How many Hillary scandals have been swept under the rug and ignored?
General Senate Judiciary Committee Report on Jan 6th
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
They are anti democratic. As are individual rights. But they are also all very important to keeping a nation as large and as diverse as ours together. Shit they were important just to get 13 states together let alone 50 with over 330 million people. Tyranny of the majority is just that a tyranny. Federalism and localism are all integral to keeping a union. It's why the EU is so fucked. I live 3000 miles away from LA, I'm way closer to Toronto to California. Why should some people i have never ever met who live that far away from me dictate how i live my life.
The end of the electoral college or senate are immediately the end of what we call a country. People and groups this vast will not come together unless they have equal seats at the table.
Why should a majority of people elect officials? Because that's better than being held back by the minority
Because it's not. Individual rights are. Why would any minority every agree to grouping together with a majority if they don't have an equal say. Why the fuck should Idaho stay in or wherever stay in America when their policy is being dictated by people who live in big coastal cities far off from them. This union will not hold if we go pure majoritarian.
Every great atrocity of the 20th Century was the majority stripping rights away and dehumanizing minorities. In forcing the minority to adhere to what the majority wanted.
The rule doesn't prevent law changes. It prevents voting on laws by going around and doing backroom deals until you can get what you think will work out, which basically makes voting for legislation piecemeal impossible. If you don't like laws full of unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the law in question, you can't support the current rules.
you seriously think that without the filibuster less backroom deals and things being unrelated will get passed and not more. I do no see how that's possible.
I'm saying that we should be passing and repealing large far reaching broad scope laws every single year or two. You'd get exactly what we have gotten with our executive orders. Crazy regulations, policies, and quasi non binding agreements, every time someone else gets into power. If are going to create laws that effect everyone in our country we should be damn sure and they should have broad broad support well beyond just half the states.
This is also not true. Apartheid was enacted by a minority. Countries like Ethiopia, Iraq and Zimbabwe were forced into dictatorships by minority groups. The Nazis were also a minority party in Germany before they murdered many of their political rivals and took advantage of a crisis to grow their popularity. The Red Scare was engineered by a small minority of members of Congress who staged a reign of terror to ruin people's lives. The "Gang of Four" in China used their influence as a committed minority to murder and imprison their political enemies. White minorities in parts of North and South Carolina and Oklahoma staged bloody riots to lynch and takeover cities run by black majorities. History and politics just aren't reducible to such simple just so tales and maxims. Few other countries have an analogous senate and somehow don't manage to annihilate minorities.
First, why is half the contiguous states somehow more important than more than half the actual population? Just because you want to be one of the few people living in Wyoming, you get to dictate your desires to the majority of Americans living in other places? It's far more undemocratic to base the national will on geography rather than head count.
But these wild swings in law that you imagine happening depend on wild swings in electoral results, which are fairly uncommon. In both of our lifetimes, control of the house has only swung maybe 4 times.
All of those things listed has been adopted and supported by the majority in their countries outside of apartheid which was propped up from outside that country. Which pales in comparison to what happened in Germany, China, Russian, Ukraine, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. "Minorities in parts" is so insanely arbitrary. They may have been minority in that area but not those states. Every single movement at the tops is a small few. It's called the Pareto principle. Look at the muslims in china right now.
I also agree that few other countries has something similar to our senate. I am ok with that. There's no place on earth in literally all of human history that has been as egalitarian and as prosperous to minority groups as the one we currently live in. The senate is a big part of that.
so why draw those arbitrary lines. Let China or India dictate our global trade policy. Localism matters immensely. California should not be run the same way as Wyoming. States are free to make their own laws. The federal government should exists to protect the individual rights guaranteed in the constitutions to its citizens. Not dictate tax policy, law, and more for each state.
Again if you don't have a base level of freedom to self govern there will be no union.
Or the minority if they happen to live in the correct combination of locations.
Majority of electoral votes is still a majority.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reply. You say "they may have been minority in that area, but not those states." What are you referring to here? The whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa were absolutely minorities as were the Sunni in Iraq or the Tigrayans in Ethiopia. The Nazi party in Germany was also a small minority in the political sphere until they and their allies murdered many of their political rivals, allied with various nominally centrist groups to prosecute or execute many more and then won a slim majority that they built on through engineering or taking advantage of crises until they became the most popular party in Germany. The Gang of Four was a small faction within the Chinese communist party grappling for power within China following Mao's death after they'd already led a reign of terror that saw many of their political enemies beaten, imprisoned or executed. Eventually they were outmaneuvered and taken down once people snapped out of their fear. Similarly, the HUAC and the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security were small minorities in congress led by rogue demagogues who forced witch hunts before they were finally corralled by a the majority standing up and saying this is madness. In the Jim Crow south there was no such condemnation of minority murder and rule until almost half a century later when a mass movement that was also deeply unpopular in the US rose up to combat it.
The pareto principle describes a small group of people (around 20%) usually leading an activity or movement toward something and 80% being "free riders" who go along letting that 20% do the work. This is not the same as minority domination of majorities or seizure of influence to take power.
Also, this notion that "no other place has been as egalitarian and prosperous" to minority groups is a crazy drink of the American exceptionalism kool aid. There are plenty of foreigners here on this forum who can tell you straight up what a joke that is.
The same constitution also empowers the federal government to dictate tax policy and laws for each state.
Im replying to your certain minorities in areas of those states. Whites were not minorities in those states. Also yes in South Africa whites were a minority but they not when counted in the greater context of the United Kingdom who was propping them up and put them in power. Nazi's may have been a minority when they started. Of course they did nothing starts big. But they were overwhelming elected into power and then supported by the majority of Germany during their time of power.
Enumerated and limited powers. Read any of the federalist papers or anything written by the founding fathers and the behemoth we see today as our federal government far exceeds what was originally intended.
It didn't have the power to tax til 1913.
When would a majority of electoral vote not be a majority? Are you saying Trump did win?!?!?Not always
Edit: GWs first win and Trumps one win were both examples of a president being elected by a minority
I figured you'd dodge a yes or no question and throw out a non sequitur
are you high?
Would you dismiss this so easily if it had occurred the same exact way, only it was Hillary?
this is your question. I directly responded to your question.
The answer is yes our society responds the same exact way for multiple scandals including abuse of our federal agencies to undermine an election by moving on as it's no big deal.
Minority of popular vote. Not of the electoral college.
Your direct response to my yes or no question was to ask a question.
And then you answered a question you weren't asked.
🤔