DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Why I’m Voting For Opposite Man (Video)

Somebody needs to change Trump's diaper because he laid another egg.

A system without a check and balance that does not constrain the majority would never have lasted and been as stable as the system we have. The majority would just trample the rights of the minorities and eventually the minority representation would rise up and a war would break out. It's a more nuanced system than a pure democracy by design, that's why the current form of government has lasted as long as it has. I think we have the second oldest constitution in the world at this point.

There is nowhere that it says that populated states are supposed to be democrats and less populated states should be Republican. It does not have to be a two party system. Politics has created this divide, I am not sure why or how.

The thing is, you get to decide where you live in the country, so if you want to enjoy the "power" of someone that lives in Wyoming, then you are free to move there.

The European Union adopted a very similar form of government with a parliament body that gave larger countries more representatives and a council body that acted more like the Senate with 1 representative per country.

SinoHawk.

Sina Hawk! Psido Hawk?

Sino Hawk,

The trouble is we have a system where the MINORITY is trying hard to trample over the rights of the MAJORITY. Just look at Trump packing the supreme court 6-3 ... THAT's a real and legitimate problem.

When you have 30% of our population controlling 50% of the senate seats, how long do you think the other 70% of the population will stand for that? So while your theory of people rising up and a war would start is just as valid for one side as it is the other.

And move to Montana or Wyoming? There are reasons that such vast areas have a small population. A population that holds more power than other Americans with their votes. See, I thought the voters were the checks and balances of politicians, not geography.

Depends on how you look at things. Is it a short term or long term concern? What about the rest of the judicial branch? Very few cases actually make it to the Supreme Court and I think the lower level District Courts probably have a much greater impact based on the much larger number of cases that they give decisions on eventhough nobody ever discusses it. The Supreme Court is more of a political football that they use to divide the population, but it has less of an impact on our lives.

It's not like a pure democracy was not considered during the founding of the U.S. It is a much simpler and straightforward approach than the system that we have. Every modern free country rejected pure democracies for a good reason. They have a long history of failure, leading to tyranny and violence.
James Madison made a much better argument for this than I ever could:
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/foundi...t-papers-no-10/

If we are going to talk about this from the perspective of fairness and representation, then you might want to think about third of the population that does not belong to either the Republican or Democratic parties. There are no representatives in Congress or the White House that are not Democrats or Republicans. Your changes to Senate and Presidential selection would do nothing to change this. Should we then say that all independents, Libertarians, or members of the Green Party are without representation? What should be done about that?

If you are only concerned about making sure your faction is the most powerful and in control of all branches of Government, then you are not concerned about fairness, because even though your party may have the largest member count, it does not represent the majority of Americans, it only represents 1/3rd.

Democrat members of the population are not being deprived of fairness. They chose to join a faction with a political agenda that focused more on the needs of urban populations. The rules of the game were set up in advance. They chose how to play the game and the coalition they would attempt to build through their special blend of policies.

I'll touch back on something I've talked about before. During the Obama administration the senate refused to hear federal court judge appointments. It was so bad in fact that by the time Trump took over the White House Trump inherited 88 district and 17 court of appeals vacancies with which to fill. So not only did he get to appoint every vacancy that became open during his administration, he filled many of the Obama vacancies as well. If there is a way we could actually find out, I would be willing to bet that this is not "the checks and balances" our forefathers had in mind.

Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/20...ncies-to-trump/

This type of obstructionism to control our laws and our courts is why we can't put such matters into the hands of 30% of our population. If the senate actually functioned as intended this would be a much different discussion. But when it is used as a tool of manipulation and obstruction it's time for the conversation to shift in another direction.

Thus far there have been 27 amendments to the constitution. Why? Because it was never a perfect document set in stone. It's a living document subject to change. When the foundation of the constitution has been manipulated to use it in ways in which it was never intended, it's time we consider changing it again.

You seem to have a problem with 30% of the population making decisions for everyone but your okay with 35% of the population making decisions for everyone.

But I agree with you on one thing. I also bet that those are not the form of checks and balances that the founders had in mind because they did not know the country would become dominated by two factions.

When the parties become so polarized that they cannot agree on anything, then the system grinds to a halt. Given the alternative, this is probably the best thing that could happen. When the mixture of people in Congress can find a way to be less partisan and care about their actual constituents and not their political faction, then compromises can be reached and things will get done.

In other words, it is not the system that is broken, it is the political factions called Republicans and Democrats that have been created to try to game the system that are broken. For those of us who are not part of you factions, the system protects us from the partisan factions.

Ah, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that they didn't "grind to a halt". They grind to halt when the Democrats control the White House only to turn around and green light everything when a Republican holds the White House.

They manipulate it in a way to control the courts, laws and everything they can come up with. Grinding to a complete halt would be better than watching one party manipulate the system no matter who holds the White House.

And believe me, if it were the other way around I wouldn't be happy about it either.

And it's not 30% of the population, it's 30% of the voters.