Reply #42: I think this discussion has about run its course

[ulTRAX]

Kodi: "Oh lordy. The Constitution does balance things out, but obviously not to your liking. Clearly you don’t like democracy when it is applied to states in relation to each other."

ulTRAX: "Saying so doesn't make it true. I heard that saying somewhere. Even if a case can be made that things balanced out in 1787... which I would not agree with... demographics have made the state-based formula more anti-democratic. Where once about 7-8% of the US population held a theoretical check on amendments... it's now about 4%. As for the Senate... when there were 14 states... the smallest 7 had 23% of the population... now it's down to 15%... heading to 10%. As for your claim that the US federal system merely allows for democracy amongst states... that's laughable. By you logic if China and Taiwan ever formed a federation... they would be equals.


Kodi: Blah blah blah…..You are referring to populations when the reference is the intra state equality of the components of a federalist democratic republic. You insist on mixing population percentages with states when each has its place in federalism.

ulTRAX: Get a clue... I believe that federalism may have been a necessary step in forging a nation of 13 colonies... but unlike you I'm not locked in the politics of 1787. An unintended consequence of the Constitution has been to set those politics in cement. Even 220 years later the BEST you can do is use as your base reference "what the Framers intended" as if their solutions were handed down on a slab to be forever revered and never questioned. Even after election 2000 you can't see that some of the compromises of 1787 are NOT serving this nation well.

Kodi: "Talk about red herrings: what the hell has China and Taiwan to do with federalism? The claim is on equal partners that compose a federation, because they are equivalent entities, not that they have equal populations and even there the example of the US legislative branch includes representation based on population."

Gee... you say it's a red herring then just return to the logic that led to my example: that the federalism was merely democracy between equal states. So would a federation of China and Taiwan. My point is merely that states are NOT equals by any common sense understanding. They are only equal of one accepts the tenets of federalism. Having problems with internal contradictions Kodi? By your logic it's perfectly permissible for cities and towns to have their own chamber in state government so there would be a democracy of municipal entities.... because somehow it would balance out with the house of the people.

Kodi: "As does democracy without restraints, which is the purpose of a federal democratic republic."

RED HERRING ALERT. Back to your old strawman? What next... that I have proposed something akin to mob rule? What I HAVE in fact said... is that rights of minorities are BEST protected by the Bill of Rights approach... NOT by granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others. But then you claim to believe in democratic principles. So you should have figured this out on your own.

Kodi: "It appears it is you who are throwing the smelly fish. No one is “granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others” in a federal democratic republic."

ROTF... Of COURSE some citizens have more power than others. You admitted so... though you believe it balances out. Which leaves you to explain how there was any balancing in Election 2000 when it's clear the election losers can WIN in our system even after being repudiated by the People.

Kodi: "They don’t have more Representatives or Senators, They are represented by the identical number of them. It is those legislative officers who make the decisions. So how do some citizens have more power? It’s not the citizens making the decisions in the legislature."

Yawn. We've been though this. How much power a citizen has is NOT dependent on YOUR formula which glosses over the truth ... but how many citizens a legislature represents. Yet it's clear that if 15% of the population gets 50% of the Senate seats... then there is NO equality you claim... though why do I suspect you're be making the same false claim forever. Your ONLY defense is to pretend there should be equality, hence democracy, between states. But since states are merely the people within... it's simply a vote weighing scheme you're trying to excuse. Lame.

Kodi: "Stating that citizens of small states have more power is inaccurate. They don’t. They are not represented by more legislators. Your continually specious argument that their power is magnified is the red herring here.:

What I'm saying is citizens in smalls states have power in excess of their numbers because the Senate and EC were DESIGNED to do so. You know that...

Kodi: "Republics are not democracies. They have constitutions that are the fundamental law and protect minority rights from the vicissitudes of majority rule, and yes there are times majority rule certainly has devolved to mob rule. And its possibility is only tempered by the checks and balances that constitutional protections afford to minorities. "

RED HERRING ALERT!!! Thank you for finally bringing up the infamous red herring that never dies. First of all I have NEVER advocated we not have a republic. But there's not REQUIREMENT that republics be anti-democratic. The simple truth is democratic principle underlie republics. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22... a fundamental maxim of republic government is that the will of the MAJORITY shall prevail.

ulTRAX: "There's no moral justification for ANY group to be given a bigger vote than others. Where does it stop? Oh... that's right... with what the Framers decided... Right? Yup... they were very adept at protecting the rights of those invited to attend the Constitutional Convention. No others need apply for the right to have a bigger vote."

Kodi: "No one is being given a bigger vote. There is no fundamental inequality. All citizens have a right to vote for an equal number (3) of representatives in the legislative branch, regardless of the state they reside."

YawnX2 Your deliberate distortion of reality has been exposed above.


Kodi: "Your other remarks are tangential to this topic. They serve no purpose to clarify. If you have a problem with men dead 200 years, get over it. They are not the issue here."

Sorry Kodi... when someone like you can only parrot the logic of 1787 then it's clear that you place THEIR concerns over ours. As long as that happens you're dealing with the Constitution as a document handed down on a slab, and will forever resist the common sense idea that citizens have not just the right but the DUTY to insure that government works for them.

Kodi: "You have repeatedly demanded that because one vote out of a million is 0.0001% of those cast, it means less than one vote out of 500,000. That is just not correct. The voter in each case has the same opportunity to be served by the same number of representatives. Your dwelling on the percentage of “power” each voter holds in an election is meaningless, because they have the same number of representatives to express their desires at the legislative level."

Your lack of comprehension in this area is mind-boggling. You still haven't dealt with election 2000 yet... have you? Oh... I bet you're one of those people that blames Florida or SCOTUS rather than the EC. See above.

ulTRAX: Prove what? That voter turnout is low in the US or it's low as consequence of our dysfunctional and anti-democratic system?
As for the first... we have not broken 60% voter turnout since 1968. Source http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm compare that some of the other advanced industrial democracies such as the UK or France. Between 1945 and now... France has NEVER had voter turnout less than 60%. As for the effects of our system on voting participation here's an intro into the unintended consequences of our voting system http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/why_are_vot ... One of those consequences is that third parties common in democracies that try to IMPROVE their systems, never take root here. According to the book How Democratic is the American Constitution, author Robert Dahl maintains that a two party system is a natural consequence of our first past the post election system. Political minorities simply can't muster a victory when all elections are based on set districts or states... even though they make up a sizable minority nationally.

Kodi: "Yes, the latter. And there is much more to lower voter turn out in the US than that the US is not a parliamentarian form of government like the UK and France, or that low voter turn-out is a result of disenfranchisement due to elections based upon districts or states, Both the UK and France also vote by districts in their parliamentary elections. The same “Political minorities (that) simply can't muster a victory” in the US also can not muster victory in the UK or France."

It's clear that the situation is more complex than we both portray. In the UK there is a high degree of class consciousness which drives politics. In France there is a two round election process. Both are absent in the US. My choice of nations was a poor one. None the less my point remains that nations that TRY to better gage the consent of the governed have high voter turnouts. Again returning to the book :How Democratic is the American Constitution" Robert Dahl, citing 1990 study from American Political Science Review, states that there's a direct correlation between voting systems and voter satisfaction. There's a higher degree of voter DISsatisfaction in majoritarian nations than in nations which have a more consensual system. Why? Because in majoritarian nations a large number of the population will always be unrepresented. In consensual systems... even if you party comes in 3ed or 4th you're still represented. In that study of 11 European democracies the Netherlands had the most consensual system (proportional representation) and one of the highest satisfaction rates, and higher percentages of registered voters AND high voter turnouts than the UK or France. The US is, of course, at the bottom among these advanced democracies.


Kodi" "Gracious and just where did the Republican Party come from? They were initially a third party. And in the US, third parties are the incubators for fringe ideas that eventually find their way into one or both of the two major parties. You cant have it both ways by demanding the fundamental feature of the democratic process, viz., majorities rule and decry that “Political minorities simply can't muster a victory”

Golly gee... so we have had ONE third party emerge in 220 years. I guess all our problems are solved. Of course the emergence of the GOP was based in an issue that split the nation and led to the civil war. You're hardly making your point. As you grasp for straws you ignore all the FAILED third party efforts and focus on the one exceptional one. Again... lame.

Kodi: "Of course they can’t, they are minorities. But to say that citizens of these parties are shut out of affecting the political process is evidently not true. They do and have had impact on the process."

Possibly having an "impact" is not the same as having the right to vote one's conscience and have a good chance of being represented. A central feature of our election system is that about 40-49% of the voters will NOT be represented at any given time. Some NEVER get any representation because their vote has been Gerrymandered into oblivion or they are loyal to 3ed parties.

ulTRAX: "Look it, Einstein. I know damn well what sort of system we have. What you seem incapable of comprehending is that someone might think it's time to RETHINK a government that was designed in 1787.... that this system has set in cement the politics of that era... and it's time to move on to make the system more democratic... ESPECIALLY since it can not guarantee morally legitimate government. It's OUR nation now. Enough with placing the will of the dead over that of the living."

Kodi: "Wow, are you capable of discourse without relying on insults?"

What's TRULY insulting is YOUR insistence that anyone who dare disagree with what you consider some self-evident truth from 220 years ago must, by definition, be in error. So you repeat ad nauseam the rationale for the Constitution as if I don't understand it. You're treating this as a religious matter not a political matter.

Kodi: "You stated that you knew the type of government we live under, even having boasted that we have never had a change in our Constitution that lead to more democracy. When I showed your remark to be utterly false, you attack me personally? What the heck is that supposed to prove?"

What I have said is that the amendments you tout as some proof that the Constitution is not reform proof FAILED to make your case.

Kodi: "Your last remarks allude to a position I do not hold, viz., a literal, original intent philosophy of the Constitution. If that is not a straw man argument against my position I do not know what is."

I have no idea what remark you're referring to. I, at least, have been trying to include both sides of the conversation to avoid confusion. But it's clear you have not offered any criticisms of the Constitution and have only defended original intent.

Kodi: "I am completely capable of having an intelligent discussion with anyone, even you, if you act civilly and readily comprehend that changes in the present system are to be examined to improve upon it."

You can claim whatever you want. It's been clear from the start that the BEST you can do is parrot the politics of 1787 and if anyone dare rejects it... you just repeat it as if it's some self-evident truth I must be too thick to understand. You even had the gall to suggest that if I don't agree with you it's because I haven't read the Constitution... as if I hadn't had my fill as a PoliSci undergrad or debated this topic for years. It's clear that if I, as others have in the past have done, simply do not revere the will of the Framers as you do, you consider it a heretical thought-crime.

Ya... I think this discussion has about run its course.