or state's) legislature

Your representative, represents you within your legislature

Your representative doesn't govern you, he/she is but one voice amongst many.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, it's fundamental to a Representative Democracy - such as enjoyed by the citizens of Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy) and the USA (a Constitutional Republic)

Representatives in the US Congress function, differs in no way from the function of the representatives in the Canadian Parliament.




You do vote for your head of state, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot paper.

Ok, explain what happens when there is a faithless elector. It is the states choice to put the name on the ballot, but that is not who you are voting for.

 

[Jax_Pass20]

No, it's fundamental to a Representative Democracy - such as enjoyed by the citizens of Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy) and the USA (a Constitutional Republic)

Representatives in the US Congress function, differs in no way from the function of the representatives in the Canadian Parliament.

You do vote for your head of state, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot paper.

I cannot say it is the same for every state, but the phrase "electors for" appears in smaller text above the Presidential nominee.

As far as my response to the original question, I prefer the sort of republican governance built into our constitution wherein the people choose representatives in the congress. I do wish lobbies and other monied interests had less influence in the government than they do; mostly because I think the amount of money spent on elections is absurd. I do not believe such a government could survive with the level of political apathy we have now.

 

[Rich2018]

Ok, explain what happens when there is a faithless elector. It is the states choice to put the name on the ballot, but that is not who you are voting for.

A faithless elector goes against the Constitution. That's not how the system is supposed to work

But yes, you could argue that if a president was elected by faithless electors, against an opponent who genuinely won both the popular vote and enough states to have won the EC, then such a president could be considered appointed or coronated and thus be a Constitutional monarchy
But this hasn't happened yet and surely the intention of the framers was to have an election, not a coronation.

 

[Rich2018]

...I do wish lobbies and other monied interests had less influence in the government than they do; mostly because I think the amount of money spent on elections is absurd. I do not believe such a government could survive with the level of political apathy we have now.

That is a valid point

Yes, I think the amount of money spent on elections is obscene.

IMO, Congress and state legislatures should raise extra taxes to provide a fixed campaign budget for all candidates.

(candidates getting less than say 5% of the vote, have to pay it back).

 

[mrjurrs]

A faithless elector goes against the Constitution. That's not how the system is supposed to work

But yes, you could argue that if a president was elected by faithless electors, against an opponent who genuinely won both the popular vote and enough states to have won the EC, then such a president could be considered appointed or coronated and thus be a Constitutional monarchy
But this hasn't happened yet and surely the intention of the framers was to have an election, not a coronation.

I'm not even talking about electing a President. If I wanted Biden and I voted for him on the ballot, but one elector was faithless and voted for the opponent I'd say my vote was disenfranchised. I'd also say that this example 'proves' my point that we don't vote for our head of state. Amend the reapportionment Act of 1929!

 

[Jax_Pass20]

That is a valid point

Yes, I think the amount of money spent on elections is obscene.

IMO, Congress and state legislatures should raise extra taxes to provide a fixed campaign budget for all candidates.

(candidates getting less than say 5% of the vote, have to pay it back).

Many of my Libertarian friends would say that a person should be able to spend/donate as much money as they would like on any given political campaign; however, I'm not 100% sold on that notion because of the sway the aforementioned monied interests get - I do not think that, in the end, current campaign finance law prevents tyranny of the majority. There may also be an argument that it could create a psuedo-plutocracy.

I think your suggestion would be an interesting approach; maybe someone smarter than myself could write up a white paper on how it would potentially work.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm not even talking about electing a President. If I wanted Biden and I voted for him on the ballot, but one elector was faithless and voted for the opponent I'd say my vote was disenfranchised.

Yes, I would agree with you

I'd also say that this example 'proves' my point that we don't vote for our head of state. Amend the reapportionment Act of 1929

We do because faithless electors are breaking the law.

 

[Rich2018]

Many of my Libertarian friends would say that a person should be able to spend/donate as much money as they would like on any given political campaign; however, I'm not 100% sold on that notion because of the sway the aforementioned monied interests get - I do not think that, in the end, current campaign finance law prevents tyranny of the majority. There may also be an argument that it could create a psuedo-plutocracy.

I think your suggestion would be an interesting approach; maybe someone smarter than myself could write up a white paper on how it would potentially work.

I think your libertarian friends are wrong, allowing a situation where one candidate can vastly outspend another is akin to being able to buy the election.

Elections should be about how many voters support you, not how wealthy your donors are.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Very strange thread.

 

[Rich2018]

Very strange thread.

Very brief response.

 

[aociswundumho]

The people agreeing to governed by a government of their representatives is called "Representative Democracy" and is the model of how all Westernized democracies are run.

Virtually nobody agrees or would agree to be ruled over and taxed by other people.