Democracy and minorities

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Here is a question about direct democracy and representational democracy. Do we have enough office holders to correctly reflect the views of the people? Did they imagine a country of 300+ million with the form of govt established? or has that been changed somehow? seems so disproportionate and is probably the reason why 3rd parties have never been able to get a secure foothold. Also it seems to me that the more representatives you have the harder it is to buy them all off or compromise them thus preventing power being allocated to just a few.




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


"If it is because of their deep pockets, why don't we, form together a substantially large lobbying group to press on Congress? Answer is simple: American's are ill-equipped and anemically sick in their political capacities."

Because that was the reason for having a free democratic election. We are supposed to form policy around the votes of the people. That was supposed to be the key to each of us having a voice in the government. Your vote COUNTED. Now a select few on the behalf of others(corporations) have a say over yours, and if not over, at least before yours.

Forming a large group to purse monies together is ridiculous, that was the whole point to the vote(it should be illegal, wonder why it isnt? $$$). You didn't need to be rich to have your voice heard. You simply walked down and voted and hoped rest of country was in line with your thoughts. Now you have large families/corporations, using their money to get policy formed around their views. Not the country's views.

Let alone the trump of all trump cards, electoral votes. That is the ultra elites fail safe, last ditch effort. Even if the entire 300 million + people of the country say go right. They still have the electoral to say go left and change the outcome of an entire election.

"American's are ill-equipped and anemically sick in their political capacities"

I find this statement also to be false. I think Americans and most in general have good political/debate skills. The problem is that many get smoke blown up the you know what. Why is it for past 30+ years we are still talking about abortion? Because it distracts people from asking real questions, eats up time in a speech, and pulls on the heart string of so many(especially religions). Nothing has changed since R v W, so why is it even an election discussion topic? That's just a small example, you can go through all the elections and just ask yourself, why is this even a topic? Plus the new hip trend of always just happening to be in some sort of war around election time? Let alone the fact more and more each year we find the media to be in bed with the government with holding stories for months, using clips from years earlier to help stir up emotions and get people to sign up for false wars or sway peoples votes.

This has nothing to do with Americans ability or inability to debate, and everything to do with social engineering. Steering us closer to a fascist Nazi regime, again.
edit on 6-12-2012 by ~widowmaker~ because: ferrets
edit on 6-12-2012 by ~widowmaker~ because: bunnies



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
Because that was the reason for having a free democratic election. We are supposed to form policy around the votes of the people. That was supposed to be the key to each of us having a voice in the government. Your vote COUNTED. Now a select few on the behalf of others(corporations) have a say over yours, and if not over, at least before yours.


Negative. Representatives are that, representative of their constituency. It however does not mean they are beholden the will of the people who voted for them. They are still, free, and will make decisions on their own. It is up to the people who voted for that representation to remove them from office and place a more virtuous, moral person in their spot. Sadly, as I already alluded to, the People are anemic in their political savvy and quite frankly, only clamor when it goes awry.

So no, your vote didn't count if you and your area of representation keeps voting in representatives who act the way that the majority of them act. The prominent persons in Congress are most likely in the pockets of the money holders, but as evident in the recent swipe to the knees by Representative Boehner, real representatives are a minority.


Forming a large group to purse monies together is ridiculous, that was the whole point to the vote(it should be illegal, wonder why it isnt? $$$).


Why would it be illegal? Our more senior citizens do so by joining the AARP. I did when I was in the military and joined the Sergeant's Association, and so on and so forth. Pooling money and people helps advance ideas that are like minded. It is also a protected right. I, as you are, are able to freely associate and with that association, we can present those redresses to our representatives.


You didn't need to be rich to have your voice heard. You simply walked down and voted and hoped rest of country was in line with your thoughts. Now you have large families/corporations, using their money to get policy formed around their views. Not the country's views.


Agreed to an extent. What time period are we speaking to here? When it was viewed that only land-owners should vote? When society thought that women shouldn't vote? I am curious as to when your voice was heard. At the smallest levels of Government, you have the greatest political power but people refuse to exercise it and continue to abdicate it to the upper echelons of our Federal Government. The greatest power grab by the Federal Government was the 17th Amendment, effectively transforming our government from a republic to a near democracy; all representatives are now popular votes. Where has this gotten us?


Let alone the trump of all trump cards, electoral votes. That is the ultra elites fail safe, last ditch effort. Even if the entire 300 million + people of the country say go right. They still have the electoral to say go left and change the outcome of an entire election.


No it isn't. Again it falls back to the People who have allowed their respective States adopt rules and legislation that have cornered the market on the electorate process. I agree that the process in nearly all 50 states needs to be revamped, but that won't occur until the People have decided that they actually do have all the political power they have always had, but refused to utilize.


I think Americans and most in general have good political/debate skills. The problem is that many get smoke blown up the you know what. Why is it for past 30+ years we are still talking about abortion?


I agree some areas have become the ultimate red-herring for our Federal Government. Even above, your lack of understanding of the electoral vote process shows just how anemic our society is. Do you know why that system was created? A simple question for you, do we have national elections? What is the Ninth Amendment and what does it mean? Why did James Madison oppose originally to include a Bill of Rights? I am not trying to call you out, but those are all areas we should be well versed in, if we are to keep a republic.


Nothing has changed since R v W, so why is it even an election discussion topic?


Completely agreed. I honestly would prefer it back into the States' hands and in all honesty, it is a moot political point.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
Here is a question about direct democracy and representational democracy. Do we have enough office holders to correctly reflect the views of the people? Did they imagine a country of 300+ million with the form of govt established? or has that been changed somehow? seems so disproportionate and is probably the reason why 3rd parties have never been able to get a secure foothold. Also it seems to me that the more representatives you have the harder it is to buy them all off or compromise them thus preventing power being allocated to just a few.


Article I, Section 2 states: The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative. So it is a by a lot and this goes back to about 1850. It is a good question because the size of the House was "fixed". Truly we should have around 10,000 members of the House and we would be adhering to the Constitution as written.

To answer your question, yes it has changed. The House of Representatives is the House of the People, but by the "fix", it limits those, in direct violation of Article I, Section 2, to the numbers we have today.

I do however, disagree to it being the reason we don't see a viable 3rd party, but it does play a part in it. It was a consolidation of power of sorts. If we went back to the original intent of Article I, Section 2, less work in D.C. would take place that was meaningless and they wouldn't meet in the long sessions they do now.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mrkeen
 


the word Democracy comes from Greece and is a play on words to make you think you have a say

Only the people who owned land were allowed to vote when the word was invented

Please remember wikipedia is owned by George Soros you have to be very careful with what you can take as truth on there,
but if you know enough about how corrupt the world is its a very helpful tool in helping you navigate through the BS of the world in how they want you to look at it



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
The solution is what we, in theory, have. Not a pure democracy, but a constitutional, democratic republic. Wherein the rights of minorities are protected by the judiciary and neither the legislature, nor the local or federal governments, can disabuse citizens of those rights, regardless of what a majority wants or feels. Neither can the minority inflict statutes or norms on others that take away their rights. (Note that I do not believe being forced to know that there are other people out there married in a way that you disprove of constitutes taking away anyone's rights.)

Unfortunately, this is not always the reality in practice.
edit on 12/7/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
The solution is what we, in theory, have. Not a pure democracy, but a constitutional, democratic republic. Wherein the rights of minorities are protected by the judiciary and neither the legislature, nor the local or federal governments, can disabuse citizens of those rights, regardless of what a majority wants or feels. Neither can the minority inflict statutes or norms on others that take away their rights. (Note that I do not believe being forced to know that there are other people out there married in a way that you disprove of constitutes taking away anyone's rights.)

Unfortunately, this is not always the reality in practice.

And who exactly establishes the list of 'approved' minorities? Is there a minimum number of people in a minority? Do they have to include famous people, do they need to live compactly in one place? How much money has to be spent for media campaigns before these people's problems receive any attention? Do they even need to go through any media campaings? Just look how much attention some minorities receive in the media, they are basically popularized to the point of nausea. But other minorities are simply ignored. Can you outline how these problems are addressed in the type of social system you described?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
And who exactly establishes the list of 'approved' minorities? Is there a minimum number of people in a minority? Do they have to include famous people, do they need to live compactly in one place? How much money has to be spent for media campaigns before these people's problems receive any attention? Do they even need to go through any media campaings? Just look how much attention some minorities receive in the media, they are basically popularized to the point of nausea. But other minorities are simply ignored. Can you outline how these problems are addressed in the type of social system you described?


There is no list of approved minorities. The rights are inalienable and should apply equally to all, in theory. Attention should be irrelevant. Notoriety should be irrelevant. In fact, every factor you mention should be irrelevant. Depriving any group or individual of their inalienable rights at the whims of a majority vote is unconstitutional and should never happen.

As I said though, unfortunately, this is not always the reality in practice.

I'm speaking of the system as it should work. Not as it does.

Peace.
edit on 12/7/2012 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join