Reply #30: The Constitution vs Democracy

[ulTRAX]

ulTRAX: When it is morally illegitimate. By what standard? That government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Surely you have heard of that phrase.

Kodi: "Examine your logic, by such a standard, if the consent of the governed can produce any system of government, including one that weighs individual votes unequally, then it is legitimate, or is it? Careful now, don’t show any Western cultural bias in answering."

In selling the Constitution the theory is that it somehow all balances out. The simple truth is does not. The ripples of an anti-democratic system run deep and have unpredictable consequences. Because the Senate is anti-democratic... it can ratify Clarence Thomas with Senators representing less than 50% of the American People. Thomas becomes a key vote in stopping the Florida Recount. Bush wins in the EC even though some 3 million more people wanted a democratic-left America. Bush uses his powers to secure GOP control of the Senate and House. He may even win reelection. ALL of this is because our system allows some citizens bigger votes at the expense of others. The simple fact is you are incorrect.

Kodi: "Is that truly acceptable, viz., that the consent of the governed is the only feature involved in creating a legitimate government?"

It certainly is a PRIME feature in self-government. But there also has to be a body of law to protect minorities, and I believe a system of checks and balances etc.

Kodi: "Or is it that one person, one equally weighed vote is the legitimizing force?"

SCOTUS seems to believe so. It outlawed such vote weighing scheme on all OTHER levels of government. See Reynolds vs Sims. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

Kodi: "The two are not necessarily going to produce the same result. And it is obvious that it is not voting , even equal weighting of votes alone that affects government. I guess I question your fetish that “one person, one vote” will achieve some sort of Utopian Democracy."

I think the low voter turnout in the US is deplorable. But I also see it as logical consequence of a dysfunctional and anti-democratic system. Our first past the post electoral system may have been the best 18th century minds could devise.... but there's been 2 centuries of progress made. Yet the US is stuck in 1787. No I do NOT see civic equality where all votes weigh the same as a utopian ideal. It's just a necessary BEDROCK principle in a democratic republic. So should be having a system that encourages voter turnout. One way is though proportional representation. I'd favor the Senate being converted into a national parliament based on party elections. If the Greens or Libertarians each get 5% of the national vote... they each get 5% of the seats. Currently our system is biased towards geographical voting units... and political minorities can never muster a win in any one unit even though they may make up sizeable minorities nationally. Our system forces citizens who care enough to vote to often chose the lesser of the evils rather than voting their conscience. Ever wonder why we have a entrenched 2 party system?

ulTRAX: "My observation is based on the math of how representative our federal government is of the people... whether it insures civic equality where all votes weigh the same... and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs."

Kodi: "Again, by demanding that only people legitimately have equal representation in a federal form of government you have dismissed the rights of the participating local forms of government at the federal level, viz., the states in a federal government. The dynamics and interests of each are balanced by the way the two Houses of Congress are structured. In the House, representation is equal for the people, but not the states, and in the Senate, the reverse is true. "

Congratulations on remembering your 4th grade history. I'm afraid, however, it's mostly Constitutional apologetics. States suffrage is written into our Constitution but in reality states rights are mostly an illusion. We pretend that California or Wyoming are voting for their senators... when in reality it's just the citizens of each state. It just gives US citizens who chose to live in Wyoming 68X the power in the Senate than citizens in California. It's supposed to even out because of the House but illusion is based on seeing everyone as state resident that not a US citizen. Citizens vote for THEIR Representative not for a state delegation.

Kodi: "The logic you employ implies that the Senate could be justifiably abolished and the only legislative arm would be the House of Representatives. The logical conclusion of such is the abolition of states, because they have the potential through state laws to injure equal representation of citizens at the federal level. (Note that this is a realized fact when reviewing the inequality in voting rights of convicted felons in different states.)"

I believe in both that all citizens should have representation in Washington and in checks and balances. But what aspect of a citizen should be represented? I'd like to see the House remain to provide geographical representation and the Senate ideological representation.

Kodi: "That is not a federal form of government. Is that what you are promoting, the abolition of the states in an effort to promote “civic equality?”"

Red herring. There's no reason to abolish states. They are too tied to our national identity. But I DO favor abolishing state suffrage. That would mean eliminating the EC... reforming the Senate.... and the amendment process.

ulTRAX: …..and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs.

Kodi: "Funny that you say that, since that is the affect of the fundamental flexibility of the US Constitution that has allowed this Republic to survive longer than any other in history."

Actually I believe the stronger case is that our stability is due to other causes.... high on that list is the Constitution being virtually reform-proof... and the people being schooled that the Framers were such geniuses we mere mortals should not tinker with perfection. Look in the mirror... you're here presumably because you're on the Left... yet you totally buy into an anti-democratic system that imposes George Bushs on We The People. You are here defending a system that produces morally illegitimate minority government.

Kodi: "But since it does not result in what you want, it’s not working. Interesting syllogism there. It’s the same attitude that the Secessionists held, btw."

ROTF. Try again to make your point.

ulTRAX: I FULLY understand the rationale for the origins of the Constitution. What I do NOT agree with is that citizens should feel they are bound by the politics of 1787. The Framers did what they had to forge a stronger nation. But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away. Soon they were forgotten. That is except for some courageous citizens that knew that slavery had to be opposed... women and people of color deserved the vote etc.... REGARDLESS if the Framers thought differently. Well there's one LAST group of citizens that have been Constitutionally disenfranchised: citizens in large population states. It's time someone advocated for THEIR rights.

Kodi: "It is not 18th century politics that bind us, it is the Constitution; the fundamental law of the country, and that document has meant many things over time."

What binds us is the refusal to question the defects in a system that produces morally illegitimate government.

ulTRAX: “But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away”

Kodi: No doubt they did try, as anyone who has taken the time to read the Federalist Papers and their correspondences would admit. But the Framers compromised each step of the way to get to the document ratified, and reference to having compromised the Declaration of Independence is yet another fishy remark. The two documents did not have the same intentions. Both of us know that. So they did not incorporate all of the same ideas and ideals. Unless you truly want a “Creator/God” written into our Constitution, after all, its in the Declaration of Independence."

True the two documents had different purposes. I only bring up the DoI because it DOES contain the ideals of the times, many of which were compromised away in the Constitution. Much of the nation's history has been to reform the Constitution. It took a civil war to show how the slavery issue had been papered over. It took amendments outlaw slavery, and to grant the vote to slaves and women. But the fight is not over. One of the last group of citizens that have been disfranchised by the Constitution are citizens in large population states who pay the same federal tax rates yet have less representation. The other group are disenfranchised are those citizens who win a popular vote for their presidential candidate yet can have their vote overturned by the anti-democratic EC.

Kodi: "Was slavery bad? Of course it was, slavery and the affect of it, the Great Compromise that allowed black humans to be counted as 3/5’s a person for apportionment is the original sin of this nation. We still suffer from it."

We suffer from more than the effects of slavery.


ulTRAX: "Why is what happened 220 years ago relevant today? Then there were 13 colonies, each who jealously protected their sovereignty and prerogatives. The nation either had a stronger national government or devolved into chaos. The Framer's solutions accomplished what they were supposed to: unified the nation. But this is today. Yet you treat the Constitution... as dysfunctional and anti-democratic as it is... even after a Bush was IMPOSED upon the nation, as if it were handed down on a slab."

Kodi: "Ouch, your hysteria is showing. The states, 220 years later still protect their sovereignty and prerogatives from each other and the federal government. Just watch the Senate on C-SPAN. Each state has its own constitution and many have enshrined in such documents rights that are far above that granted in the US Constitution."

No hysteria here Sport. As I already stated I'm NOT for abolishing states... only state suffrage.

Kodi: No one considers the US Constitution an unassailable divine document. After all there are over two dozen amendments to it, And regardless of your opinion that a strong national government precludes state prerogatives at the federal level, state prerogatives or at the least state concerns at that level are important and they serve to protect its residents."

The amendment argument is comical. Of the 27 amendments... 10 were made by 1791. Most were minor tweaks of the system. A few granted rights to those the Framers saw fit to disenfranchise. NONE of these amendments has reformed the anti-democratic nature of the Constitution.

Kodi: But finally you reveal why you attack the US Constitution, and lo’ and behold, it was because George W Bush won in 2000."

No... I have tried to implement democratic ideals long before 2000. I don't believe Clinton's 92 win was much more legitimate. I use Bush simply as the prime example that SHOULD get Democrats and Progressives to think about the system that is morally illegitimate and works to their detriment.

ulTRAX: "I'm well aware of our system of dual suffrage. I think the concept has to be revisited... ESPECIALLY since it's at the root of why Bush is President today. There is NO escaping this fact that the Constitution has FAILED its job to produce morally legitimate government. "


Kodi: "Well I hate what happened on Dec. 12, 2000 too. I consider it to have been a judicial coup d’etat, but I seriously question the legitimacy of your argument because I bet that had Gore won the Electoral College and not the popular vote you would not now be standing on your soap box screaming about our immoral Electoral College elected Executive branch of government."

The ONLY reason hanging chads, Kate Harris, the GOP goon squad and the USSC were factors is because we did NOT have a popular vote. The problem in 2000 was the EC. Unless we see that... there'll never be any push for REAL reform.

UlTRAX: " RED HERRING ALERT: Have I EVER suggested "pure" or "direct" democracy" Retraction noted as if offered.

"Bahahaha! You make me laugh. You don’t suggest it; you actually proclaim it with each remark about abolishing the Electoral College and a direct election of the presidency."

As you SHOULD know... there's more to government than the Presidency. I AM in favor of representative democracy in the House and Senate. I just tire of the bogus we're a republic not a democracy red herring.

Kodi: "As to your use of the specious logic of employing REYNOLDS v. SIMS as a defense for abolition of the Electoral College:"

No... I only bring it up as a moral argument against vote weighing schemes. And I'm well aware of any caveats concerning the federal government. No need to quote them.

Kodi: "There is to my knowledge in America nowhere a local or county constitution grants rights that supersede those of the state constitution the locality resides. While state constitutions can enumerate rights that are not enumerated by the federal US Constitution, no local government grants rights not recognized by a state constitution."

I'm addressing the MORAL arguments against vote weighing schemes. Please focus.

"Btw: you will find my retraction three inches from your lower intestine with your remark about me not believing in democratic principles. I am army veteran who has put his body on the line for this country. You might reconsider insulting one who willingly was ready to fight and die for your right to be wrong."

Thank you for your selfless service. But in this political debate... you get no brownie points. As for your failure to respect democratic principles... those are YOUR sentiments as expressed here. I am not responsible for your spirited defense of the anti-democratic compromises made in the Constitution. Own up.