Sorry, but the USA is no longer a democracy and the cause is gerrymandering

[vanceen]

Gerrymandering needs to end, and be prevented from ever returning.
But that won't happen until those who retain power by applying it are somehow removed from power.

I don't think that's sufficient. Both sides have been very happy to gerrymander.

We need federal law that puts redistricting power into non-partisan hands, i.e. not the legislature.

 

[ataraxia]

We need federal law that puts redistricting power into non-partisan hands, i.e. not the legislature.

In today's world, there is no such thing. Even SCOTUS is hyperpartisan.

 

[vanceen]

In today's world, there is no such thing. Even SCOTUS is hyperpartisan.

I disagree. If so, how do you explain their decision not to uphold the stay on the abortion pill? There are many such examples.

But stipulating your assertion for the sake of argument... What do you think we should do about gerrymandering?

 

[ataraxia]

I disagree. If so, how do you explain their decision not to uphold the stay on the abortion pill? There are many such examples.

But stipulating your assertion for the sake of argument... What do you think we should do about gerrymandering?

It's toxic and has poisoned our democracy. But I really don't think I know enough about the nitty gritty of practical politics to know how we can overcome it.

 

[mrjurrs]

If you get informed voters you are likely to get informed legislators.

If you have ethical legislators you are likely to get informed legislators REGARDLESS of whether the voters are informed.

That's how it's supposed to work. Unfortunately the electoral structure of the US means that "Elections are how we re-elect the people we voted into office previously.".

Not quite. When the Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution, they knew, from personal and practical experience, that the members of the House of Representatives would travel to DC for a legislative session that lasted for one or two months (and which would not be held during either planting season, harvest season, or in the depth of winter) before returning home and carrying on with their usual occupation - whereupon that real government (read as "The Senate, Judicial Branch, and Executive Branch") could carry on running the country for the benefit of the people who "had a stake" in the country's economy (read as "that class of Americans which consisted of rich, white, educated, men") and who controlled the composition of the Senate, Judiciary, and Executive - regardless of what the House of -the Rabble- Representatives had done.

Only if you define "country" as "the economic elite" (because the riches that "the economic elite" would trickle down and enrich the masses.

And he was right. The United States of America has proven conclusively that political parties simply will not work in the United States of America (regardless of whether or not they will work in any other country).

Make that "The people who actually control the running and direction of political parties (but whom you have never heard and aren't likely to hear) have ..." and you have a deal.

They never were and they always have been.

When you have a choice between [1] returning The Hon. Rep. Billy-Bob Tucus, with his Grade 6 education, lack of anything even seeming to look like ethical standards, and total lack of knowledge of anything outside of his own electoral district (who happens to be "One of OUR Guys" or [2] electing Joe Wonderful, who is well educated, highly ethical, and steeped in worldly awareness (who happens to be "One of Those People", there is only one rational way to vote - right?

Which is one definition of an uninformed voter.

Trickle down doesn't work whatever ideology is trying to do it. The benevolent elite would have been making decisions that benefit the country even if it did not benefit them. The founders were wrong in that assumption. We knew that they were not perfect ("...more perfect union..."), but they really missed on the idea of the Senate make up.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Never has been a Democracy, it's a Republic.

Pssst... a republic is a form of democracy.

 

[Galactic Spin]

It's toxic and has poisoned our democracy. But I really don't think I know enough about the nitty gritty of practical politics to know how we can overcome it.

Only a federal law or amendment. Bring in independent, FOREIGN academics to suggest new rules for drawing districts objectively.

 

[Sabre]

Pssst... a republic is a form of democracy.

Pssst... Republic is in the Constitution, a Democracy is not.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Pssst... Republic is in the Constitution, a Democracy is not.

A Republic is a form of democracy. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[ataraxia]

Pssst... Republic is in the Constitution, a Democracy is not.

Definition of a Republic is a representative democracy.

"The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.” "

Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?

The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which citizens control the process of making laws.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Sabre]

Pssst... Republic is in the Constitution, a Democracy is not.

By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority.

If you're confused about what we have here in America,... its a Republic. " I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the R E P U B L I C for which it stands.

Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic: “It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.

 

[Galactic Spin]

By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority

By definition, a republic is a form of democracy.

 

[eman623]

What should the goal of redistricting be? I'm serious. People decry gerrymandering, but actually working out a system than is fair requires defining what fair means.

Is it:

Keep districts as compact as possible?
Keeping people in cities and metropolitan regions together?
Maximizing competitive "purple" districts?
Insuring "safe" districts for minorities who wouldn't get any representation otherwise?
Following the party breakdown? If a state is 50% R and 50% D, then should there be equal numbers of each in the legislature?

These are not compatible goals.

 

[The Mark]

By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority.

If you're confused about what we have here in America,... its a Republic. " I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the R E P U B L I C for which it stands.

Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic: “It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.

We choose our representatives and agents by democratic process.

 

[roughdraft274]

AKA a "representative democracy."

Semantic arguments are not compelling.

I've often found that the people saying "we aren't a democracy" are really just trying to convey their sentiments of "**** democracy".

 

[MAGAnificent]

Many states, more than enough to remove our country from a democracy to what, maybe fascism, are so gerrymandered that this country is in trouble. First the state legislatures are gerrymandered so that a minority party rules the state and then they use that same power to gerrymander the house members in the Federal legislature. They reduce or even eliminate the votes of those in the other party both through gerrymandering and highly restrictive voting measures and we are supposed to continue to consider us a democracy, NOT. This is all about power and the eventual winners are the wealthy and the corporations.

Very amusing rant. Democrats aso taker advantage of gerrymandering. Democrats held the advantage for nearly seven decades and did not utter a complaint until the republicans gained the advantage by way of the 2010 midterms, specifically the state legislative races.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Very amusing rant. Democrats aso taker advantage of gerrymandering. Democrats held the advantage for nearly seven decades and did not utter a complaint until the republicans gained the advantage by way of the 2010 midterms, specifically the state legislative races.

Cute whining.

But all that matters is that you're on board with getting rid of it.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Never has been a Democracy, it's a Republic.

Perhaps you're not aware, but a republic is a form of democracy. The term "democracy" comes from Attic Greek, and is a combination of two words: Demos means "people" and Kratos means "power." Put simply, the basic idea is that the people ruled have political power. Democracy (in any form) stands in sharp contrast to oligarchy (rule by few, Oligoi=few, Arkos=ruler), monarchy (rule by one, Monos=one), or other forms of government in which the people ruled have no, or very little, political power. In a direct democracy, every citizen with voting rights votes on every decision (or at least every citizen with franchise is allowed to vote on every decision). A republic is just a form of indirect democracy, in which the people periodically vote on individuals to represent them. Such form of government still counts as a democracy because ordinary citizens have substantial political power--namely, the power to vote on representatives, and usually also on ballot initiatives or other such direct-voting questions.

When the OP says the U.S. is no longer a democracy, he is saying that, by various means, political power that is ostensibly or legally in the hands of the people has been removed or undermined--as it clearly has. Gerrymandering, especially to the degree we see it at work in this country, causes rule by a minority--which tends towards oligarchy. Historically, oligarchies have been hostile, and quite bad pragmatically-speaking, for individual rights. Thus, when someone says that democracy in the United States in on the decline, and someone else comes along and says "the U.S. has never been a democracy. It's a republic," that person is (usually unwittingly) aligning themselves with various political forces that want to get rid of things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and so on.

Rather strangely, it always seems to be right-wingers--people who insist they are for individual rights and freedoms, who try to downplay the anti-democratic forces at work in our country and hence assist those who would like to take power from citizens--often at least one of them can be counted-upon to make the remark you've made here, in an attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

Any state that is not a democracy is not a republic either. Conversely, if a state is a republic, it is, by very virtue of being a republic, a democracy.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Very amusing rant. Democrats aso taker advantage of gerrymandering. Democrats held the advantage for nearly seven decades and did not utter a complaint until the republicans gained the advantage by way of the 2010 midterms, specifically the state legislative races.

This is correct, at least partly. Many who vote Democrat forget that Democrats had Gerrymandered several states through the fifties and sixties, and such gerrymandering persisted well into the early aughts. It should be noted that when Democrat gerrymandering got started, they and the Republicans were switched from how they are today--that is, it was conservatives who started gerrymandering in modern times.

Democrats have gerrymandered a couple states--Maryland is a good example. However, republicans have gerrymandered much more heavily and widely.

It should be said that progressives (who often vote democrat, but only because they're the lesser of two evils) tend to dislike gerrymandering, while the elites of both parties tend to like it, so long as they're able to gerrymander for their party, and they hate it when it's the other guys doing the gerrymandering.

 

[vanceen]

Pssst... a republic is a form of democracy.

Actually, I think a democracy is a form of a republic. That is, the term "republic" is broader than the term "democracy". Republic means a nation without a monarchy, belonging to the people (res publica). The Roman Republic was a republic, although its democracy was severely limited. Any democracy without a monarch is of course a republic.

The US happens to be a democratic republic.

 

[MAGAnificent]

This is correct, at least partly. Many who vote Democrat forget that Democrats had Gerrymandered several states through the fifties and sixties, and such gerrymandering persisted well into the early aughts. It should be noted that when Democrat gerrymandering got started, they and the Republicans were switched from how they are today--that is, it was conservatives who started gerrymandering in modern times.

Democrats have gerrymandered a couple states--Maryland is a good example. However, republicans have gerrymandered much more heavily and widely.

It should be said that progressives (who often vote democrat, but only because they're the lesser of two evils) tend to dislike gerrymandering, while the elites of both parties tend to like it, so long as they're able to gerrymander for their party, and they hate it when it's the other guys doing the gerrymandering.

Both have always used it to their full advantage. Point is up until the 2010 midterms, specifically the state legislative races, the democrats heald the overall advantage and used it to the hilt. They held it for over 6 decades. Suddenly after the 2010 midterms, they hate it, and have in many cases had state legislators flee the state to try to avoid the required quorum to make the new districts official.

 

[Sabre]

Perhaps you're not aware, but a republic is a form of democracy. The term "democracy" comes from Attic Greek, and is a combination of two words: Demos means "people" and Kratos means "power." Put simply, the basic idea is that the people ruled have political power. Democracy (in any form) stands in sharp contrast to oligarchy (rule by few, Oligoi=few, Arkos=ruler), monarchy (rule by one, Monos=one), or other forms of government in which the people ruled have no, or very little, political power. In a direct democracy, every citizen with voting rights votes on every decision (or at least every citizen with franchise is allowed to vote on every decision). A republic is just a form of indirect democracy, in which the people periodically vote on individuals to represent them. Such form of government still counts as a democracy because ordinary citizens have substantial political power--namely, the power to vote on representatives, and usually also on ballot initiatives or other such direct-voting questions.

When the OP says the U.S. is no longer a democracy, he is saying that, by various means, political power that is ostensibly or legally in the hands of the people has been removed or undermined--as it clearly has. Gerrymandering, especially to the degree we see it at work in this country, causes rule by a minority--which tends towards oligarchy. Historically, oligarchies have been hostile, and quite bad pragmatically-speaking, for individual rights. Thus, when someone says that democracy in the United States in on the decline, and someone else comes along and says "the U.S. has never been a democracy. It's a republic," that person is (usually unwittingly) aligning themselves with various political forces that want to get rid of things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and so on.

Rather strangely, it always seems to be right-wingers--people who insist they are for individual rights and freedoms, who try to downplay the anti-democratic forces at work in our country and hence assist those who would like to take power from citizens--often at least one of them can be counted-upon to make the remark you've made here, in an attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

Any state that is not a democracy is not a republic either. Conversely, if a state is a republic, it is, by very virtue of being a republic, a democracy.

Lets break it down to the simple fact that I point out "Never has been a Democracy, it's a Republic." that is not a distraction from the topic but a direct clarification to it. No matter how people try to interpret it now such as a democratic republic etc, it is plain how it was written originally. Again, in a republic, people assemble and administer the government by their representatives and agents. That is a process used within the republic, it does not make the government itself a democracy.

This is an example of why I rarely engage in conversation with those on the left. It usually involves a long back and forth with no one's opinion changed as it slides into denigration and usually ends on some form of simple name calling, which seems to be the direction this heading. So, I agree that we all have disagreement on this and so will agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Tangmo]

I've often found that the people saying "we aren't a democracy" are really just trying to convey their sentiments of "**** democracy".

MAGA.

Yes, it is central to the MAGA Armband Right to deny the USA has and is a Constitutional and republican democracy, as in republic.

So that when the MAGA dictatorship takes control we won't feel that we've lost the thing the armband right says we've never had, ie, democracy. The MAGA fascists need this to make easier the transition to a North Korea kind of republic, ie, no democracy before, during, after the arrival of their MAGA fascist dictatorship.

 

[Tangmo]

Even if the Supreme Court rules with the right due to the right's packing of the court?

The MAGA Armband Right using democracy to destroy democracy to include scotus will not stand because....

It was Potus Washington who said the US military is the final bulwark of the nation against the willful designs and purposes of a home grown would be dictator.

Which is why the first Congress of the new United States honored Pres. Washington's request to create an oath of loyalty and dedication to the Constitution by the armed forces. The armed forces oath was the first bill and the first law enacted by the First Session of the First Congress, as Public Law 1, Chapter 1, and signed into law by Potus Washington on June 1st 1789. The First Law of the United States.

It is Washington's mandate that the armed forces act as the last and final bulwark of democracy under attack from within. And that the armed forces act under civilian control and leadership that is domestic and democratic. This is Washington's keenly stated intent and purpose in establishing an oath to the Constitution, its separation of powers, its checks and balances, its free and fair elections and the peaceful and orderly transition of power.

Yes, the advent of a dictator is what Potus Washington could foresee as a possibility in the American Experiment in Democracy. It is this domestic possibility that Potus Washington knew needed to be addressed. Indeed many historians say the Founders would be surprised to see how long it took for a wannabe dictator to arrive as a national factor, to include with a significant and broad popular support.

 

[Tangmo]

Pssst... Republic is in the Constitution, a Democracy is not.

De Nile isn't only a river in Egypt.

It runs right through MAGA land.

Indeed, if the USA doesn't have democracy and never had democracy, then there will be nothing lost when the PutinTrump MAGA dictatorship takes control of the country.

MAGA couldn't be more obvious btw. It's why the Armband Right hasn't succeeded in this cynical play to ease the USA into its dictatorship. Because it's a no sale to say if we never had democracy then how can we miss it when MAGA gets to rule absolutely. Can't miss what we never had anyway eh.

MAGA.