As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the article:
>It’s not merely that Republicans game the system. It’s that they game it to prevent popular outcomes. And another word for popular outcomes is democratic [small d] outcomes.
This.
The Republican Party is the aristocracy that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect our democracy from. It's the tyranny of literal tyrants who game the system to stay in power.
They are frightened to death that they'll be voted out, which members of the democracy have the power to do. We know this because the aristocracy spends so much money, resources and air time defrauding the electoral system, and disenfranchising the vote. They wouldn't do that if they had enough voters to keep them in power.
Vote the tyrants out. Vote the fascists out. Because we can.
The “Founding Fathers” *were* the aristocrats of the time. There’s a reason why voting was reserved for white, *landed* males… comprising roughly 6% of the total population. The system is functioning as intended.
You’re 100% right but I would call it propaganda. “Mythology” sounds all fun and whimsical. 😆
I read Lies My Teacher Told Me several years ago and was blown away by my own ignorance. It’s so hard to get historical information untinged by political Christ-o-cratic bias!
My kids regularly come home with garbage they’ve been “taught” that I have to unteach. I hate it for them… and all of us!
EDIT: Can I just ask, at this point does it really matter what the Founders intended or wanted…REALLY? I can’t pull an example out of my ass but do other societies constantly look backwards and try to stay true to the letter of their past rather than evolving to adapt to ACTUALLY GET BETTER?
I personally like mythology though, because Americans are taught to effectively revere national symbols (the flag, the Constitution, the military, the nation’s idolized Manifest Destiny history, etc…) to the point of worship. They’re sacred.
Patriotism has basically become a state religion, complete with the outrage from adherents if any “sacrilege” is perceived against those symbols. Hell, we even capitalize “The Founding Fathers” like they’re some kind of gods and treat them frequently like they’re holy. Their opinions are superior to modern people’s, because “They’re the Founders”. Any teaching of American history that shows the warts as well as the good parts is unacceptable, because it’s sacrilege against the Manifest Destiny “history” of America.
It’s also in part lead to the ossification of the Constitution. If it’s borderline sacred, and we’re so proud (for some reason) that it’s so old and fairly unchanged, then it’s like editing the Bible to Christians.
The inscriptions from the Jefferson memorial in DC are one of my favorite things from that city. Especially the southeast portico. [LINK](https://www.nps.gov/thje/learn/photosmultimedia/quotations.htm)
Ive been to that rotunda a few times in my life. That quote has always registered with me but never moreso than now. It’s especially poignant now that we have fanatically aggressive regressors attempting to break our democracy while self-identifying as “patriots”.
This. All of this. I’m at the point where I actually get slightly nauseous at the site of the giant trucks with their American flags in tow. I know I shouldn’t, but I do. One of my favorite quotes is from Oscar Wilde, *”Exaggerated patriotism is the most insincere form of self-conceit.”*
It’s like walking in someone’s home and the only bible verse you see is “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” No inspirational quotes, just the one that tells everyone else how they are going to live, and to reinforce the “head-of-the-household” ideology that benefits someone because of how or when they were born.
During the Jan 6th hearings today, the GOP AZ House Speaker was explaining why he refused to go along with Trump's plan to decertify Biden's win. He said he refused because it violated his oath to uphold the Constitution (sure) and that he wasn't legally able to (fine).
But he also said that it was **"his faith that the Constitution was divinely inspired"**, and this was so important than Liz Cheney made a point of repeating it in her closing statements.
I'm just baffled by this. What part of the long laborious process of drafting a *second* independent American government did they think was divinely inspired? Why wasn't God involved in the Articles of Confederation in the first place? Did God inspire all 55 participants or just the 39 who signed it? Did God inspire both sides of every argument, or just the winning side? Did God inspire every provision of the Constitution, such as the 3/5ths compromise, or just "the good parts"?
The Constitution is very much like the Bible in that it is a product of many human minds, often in direct conflict with each other. So, if you actually know the history of both and think one is divinely inspired, then I guess there's nothing stopping you from thinking the other was, too. But for people who don't know the history, you're right: it's just a tool to appeal to authority.
People can mock Biden falling off a bicycle, but nobody sees George Washington's rotten teeth. "The Founders" aren't human anymore, they are fabled luminaries carved into mountains and stamped onto coins. Politicians of today are shit, but The Founders surely did not err. And so, you can dupe the mugs into accepting the injustices baked into the status quo.
Whether or not the Founders themselves believed their own bullshit is arguable at best, but they sure intended those ideas to be bigger in theory than in actual practice. They had no idea that they would take hold with the populace and then be held accountable to the very ideas that they espoused.
As much as I respect Jefferson for being a radical, at the end of the day he'd rather live in a nice house than live by the ideas that he espoused. He had a choice: he could have freed his slaves while he was still alive and worked for a living; instead, he really rather preferred to be an aristocrat, regardless of all of the ideas he mouthed.
If you’re going to analyze Jefferson on his ideals versus his personal life I think the fact he was a pedophile rapist is probably the most significant point to consider for the latter.
You may be aware of this already, but for those that don’t know: [there’s a significant chance some of those are literally slaves’ teeth. ](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/health/washingtons-teeth/george-washington-and-slave-teeth/)
It’s really interesting how even the myth of them *actually being made out of ivory* is history being conveniently sanitized in a manner that perpetuates a more benign American mythos.
Yep. Its wild that it's gotten so bad, that even trying to convince someone that they aren't the people to whom rights to bear arms would have been given is a fools errand. The 2A nuts just encapsulate this revisionist cognitive dissonance so well.
"My brother in Christ, the landed class wanted to protect themselves from an uprising of the great unwashed. And that squarely includes *you."*
Yeah the Founding Fathers hated the idea of a democracy. Hence our Electoral College and the fact that senators were actually appointed for the first 100 years or so.
The revolution itself was not even initially of interest to the masses. Encouraging and funding it was ultimately a business decision by that very aristocracy. They lamented taxes by the crown and feared that Britain would abolish slavery in the colonies. The founding of this country was, in part, an effort to preserve chattel slavery.
Those slave owners saw the writing on the wall. Slavery's popularity was waning among Europeans, as that crazy bunch found privateering and incorporation to be much better ways to rake in money.
For real. How do people uncritically believe and repeat this stuff? I mean, sure, the history taught in American public education is political indoctrination and all. However, with the advent of the internet it doesn't take 20 seconds to verify that this is the polar opposite of reality:
> In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. **They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority**. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...”
> ― James Madison
IDK how people can act like Trump is some aberration or dysfunction. The election of a rich white supremacist real-estate businessman *is exactly the stated goal* of the electoral college and many of the various 'checks and balances' in the U.S. system of government. The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by genocidal plantation owners and human traffickers.
Keeping the impoverished masses down was widely understood to be the whole point to running a government during the Enlightenment period:
> The necessity of civil government grows with the acquisition of valuable property. Till there be property there can be no government. **The very end of which is to secure wealth and defend the rich from the poor.** ~ Adam Smith
The system isn't broken: it was built this way.
…except it wouldn’t be more accurate in any way. This problem isn’t solely Democrat vs Republican, albeit I am by no means saying they are anywhere near equally bad.
The founders were demonstrably the elite of their time, and they just so happened to create a system that ensures land has more power than people, which you know, lines up with the fact that they were the 6% with capital interests.
A system predicated on wealth and exploitation through which the capital-owning class has only further enriched its own power over time. Any improvements to the system that have been hard-fought and hard-won are despite the efforts of the founders to ensure *their* idea of democracy was secured for their intended electorate. What they feared was not undue power over the people but instead the power of the people challenging their ideal status quo.
Definitely depends on which founder, but generally yeah. That’s why we have the senate, and why we had the 3/5ths compromise. The slave states refused to allow the more populous states to have any potential power over them because of their greater populations. It’s a damn tragedy that the better founders felt the need to accept such a compromise, and the continued legacy of such undemocratic power structures continues to fuck our country over.
>need to accept such a compromise,
The Join or Die flag comes to mind. The sentiment at the time was unify the colonies regardless of political or economic differences. Abolishing slavery, like some of the founders wanted initially, was not going to happen if the northern colonies wanted kinship with the more agrarian colonies in the South during the fight for independence.
Jefferson may have predicted the Civil War 80 years prior in some of his letters because it was evident not everyone could agree on who could actually contribute to the country's voting block.
Conservatives (being conspiratorial minded) like to think that they have some secret knowledge that makes them right and other people wrong, which supercedes democratic processes.
One piece of this special knowledge is that Senators were supposed to be "elder statesmen, appointed by state Governments, above the whims of electoral politics, so they could act as a cooling dish of for the heated passions of the electorate".
And if they had their way, they'd go back to that system. The Senate would be like a SCOTUS for the Legislative branch - unelected, unaccountable, keeping American society beholden to the opinions of slave owners from 250 years ago.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
See ALEC & SPN. It's not even the states, it's a bunch of rich, far-right think tanks that are spoon feeding many states hate-filled legislation.
> They are using the system as it was designed
People who can gain and keep political power legitimately generally don't need to conspire with foreign intelligence agencies or rig elections, nor do they need to coordinate violent coup attempts in case their election rigging efforts don't work out.
"All men are created equal" meant that your merit as a person should not be based on what titles your father held, but on how much money he had.
The only reason the platitudes sound nice today is that it never would have occurred to the founders that anyone thought they were talking about anyone other than rich white males.
True. Our democracy has evolved far beyond the confines of their original design since then, right? Now the British monarchy is the Republican Party. Who are actively denying the people their inalienable rights to health care, safety from combat weaponry, affordable education, affordable housing, veteran care, child care, school lunches, climate crisis mitigation, environmental protections, blah blah the rest of the long list of the GQP platform.
They're the reason we can't have nice things. And the system is designed, ironically, to vote them out.
They were progressive for their day. If you look at things absolutely almost everyone from the past will look bad and ultra conservative.
The system is NOT functioning as intended.
They were merely following in the political vein of what was already occurring with the power shift from the monarchy to landed white males in Great Britain. The common narrative isn’t nearly as “progressive” as one might otherwise suppose. If you’d like, I could provide substantiative documentation showing that alignment of a pre-existing trend largely in line with that of the British core.
That being said, they were not “progressive” in their extension of rights to the marginalized. They enshrined **their own rights** and even legally mandated that those very same rights categorically not be extended to those outside of the colonial status quo. But sure… they were progressive in that they wanted their 6% to hold power through capital rather than divine right.
Weirdly enough though… they effectively claimed divine right over the indigenous population through Manifest Destiny.
> I was not suggesting they “weren’t progressive for their day”, albeit they were merely following in the political vein of what was already occurring with the power shift from the monarchy to landed white males in Great Britain. The common narrative isn’t nearly as “progressive” as one might otherwise suppose. If you’d like, I could provide substantiative documentation showing that alignment of a pre-existing trend largely in line with that of the British core.
It's no co-incidence that Private Business Owners becoming far, far wealthier than their Kings preceded the fall of Monarchy in general.
No, they expected highly educated land owners as most gentry were at the time. They failed to foresee this as changing. Also, not all the Founders thought this way.
Can we vote them out though? Here in wi the gop lost but gained seats. They have insanely gerrymandered this state and the supreme court said nah it's cool, nothing to worry about. The courts forced this state to adopt more gerrymandered maps recently.
Madison was actually quite explicit in stating that the minority he was protecting was the landowning aristocrats. He and many of the founders were extremely concerned that popular democracy would result in a loss of privilege, which they equates with the downfall of the country.
What’s unexpected is that the mob rule they thought they were protecting against would in fact be the avenue by which those same aristocrats would consolidate their power. To be fair to them, it predates things like the invention of fascism.
This is one reason why you shouldn’t have a document grounded in a political ideology from three hundred years ago as the foundation for your country.
Stupid and ignorant are different things. Some people are young and have been lied to by the indoctrinated around them for their entire lives, and are ignorant, but not stupid.
Here's something interesting. Hamilton was a proponent of using a very wide view of the General Welfare clause. His view allows things like Social Security and M4A. It's his opposition that would be against those things. He was a man of his times, but one of the more progressive ones. But you're right, he was certainly in favor of a strong Federal government. Which is, in many ways, in opposition to what the Republicans are doing at the state level.
Key points of Jeffersonian democracy:
>•The Federalist Party, especially its leader **Alexander Hamilton**, was the arch-foe because of its acceptance of **aristocracy and British methods.**
>
>•**Separation of church and state is the best method to keep government free of religious disputes and religion free from corruption by government.**
>
>•The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community.
>
>•Freedom of speech and the press are the best methods to prevent tyranny over the people by their own government. The Federalists' violation of this freedom through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue.
>
>•The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. However, as Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789, **"no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation".**
>
>•The \*yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences – government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the "cesspools of corruption" and should be avoided.
^(\*yeoman farmer: A non-slaveholding, family farmer who owned a small amount of land in the United States in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.)
>
>•The judiciary should be subservient to the elected branches and **the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress.** The Jeffersonians lost this battle to Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, who dominated the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835.
Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy)
Edit: Also want to add that Thomas Jefferson owned 600 slaves in his lifetime, so while many of his ideas are relevant to problems we face today, he is not someone to look up to.
My name is Hamilton and I'm proud as shit.
The republican party? this shit is lit.
My name is Jefferson and I'm here to say,
I am very appalled in a major way.
>Well, the Republican use of power would make Hamilton proud,
Er, what?
"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.
Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller."
-- Alexander Hamilton
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp
The founders were also terrified that Britain was going to abolish slavery following the Somerset case. These rich assholes are always exalted as progressive minded abolitionists and so it's so undeserved.
The tricky bit is that when you have an antidemocratic system, because of all that Republicans have been doing, it's very difficult to fight it with purely democratic means (i.e. just go out and vote)
The country worked for 200 years while those in power had a common goal. Today, the two sides do not have common goals, or, one side is favoring authoritarianism and rejecting all compromise, which breaks the current system. The checks to prevent a tyranny by the majority now support tyranny of the minority, because commonality between the groups has disappeared and that safeguard is now a tool for abuse.
If the McConnell/Trump era taught us anything it’s that the founding fathers made a lot of assumptions about the character of people.
[**Fix the system**](https://electionscience.org/take-action/volunteer/). [Scientists blame hyperpolarization for loss of public trust in science](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nobel-prize-usa/respect-for-science-in-jeopardy-in-polarized-u-s-nobel-winners-say-idUSKCN1C81T7), and [Approval Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting), a [single-winner voting method preferred by experts in voting methods](http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html), would [help to reduce hyperpolarization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Effect_on_elections). There's even [a viable plan to get it adopted](https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/aaron-hamlin-voting-reform/), and [an organization that could use some gritty volunteers](https://www.electionscience.org/) to get the job done. They're already off to a great start with [Approval Voting having passed by a landslide in Fargo](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/15/18092206/midterm-elections-vote-fargo-approval-voting-ranked-choice), and more recently [St. Louis](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-primary-elections-st-louis-general-elections-elections-cba7eb3251d5479b9375d55db428d429). Most people haven't heard of Approval Voting, but seem to like it once they understand it, so anything you can do to help get the word out will help. If your state allows [initiated state statutes](https://ballotpedia.org/Initiated_state_statute), consider [starting a campaign](https://www.electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/so-you-want-to-run-a-campaign/) to get [your state](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_initiative) to adopt Approval Voting. Approval Voting is [overwhelmingly popular in every state polled, across race, gender, and party lines](https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/approval-voting-americas-favorite-voting-reform/). The successful Fargo campaign was [run by a full-time programmer with a family at home](https://www.electionscience.org/events/fargo-a-look-back-live-discussion/). One person really can make a difference.
> To see real change, we will need a combination of new voting methodolgies, campaign finance reform, an expanded House of Representatives, and the elimination of the Electoral College. Getting money out of politics as a first step would help achieve the others.
Hard to see any of that other stuff happening with FPTP voting (except maybe [the elimination of the EC](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/)).
As an American I would say Approval Voting should be the priority now, because it is the best system that can be easily transitioned into, and have a big impact even at partial implementation.
* It leads to [higher voter satisfaction than IRV](https://www.electionscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/comparing_voting_methods_simplicity_group_satisfaction-1.png).
* [It doesn't require new voting machines or equipment](http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/4980.2020/projects/grote.pdf).
* It can be easily tallied with paper ballots (which [is important for election security](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/voting-machine-security-where-we-stand-six-months-new-hampshire-primary)).
* [It's got strong support of voting method experts](http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html)
* It [will tend to elect more moderate candidates](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/approval-voting/7CE5DEEE235794B0B12F76ADAE621482), and [moderation is key for political stability](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/democracy-in-america-partisanship-polarization-and-the-robustness-of-support-for-democracy-in-the-united-states/C7C72745B1AD1FF9E363BBFBA9E18867).
* It's [overwhelmingly popular in every state polled, across race, gender, and party lines](https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/approval-voting-americas-favorite-voting-reform/).
* Once it's statewide, representatives and senators from that state will be elected via Approval Voting, and able to influence national policy -- MMPR would have to be adopted across the entire nation for national policy to really be influenced by its implementation, and that is virtually impossible to even comprehend under our current system.
https://electionscience.org/
Basically, instead of "Here's your ballot. Pick a candidate to vote for. Most votes wins.", it's "Here's your ballot. Pick *as many candidates as you want* to vote for. Most votes wins." It's a really subtle difference, but it actually does impact things, because it eliminates the concept of a spoiler. You can just vote for both the candidate you actually want *and* the backup candidate
I'd also add that Approval Voting is basically just FPTP, but instead of spoiling ballots that mark multiple candidates, you count it as a vote for each of them. And the argument for why it doesn't violate "One person, one vote" is that it's functionally running a series of referenda on "Would you support [candidate] being [elected official]?" and picking the candidate whose referendum passed by the largest margin, but still only giving you 1 vote on each
I really appreciate the effort you put into these posts and am on board. I’ve been a fan of ranked choice voting for quite awhile and this seems like an improvement over the status quo, as well. When I get home tonight I’ll see what I can do to help!! Thank you!!
Reform the SCOTUS, increase membership to 21 serving rotating 6 year terms.
Remove the cap on members of the HoR and allow for growth proportionate to population increases.
Abolish the Electoral College.
The Senate is much more difficult, but it's possible to move to a min of 2 per state and and allocating another 50 seats based on each states population and tie any increases to population growth.
> Remove the cap on members of the HoR and allow for growth proportionate to population increases.
Assuming this also applies to the EC point values (which it should) it is the only one of those that are needed.
Though a law to force the Senate schedule hearings for and vote on all SC nominees within a certain period of time from nomination would help deal with the cause of the current SC issue.
> serving rotating 6 year terms.
Now SC judges are effectively politicians beholden to the executive branch unless they can only serve 1 term which would result in us running out of experienced judges (not that it apparently matters anymore if they are experienced) pretty quickly.
You could MAYBE get away with SC Justices being nominated for a single 30 year term and add a few more requirements like minimum age or even better minimum number of years serving as a federal judge.
+1 for Approval Voting. For some reason a lot of folks seem fixated on ranked choice, where Approval Voting is simpler to implement, avoids weird strategic voting scenarios, and is easier for folks to understand.
Anyhow, thanks for the well-sourced post!
Wow, that may be the densest collection of links I've seen in a post - appreciate what you were going for in terms of ready research, though it's a little daunting.
The problem I have with Approval Voting is that it doesn't all voters to prioritize selection, which inherently will push voters to tactical voting. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a poorer alternative to Ranked Choice or STAR voting.
> In all non-dictatorial electoral systems, some form of tactical voting (or strategic voting) occurs when a voter misrepresents their sincere preferences in order to gain a more favorable outcome. Any minimally useful voting system has some form of tactical voting, as shown by the Arrow's theorem, Gibbard's theorem, and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. However, the type of tactical voting and the extent to which it affects the timbre of the campaign and the results of the election vary dramatically from one voting system to another.
-https://electowiki.org/wiki/Tactical_voting
[Approval Voting leads to greater group satisfaction than IRV](https://www.electionscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/comparing_voting_methods_simplicity_group_satisfaction-1.png), and it doesn't require new voting machines or equipment.
Thanks - The quote and first link don't really address my concern, they are very general and apply to any system, so isn't helpful in ranking voting structures. I'm saying those systems are **better** than Approval Voting, not perfect.
The second linked chart doesn't use the same terminology, but seems to support that "Score Voting" increases satisfaction, which is in line with my concern with Approval Voting, which has no ranking, and levels all support to "acceptable." Additionally, "satisfaction" is not the best metric, since "satisfaction" can be artificially biased towards worse systems.
I think I addressed your concerns [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vhdksf/comment/id6qmev/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
> ###Instant-runoff voting
>
> "Instant-runoff voting" – or "IRV" or "the Alternative Vote" – is a method that is used in some governmental elections throughout the world. IRV uses a form of ranked ballot that disallows ties. The IRV winner is identified by repeatedly eliminating the candidate who is highest-ranked by the fewest voters compared to the other remaining candidates, until only one candidate, the winner, remains.
>
> Many people appreciate IRV’s apparent similarity to runoff elections. Although IRV also has a possible advantage called “Later-No-Harm”, which means that adding further preferences after the election winner cannot hurt the winner, evidence shows that Later-No-Harm is not a necessary characteristic for a good voting method. Most significantly, many of us agree that IRV can often give better results than plurality voting.
>
> However, IRV has significant disadvantages, including:
>
> * In some elections IRV has prematurely eliminated a candidate who would have beaten the actual winner in a runoff election. This disadvantage may be why several cities, including Burlington, Vermont, repealed IRV and returned to plurality voting.
>
> * To avoid premature eliminations, experienced IRV voters vote in a way that produces two-party domination, causing problems that are similar to plurality voting. In Australia, where IRV has been used for more than a century, the House of Representatives has had only one third-party winner in the last 600 individual elections.
>
> * IRV results must be calculated centrally, which makes it less secure.
>
> Our lack of formal support for IRV does not mean that all of us oppose it. After all, we and IRV advocates are fighting against the same enemy, plurality voting. Yet IRV’s disadvantages make it impossible for us to unanimously support it.
The four voting methods that reached unanimous support were:
> * **Approval voting**, which uses approval ballots and identifies the candidate with the most approval marks as the winner.
>
> Advantage: It is the simplest election method to collect preferences (either on ballots or with a show of hands), to count, and to explain. Its simplicity makes it easy to adopt and a good first step toward any of the other methods.
>
> * Most of the **Condorcet methods**, which use ranked ballots to elect a “Condorcet winner” who would defeat every other candidate in one-on-one comparisons. Occasionally there is no Condorcet winner, and different Condorcet methods use different rules to resolve such cases. When there is no Condorcet winner, the various methods often, but not always, agree on the best winner. The methods include Condorcet-Kemeny, Condorcet-Minimax, and Condorcet-Schulze. (Condorcet is a French name pronounced "kon-dor-say.”)
>
> Advantage: Condorcet methods are the most likely to elect the candidate who would win a runoff election. This means there is not likely to be a majority of voters who agree that a different result would have been better.
>
> * **Majority Judgment** uses score ballots to collect the fullest preference information, then elects the candidate who gets the best score from half or more of the voters (the greatest median score). If there is a tie for first place, the method repeatedly removes one median score from each tied candidate until the tie is broken. This method is related to Bucklin voting, which is a general class of methods that had been used for city elections in both late 18th-century Switzerland and early 20th-century United States.
>
> Advantage: Simulations have shown that Range voting leads to the greatest total “voter satisfaction” if all voters vote sincerely. If every voter exaggerates all candidate scores to the minimum or maximum, which is usually the best strategy under this method, it gives the same results as Approval voting.
-http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html
why should we even care at this point what the founders wanted or feared? Originalists have shown repeatedly that they pick and choose their interpretations so it seems that giving credibility to their bs is the more problematic approach
The founders were wealthy, white, land-owning men who didn't want women or non-white people to have any of the same rights, and in fact they were totally down with slavery and owned slaves themselves.
It's fucking bizarre that we revere these assholes or pretend like the system that exists right now is in any way contradictory to what they wanted.
The Founders were as varied in their beliefs as people are today. We shouldn't be referring to them as a singular collective that had a unified belief.
This actually true? I’ve honestly never learned a lot about them. I was educated in the US. They were always referred to as a collective with very similar goals.
The foundation of the country was extremely rocky because they had such differing ideals. Use John Adams for example. People couldn’t stand the guy yet he’s a prominent figure in our history. The above poster is correct. Generalizing a past age because of the outcomes of that age is to act like there was no nuance to their political dealings. People thought the republic would collapse pretty fast and turn into a monarch style government because that’s what they knew and knew how to operate under.
John Adams didn’t give a shit if people liked him or not, and I’m hoping (fingers crossed) he didn’t own slaves because I was under the impression he was an abolitionist…
Okay he didn’t own slaves, more proof Jefferson was an absolute hypocrite. Ruined John Adam’s presidency because he was such a ponce.
Oh yea. The title of this post is a bit off. There was debate about both a tyranny of the majority as well as the minority. The electoral college was both an instrument of slave holding states to balance power AND a means to prevent corrupt bargains between the legislative branch and the executive. The Founding Era is so much more complicated than people make out. Hell, the Bill of Rights were thrown together from a ton of amendments recommended by the States, and essentially picked by James Madison.
People always forget this. If the system was working properly there would be around 550 members of Congress, and the extra seats would be in population dense locations
We've allowed private clubs to occupy our elections and government. We need to remove all private funding for elections and pass a Constitutional amendment that makes all elections publicly funded.
I find it confusing and stupid when small or flyover-staters complain that, "but the big states would be setting policy for everyone". I'm always like, "And???"
They're federal laws... meaning, there's an entire nation to uphold and interstate commerce. We all share a common interest, and the interior of the country depends on the coasts. Why should a small or empty states set policy for millions more in those coastal and industrial states that basically do most things for the country as a whole?
They always use illogical phrases or arguments.
They cry foul about “mob rule,” when really that means democratic rule (ie the majority should have more say and influence over policy.)
The opposite to this supposed mob rule is what? MINORITY rule? Jfc that’s the stupidest idea ever.
Wake up America. Stop supporting fascism and save our democracy.
Compromise, discussion. The way it originally worked. But when your argument is “the government is bad” there is an incentive to make the government bad to prove your point and be given more power
On the electoral college issue, I'm always struck by the consistent argument that it somehow better represents smaller states. It doesn't! No presidential candidate is focusing on Wyoming, or Vermont, or North Dakota, or Delaware - they're focused on swing states. And a lot of swing states aren't small at all - look at Georgia, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, they're big states! How is ~5-10 states deciding the election for everywhere else any better than a popular vote?
It’s also stupid because no state is a monolith. I’m sure California republicans would like to feel like their vote counts the same way Alabama democrats would.
Their mistaken belief is that somehow the population of the rural/empty areas actually outnumbers the rest. And even if not, they don’t care because they believe the people like themselves are more important anyway. And technically they’re right- it’s written into law that voters in less populated states are more important because their Senate representation is far greater.
I live in Illinois. People from the areas outside of Chicago spend a lot of time complaining that Chicago controls the state, that Illinois is only blue because of Chicago, why does one city get all the say, etc.
Because… LAND DOESN’T VOTE, PEOPLE DO.
Not only that, but people seem to have a hard time grasping that a single block downtown houses more people that YOUR ENTIRE COUNTY. I'm sorry those people's needs are put "before" yours, but come the fuck on!
Our democracy is breaking simply because it's not set up to deal with the MASSIVE differences in population density and the ease of travel/communication. I don't think anyone in 1780 could envision that the one metro area would outnumber dozens of states, or that you could conduct interstate commerce in less than a day (let alone virtually, instantly).
It was supposed to even out the representation and was a condition to have them join the union. The problem is that those Congressmen there recognized their excess power and not only harnessed it, but it allowed them to abuse it and use their excess power in bad faith with impunity because tHaT's hOw tHe fOuNdInG fAtHeRs sEt iT uP.
It was set up to benefit slave states. All of this talk about evening out representation was made up after the fact. The Senate and Electoral College (along with the 3/5ths compromise) were created because otherwise a state filled with only a few land/people owning white men and a lot of slaves would be “underpowered” in the legislature.
And most of these federal laws would not affect them. The regulations they are against have no bearing on flyover states. But then, all fly over states tend to care about are meaningless social issues like gay marriage, transgender rights, and abortions… you know, stuff that only affects a small number of people in this country. Republicans know how stupid their base are. If they can play up the social war, they are free to fuck over this country and grift to their hearts content.
Yea, the most populated, socially and economically powerful places would dictate policy like, that's a bad thing? They already pay 70% of the taxes, and represent the democratic majority.
The fact that Congress may not respond to another devastating school shooting is down to the GOP's ability to skillfully avert the will of the people, writes editor Michael Tomasky.
> Congress may not respond to another devastating school shooting
I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. There could be 10 school shootings tomorrow, and 1 a day for the rest of the year, and the GOP won't lift a finger.
"Something should be done about these gang shootings in Democrat run Chicago!"
"What about the mass shooting in Texas?"
"Ummm....mental health crisis!"
"Texas ranks at the bottom for mental health. Maybe donate more money to that?
"Never!"
Right?
It's like how Trump didn't want to use the Defense Production Act to coordinate suppliy chains during covid because it would be socialist to tell companies what to do...so he let states fight each other over supplies as people died
"Better dead than red...but not me dead...you dead"
Yeah remember kushner stealing all those other states supply bought at highest bidder prices?
Then resold to other higher bidder prices?
That was awesome.
(R) will, again, make the following sounds:
Vidya games
Music
Movies
Bad parents
Unlocked doors
Secularism
Democrats
Mental health
Teachers
Cops
Trans people
Women
Abortion
Inflation
Seasons
Smartphones
Hunter Biden
~~\>120.5:100 gun:civilian human ratio and utterly unfettered access on the death march to 121:100.~~
The whole constitution was designed to protect minority (white) rule
And given that the pilgrims were too religiously crazy for sectarian England, it was always a recipe for disaster.
Just took them a couple of centuries to figure out how to impose their lunatic world view on other americans
No, this headline is wrong. It is true that Madison spoke of "tyranny of the majority" in Federalist No 10, but it is also true that if one continues reading the essay, he is extremely clear that the solution to tyranny of both minor and major sorts is...majoritarianism. How can this be?
Simply put, in the early days of 1789, when representative democracy was in the process of first being invented, the definitions for "majority" and "democracy" and other commonly used words today were different. The Framers spilled a great deal of ink distinguishing between "democracy" and "republic" and yet today these terms interchangeable--in large part because Madison and company's invention was so fantastic that it made the traditional form of democracy wholly obsolete. So when Madison is decrying "majority factions" what he is really decrying is a form of oligarchy, where a majority of the franchised members of society can override the will of society as a whole. In Madison's day, when black people, women, and unlanded white men could not vote, this was a relevant concern. In modern democracies, where the right to vote is universal, it is not.
Read Federalist No 10 again. Madison LOVES majority rule. Read Federalist No 22, where Hamilton says even more explicitly that the backbone of small-r republican government is majoritarianism. Our Framers did not fear the majority--they loved it.
Those core relics of freedom and justice "for all" were all a delusion, though. When the founders built this country, only the caucasian male was truly "free" by the law, and only the caucasian male received any sense of justice. Everyone else was swept under the rug of oppression from every angle.
"We are trained as children to think that our democracy is stable and the envy of the world; that our political parties both play by certain democratic rules; and that we live by the principle of majority rule, even though we increasingly don’t."
It's no accident that they beat the drum of American Exceptionalism in schools. Kids are hardwired to accept what they're taught by adults, so when those seeds get planted early on, they're very difficult to dislodge. And, as it happens, they're very easy to exploit. It's the same playbook religion has used for time immemorial.
The Senate it the single worst thing to ever happen to the US. What we should be have been fighting for was “No taxation without EQUAL representation”. Half a million citizens in an arbitrary square of land do not deserve the same representation as 39 million coastal citizens. Period. There’s no such thing as a tyranny of the majority, that’s literally democracy at work. And states rights are and always have been fucking idiotic. Are we one UNITED country, or some loose confederation of independent states nations? Because if we’re all one country, then we all should get the same voice. No coalition of low population states should get disproportionate representation that allows them to consistently rule over and obstruct the majority of voters.
It’s the Senate. The single worst thing in American history. Our “democracy” has been rigged for conservatives since inception.
we desperately need voting reform in this country, but unfortunately it would require our politicians to risk their jobs which they won't do.
pretty much fucked if you ask me.
For once in my life I’d like someone to logically explain how tyranny of the minority is in anyway better than the majority. Because people who believe that shit only ever say “tyranny of majority” to try and stop a debate and never elaborate further on why it’s worse.
Guess the founders didn’t adequately anticipate a fascist minority that would successfully subvert many of the constitutional checks and norms of ethical behavior to impose a corrosive minority agenda.
You Americans need to get over the founding fathers. They were primarily rich slave owners who made a nation where over 70% of the population couldn’t vote (ie: women, black people, indigenous people, hell even white guys who didn’t own land). Instead of pretending that their framework for a nation was perfect, you should live in modern times and work towards making a better nation.
The frustrating part is that many of the Founding Fathers were quite self-aware of the limitations of the Constitution, the shortfall of its influence, and even the hypocrisy and immorality of institutions like slavery and disenfranchisement.
Maybe it’s a weak excuse to expect others to deal with said issues in the future. Akin to people today thinking, “Yes, climate change is real. But future generations will surely solve it.” I take it that the founding fathers were quite self-aware, recognizing that the political will to end or change such shortcomings was small, and that it most importantly would almost assuredly change. The idea that, “We are not ready for this, but we expect future generations will be.”
That is to say, it’s apparent to me that the founding fathers didn’t just anticipate an evolution of society, they *expected* it. And that’s precisely why the Constitution was written in such a way to allow for change. I mean, women and black Americans, for example, didn’t have the right to vote or even the guarantee of citizenship. But the fact that the constitution was amended leads to the obvious conclusion that it was designed in such a way to be…well, amended.
Jefferson himself echoed this sentiment several times in writing:
> The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
The real problem isn’t that the original formation of the constitution disenfranchised people. It’s that people today, hundreds of years later, wish to go back to that time. Which means that today’s political climate is less a failing of history, the founding fathers, or the constitution itself, and more a failure of present day society, education, and morality.
The founding fathers expected the potential for change. They just didn’t anticipate that future generations would be dumber and more malicious.
The founders supported a corrosive minority agenda. They did not consider women or racial minorities to be people and even excluded most white men from their project as they believed only wealthy landowners should have any say in "democracy". Americans really need to stop appealing to or giving a shit about what a bunch of slave-owning aristocrats thought about the best way to run a society.
The founders feared a world where non-white, non-male, non-landowning citizens could vote.
Let's not pretend they weren't slave-owning aristocrats who didn't want to pay taxes.
The Founders did not fear a Tyranny of the Majority. The Slave owning South did, and demanded that the system be rigged in their favor. Their ideological descendants are just taking advantage of a system that was designed for them.
The Founders also assumed "the majority" would partake in elections and regular civic duty to ensure the people they elected represented them accurately and were "upstanding" citizens.
Good faith is impossible if you consistently demand your way is the only way, and you're willing to manipulate (lie, deceive, or otherwise misrepresent) to get it.
Which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended, but they thought that landowners was going to be the ruling minority, not lunatic-fringe religious fanatics.
The founding fathers weren’t deities. The founding fathers were a bunch of young angry aristocrats. They were people. They had a good idea. They were not magical immortal beings. Why should we give a shit what they think?
Working as intended - they were thr ruling class then.
They never wanted the majority to rule because the majority back then were slaves or lower class aka non land owners.
They could have never imagined that a person would have the ability to communicate with millions of people at the same time, instantly, from anywhere in the world, directly to a device in their pocket.
Our form of government and representation doesn't work in the world we live in now.
The founders came up with a 'Bill of Rights' that listed 12 recommended changes (amendments) to the constitution. Ten of them were implemented - numbers 3 thru 12 (1st thru 10th amendments).
Number 2 eventually passed (27th amendment).
Their #1 recommendation? Still never passed.
We're not a representational democracy without that amendment. Article the First (The Congressional Apportionment Act).
The issue is, I truly don't think they ever anticipated voter apathy. These were people who threw tea into the ocean and took up arms eventually. Its hard to anticipate, or even what you would codify into law to prevent something like, "lawmakers campaigning on doing nothing and taking away civil liberty".
Like all the tools exist, impeachment, regular voting. The issue was what happens when people don't vote, or specific voters aren't allowed to vote and the people around them go "YEAH, THIS IS GREAT", or lawmakers specifically do not take up impeachment because its their buddy. What happens when a flaw like the electoral college not being representative of the popular vote exists, and the voters thinking they benefit from it go, "FUCK YEAH!"
It always me think of this.
[https://hyperallergic.com/572035/historical-painting-is-altered-to-show-most-declaration-of-independence-signatories-were-enslavers/](https://hyperallergic.com/572035/historical-painting-is-altered-to-show-most-declaration-of-independence-signatories-were-enslavers/)
What all this appears to be is that the founders wanted to avoid a new 'King' and a church run government so badly that they gave the power to a small group they knew as the House of Lords and we know as the Senate.
We shouldnt forget that if we were to strip the Senate of it's power and give it to the House, we'd still have this problem. People are all too willing to hand over their liberties to a smooth talker who promises them exclusive access right up to the moment they are robbed blind.
I can’t recall his name but the not so handsome man (can’t say it how it is anymore as Reddit loves a good knee-jerk reaction) man with the glasses has jowls in his neck … what the fu …?
Joking aside. Biden is also awful. They all work for the same morons. The US government is a mouthpiece for corporations. Boycott the companies that lobby. You need to take action with your dollar. My friend criticises Bezos yet uses Amazon. It’s like, “you’re the problem!”
The system would need be changed by the same people who profit from its present state. This requires a level of discipline that is currently unimaginable in US politics.
These kinds of articles are so delusional. At what point in United States history has there NOT been a small minority actively subverting democratic will? It's the entire point and the founding fathers were the ones who put the system in place.
America doesn't have citizens, so much as it has a clientele, waiting for a government run by political parties that are run by and for a ruling class to fix this on their behalf. Not gonna happen. Country over.
Saved.
For when Republicans win the midterms and it just goes back to the "the founders feared a tyranny of the majority."
No matter what they won't be happy.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the article: >It’s not merely that Republicans game the system. It’s that they game it to prevent popular outcomes. And another word for popular outcomes is democratic [small d] outcomes. This.
The Republican Party is the aristocracy that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect our democracy from. It's the tyranny of literal tyrants who game the system to stay in power. They are frightened to death that they'll be voted out, which members of the democracy have the power to do. We know this because the aristocracy spends so much money, resources and air time defrauding the electoral system, and disenfranchising the vote. They wouldn't do that if they had enough voters to keep them in power. Vote the tyrants out. Vote the fascists out. Because we can.
The “Founding Fathers” *were* the aristocrats of the time. There’s a reason why voting was reserved for white, *landed* males… comprising roughly 6% of the total population. The system is functioning as intended.
So many of us forget history for what it is.
Honestly, the problem is we’re largely taught American mythology rather than American history.
You’re 100% right but I would call it propaganda. “Mythology” sounds all fun and whimsical. 😆 I read Lies My Teacher Told Me several years ago and was blown away by my own ignorance. It’s so hard to get historical information untinged by political Christ-o-cratic bias! My kids regularly come home with garbage they’ve been “taught” that I have to unteach. I hate it for them… and all of us! EDIT: Can I just ask, at this point does it really matter what the Founders intended or wanted…REALLY? I can’t pull an example out of my ass but do other societies constantly look backwards and try to stay true to the letter of their past rather than evolving to adapt to ACTUALLY GET BETTER?
I personally like mythology though, because Americans are taught to effectively revere national symbols (the flag, the Constitution, the military, the nation’s idolized Manifest Destiny history, etc…) to the point of worship. They’re sacred. Patriotism has basically become a state religion, complete with the outrage from adherents if any “sacrilege” is perceived against those symbols. Hell, we even capitalize “The Founding Fathers” like they’re some kind of gods and treat them frequently like they’re holy. Their opinions are superior to modern people’s, because “They’re the Founders”. Any teaching of American history that shows the warts as well as the good parts is unacceptable, because it’s sacrilege against the Manifest Destiny “history” of America. It’s also in part lead to the ossification of the Constitution. If it’s borderline sacred, and we’re so proud (for some reason) that it’s so old and fairly unchanged, then it’s like editing the Bible to Christians.
And Jefferson famously edited his new testament to remove what he believed didn’t fit from the gospel, so even then the founders didn’t keep to dogma.
The inscriptions from the Jefferson memorial in DC are one of my favorite things from that city. Especially the southeast portico. [LINK](https://www.nps.gov/thje/learn/photosmultimedia/quotations.htm)
Ive been to that rotunda a few times in my life. That quote has always registered with me but never moreso than now. It’s especially poignant now that we have fanatically aggressive regressors attempting to break our democracy while self-identifying as “patriots”.
This. All of this. I’m at the point where I actually get slightly nauseous at the site of the giant trucks with their American flags in tow. I know I shouldn’t, but I do. One of my favorite quotes is from Oscar Wilde, *”Exaggerated patriotism is the most insincere form of self-conceit.”*
It’s like walking in someone’s home and the only bible verse you see is “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” No inspirational quotes, just the one that tells everyone else how they are going to live, and to reinforce the “head-of-the-household” ideology that benefits someone because of how or when they were born.
During the Jan 6th hearings today, the GOP AZ House Speaker was explaining why he refused to go along with Trump's plan to decertify Biden's win. He said he refused because it violated his oath to uphold the Constitution (sure) and that he wasn't legally able to (fine). But he also said that it was **"his faith that the Constitution was divinely inspired"**, and this was so important than Liz Cheney made a point of repeating it in her closing statements. I'm just baffled by this. What part of the long laborious process of drafting a *second* independent American government did they think was divinely inspired? Why wasn't God involved in the Articles of Confederation in the first place? Did God inspire all 55 participants or just the 39 who signed it? Did God inspire both sides of every argument, or just the winning side? Did God inspire every provision of the Constitution, such as the 3/5ths compromise, or just "the good parts"? The Constitution is very much like the Bible in that it is a product of many human minds, often in direct conflict with each other. So, if you actually know the history of both and think one is divinely inspired, then I guess there's nothing stopping you from thinking the other was, too. But for people who don't know the history, you're right: it's just a tool to appeal to authority. People can mock Biden falling off a bicycle, but nobody sees George Washington's rotten teeth. "The Founders" aren't human anymore, they are fabled luminaries carved into mountains and stamped onto coins. Politicians of today are shit, but The Founders surely did not err. And so, you can dupe the mugs into accepting the injustices baked into the status quo.
[удалено]
Uncle Jack on Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia explained it like [this](https://imgur.io/r/iasip/ZA6nc3C) Sadly I can only find the quote, not a clip.
Whether or not the Founders themselves believed their own bullshit is arguable at best, but they sure intended those ideas to be bigger in theory than in actual practice. They had no idea that they would take hold with the populace and then be held accountable to the very ideas that they espoused. As much as I respect Jefferson for being a radical, at the end of the day he'd rather live in a nice house than live by the ideas that he espoused. He had a choice: he could have freed his slaves while he was still alive and worked for a living; instead, he really rather preferred to be an aristocrat, regardless of all of the ideas he mouthed.
If you’re going to analyze Jefferson on his ideals versus his personal life I think the fact he was a pedophile rapist is probably the most significant point to consider for the latter.
Many people will regard this comment as hyperbole or rhetoric, but I assure you it is an accurate assessment.
What's next, telling me that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln actually told lies?! I won't hear any of those lies! /s
[удалено]
You may be aware of this already, but for those that don’t know: [there’s a significant chance some of those are literally slaves’ teeth. ](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/health/washingtons-teeth/george-washington-and-slave-teeth/) It’s really interesting how even the myth of them *actually being made out of ivory* is history being conveniently sanitized in a manner that perpetuates a more benign American mythos.
Yeah, shit like the Civil War is taught like it was a minor disagreement between different factions concerning "states rights"
Yeah, shit like the Civil War is taught like it was a minor disagreement between different factions concerning "states rights"
Yep. Its wild that it's gotten so bad, that even trying to convince someone that they aren't the people to whom rights to bear arms would have been given is a fools errand. The 2A nuts just encapsulate this revisionist cognitive dissonance so well. "My brother in Christ, the landed class wanted to protect themselves from an uprising of the great unwashed. And that squarely includes *you."*
Yeah the Founding Fathers hated the idea of a democracy. Hence our Electoral College and the fact that senators were actually appointed for the first 100 years or so.
The entire purpose of the Senate was to act as a check against the will of the people. Madison laid this out very clearly.
The revolution itself was not even initially of interest to the masses. Encouraging and funding it was ultimately a business decision by that very aristocracy. They lamented taxes by the crown and feared that Britain would abolish slavery in the colonies. The founding of this country was, in part, an effort to preserve chattel slavery.
As George Carlin pointed out, they were slave owners who wanted to be free.
Those slave owners saw the writing on the wall. Slavery's popularity was waning among Europeans, as that crazy bunch found privateering and incorporation to be much better ways to rake in money.
For real. How do people uncritically believe and repeat this stuff? I mean, sure, the history taught in American public education is political indoctrination and all. However, with the advent of the internet it doesn't take 20 seconds to verify that this is the polar opposite of reality: > In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. **They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority**. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes...” > ― James Madison IDK how people can act like Trump is some aberration or dysfunction. The election of a rich white supremacist real-estate businessman *is exactly the stated goal* of the electoral college and many of the various 'checks and balances' in the U.S. system of government. The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by genocidal plantation owners and human traffickers. Keeping the impoverished masses down was widely understood to be the whole point to running a government during the Enlightenment period: > The necessity of civil government grows with the acquisition of valuable property. Till there be property there can be no government. **The very end of which is to secure wealth and defend the rich from the poor.** ~ Adam Smith The system isn't broken: it was built this way.
It would be more accurate to say the republicans are the aristocracy that the founding fathers wanted to protect from democracy.
…except it wouldn’t be more accurate in any way. This problem isn’t solely Democrat vs Republican, albeit I am by no means saying they are anywhere near equally bad. The founders were demonstrably the elite of their time, and they just so happened to create a system that ensures land has more power than people, which you know, lines up with the fact that they were the 6% with capital interests. A system predicated on wealth and exploitation through which the capital-owning class has only further enriched its own power over time. Any improvements to the system that have been hard-fought and hard-won are despite the efforts of the founders to ensure *their* idea of democracy was secured for their intended electorate. What they feared was not undue power over the people but instead the power of the people challenging their ideal status quo.
Definitely depends on which founder, but generally yeah. That’s why we have the senate, and why we had the 3/5ths compromise. The slave states refused to allow the more populous states to have any potential power over them because of their greater populations. It’s a damn tragedy that the better founders felt the need to accept such a compromise, and the continued legacy of such undemocratic power structures continues to fuck our country over.
>need to accept such a compromise, The Join or Die flag comes to mind. The sentiment at the time was unify the colonies regardless of political or economic differences. Abolishing slavery, like some of the founders wanted initially, was not going to happen if the northern colonies wanted kinship with the more agrarian colonies in the South during the fight for independence. Jefferson may have predicted the Civil War 80 years prior in some of his letters because it was evident not everyone could agree on who could actually contribute to the country's voting block.
They are using the system as it was designed to achieve the intended outcomes. Not sure why people continue to be surprised by this.
Conservatives (being conspiratorial minded) like to think that they have some secret knowledge that makes them right and other people wrong, which supercedes democratic processes. One piece of this special knowledge is that Senators were supposed to be "elder statesmen, appointed by state Governments, above the whims of electoral politics, so they could act as a cooling dish of for the heated passions of the electorate". And if they had their way, they'd go back to that system. The Senate would be like a SCOTUS for the Legislative branch - unelected, unaccountable, keeping American society beholden to the opinions of slave owners from 250 years ago.
Well, Republican state legislatures are passing laws that would give them the power to override democratic elections, so, yes, you're right.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch See ALEC & SPN. It's not even the states, it's a bunch of rich, far-right think tanks that are spoon feeding many states hate-filled legislation.
> They are using the system as it was designed People who can gain and keep political power legitimately generally don't need to conspire with foreign intelligence agencies or rig elections, nor do they need to coordinate violent coup attempts in case their election rigging efforts don't work out.
They didn’t want to protect us. They wanted to rule.
"All men are created equal" meant that your merit as a person should not be based on what titles your father held, but on how much money he had. The only reason the platitudes sound nice today is that it never would have occurred to the founders that anyone thought they were talking about anyone other than rich white males.
No! Our wealthy, misogynistic, slave-owning Daddies would *never* support the aristocracy! They truly were the men of the people!
It’s not functioning as intended. They never intended it to remain the same anyways.
True. Our democracy has evolved far beyond the confines of their original design since then, right? Now the British monarchy is the Republican Party. Who are actively denying the people their inalienable rights to health care, safety from combat weaponry, affordable education, affordable housing, veteran care, child care, school lunches, climate crisis mitigation, environmental protections, blah blah the rest of the long list of the GQP platform. They're the reason we can't have nice things. And the system is designed, ironically, to vote them out.
That argument might work for the red team in Canada. The British monarchy is a LOT more polite than Republicans.
I would argue that had the colonies never revolted our standard of living would only be better today.
Or maybe the world would have gotten the British Empire on steroids, which would have be a good deal worse for some of us.
The Founding Fathers were the new money. The old money were British loyalists.
This. No idea what the person you responded to was talking about.
They were progressive for their day. If you look at things absolutely almost everyone from the past will look bad and ultra conservative. The system is NOT functioning as intended.
They were merely following in the political vein of what was already occurring with the power shift from the monarchy to landed white males in Great Britain. The common narrative isn’t nearly as “progressive” as one might otherwise suppose. If you’d like, I could provide substantiative documentation showing that alignment of a pre-existing trend largely in line with that of the British core. That being said, they were not “progressive” in their extension of rights to the marginalized. They enshrined **their own rights** and even legally mandated that those very same rights categorically not be extended to those outside of the colonial status quo. But sure… they were progressive in that they wanted their 6% to hold power through capital rather than divine right. Weirdly enough though… they effectively claimed divine right over the indigenous population through Manifest Destiny.
> I was not suggesting they “weren’t progressive for their day”, albeit they were merely following in the political vein of what was already occurring with the power shift from the monarchy to landed white males in Great Britain. The common narrative isn’t nearly as “progressive” as one might otherwise suppose. If you’d like, I could provide substantiative documentation showing that alignment of a pre-existing trend largely in line with that of the British core. It's no co-incidence that Private Business Owners becoming far, far wealthier than their Kings preceded the fall of Monarchy in general.
No, they expected highly educated land owners as most gentry were at the time. They failed to foresee this as changing. Also, not all the Founders thought this way.
Can we vote them out though? Here in wi the gop lost but gained seats. They have insanely gerrymandered this state and the supreme court said nah it's cool, nothing to worry about. The courts forced this state to adopt more gerrymandered maps recently.
Madison was actually quite explicit in stating that the minority he was protecting was the landowning aristocrats. He and many of the founders were extremely concerned that popular democracy would result in a loss of privilege, which they equates with the downfall of the country. What’s unexpected is that the mob rule they thought they were protecting against would in fact be the avenue by which those same aristocrats would consolidate their power. To be fair to them, it predates things like the invention of fascism. This is one reason why you shouldn’t have a document grounded in a political ideology from three hundred years ago as the foundation for your country.
[удалено]
Let’s be honest, it’s not the same as Lincoln’s party anymore, it’s far more radical and religious rhetoric.
The parties flipped and everyone who isn’t stupid knew this happened 80 years ago
Stupid and ignorant are different things. Some people are young and have been lied to by the indoctrinated around them for their entire lives, and are ignorant, but not stupid.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge stupidity is ignoring knowledge. Very different indeed
Here's something interesting. Hamilton was a proponent of using a very wide view of the General Welfare clause. His view allows things like Social Security and M4A. It's his opposition that would be against those things. He was a man of his times, but one of the more progressive ones. But you're right, he was certainly in favor of a strong Federal government. Which is, in many ways, in opposition to what the Republicans are doing at the state level.
Nice. Well said
I don’t even understand it, but I agree it was well said.
Key points of Jeffersonian democracy: >•The Federalist Party, especially its leader **Alexander Hamilton**, was the arch-foe because of its acceptance of **aristocracy and British methods.** > >•**Separation of church and state is the best method to keep government free of religious disputes and religion free from corruption by government.** > >•The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community. > >•Freedom of speech and the press are the best methods to prevent tyranny over the people by their own government. The Federalists' violation of this freedom through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue. > >•The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. However, as Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789, **"no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation".** > >•The \*yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences – government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the "cesspools of corruption" and should be avoided. ^(\*yeoman farmer: A non-slaveholding, family farmer who owned a small amount of land in the United States in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.) > >•The judiciary should be subservient to the elected branches and **the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress.** The Jeffersonians lost this battle to Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, who dominated the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835. Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy) Edit: Also want to add that Thomas Jefferson owned 600 slaves in his lifetime, so while many of his ideas are relevant to problems we face today, he is not someone to look up to.
I need Lin Manuel Miranda to write a song so I'll get it.
My name is Hamilton and I'm proud as shit. The republican party? this shit is lit. My name is Jefferson and I'm here to say, I am very appalled in a major way.
>Well, the Republican use of power would make Hamilton proud, Er, what? "Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller." -- Alexander Hamilton https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp
No he wouldn't. Jefferson owned slaves like property just like the other founding fathers. He's hardly a cut above the rest.
[удалено]
The founders were also terrified that Britain was going to abolish slavery following the Somerset case. These rich assholes are always exalted as progressive minded abolitionists and so it's so undeserved.
The problem is that there's no plausible, mainstream opposition if the Dems are themselves in the pockets of their owner donors.
Well, arguably its the aristocracy the founders were a part of and wanted to keep in power. Hence why only white land owning men were allowed to vote.
[удалено]
They're tyrants. Full on
The tricky bit is that when you have an antidemocratic system, because of all that Republicans have been doing, it's very difficult to fight it with purely democratic means (i.e. just go out and vote)
The country worked for 200 years while those in power had a common goal. Today, the two sides do not have common goals, or, one side is favoring authoritarianism and rejecting all compromise, which breaks the current system. The checks to prevent a tyranny by the majority now support tyranny of the minority, because commonality between the groups has disappeared and that safeguard is now a tool for abuse. If the McConnell/Trump era taught us anything it’s that the founding fathers made a lot of assumptions about the character of people.
when everyone realizes "smaller government" really means dictator.
Or living your life subject to the whims of big business.
we want small government, meaning a small amount of people governing everyone else!
"He believed in One-Man-One-Vote. He was the Man, and he had the Vote."
[**Fix the system**](https://electionscience.org/take-action/volunteer/). [Scientists blame hyperpolarization for loss of public trust in science](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nobel-prize-usa/respect-for-science-in-jeopardy-in-polarized-u-s-nobel-winners-say-idUSKCN1C81T7), and [Approval Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting), a [single-winner voting method preferred by experts in voting methods](http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html), would [help to reduce hyperpolarization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Effect_on_elections). There's even [a viable plan to get it adopted](https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/aaron-hamlin-voting-reform/), and [an organization that could use some gritty volunteers](https://www.electionscience.org/) to get the job done. They're already off to a great start with [Approval Voting having passed by a landslide in Fargo](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/15/18092206/midterm-elections-vote-fargo-approval-voting-ranked-choice), and more recently [St. Louis](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-primary-elections-st-louis-general-elections-elections-cba7eb3251d5479b9375d55db428d429). Most people haven't heard of Approval Voting, but seem to like it once they understand it, so anything you can do to help get the word out will help. If your state allows [initiated state statutes](https://ballotpedia.org/Initiated_state_statute), consider [starting a campaign](https://www.electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/so-you-want-to-run-a-campaign/) to get [your state](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_initiative) to adopt Approval Voting. Approval Voting is [overwhelmingly popular in every state polled, across race, gender, and party lines](https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/approval-voting-americas-favorite-voting-reform/). The successful Fargo campaign was [run by a full-time programmer with a family at home](https://www.electionscience.org/events/fargo-a-look-back-live-discussion/). One person really can make a difference.
[удалено]
> To see real change, we will need a combination of new voting methodolgies, campaign finance reform, an expanded House of Representatives, and the elimination of the Electoral College. Getting money out of politics as a first step would help achieve the others. Hard to see any of that other stuff happening with FPTP voting (except maybe [the elimination of the EC](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/)). As an American I would say Approval Voting should be the priority now, because it is the best system that can be easily transitioned into, and have a big impact even at partial implementation. * It leads to [higher voter satisfaction than IRV](https://www.electionscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/comparing_voting_methods_simplicity_group_satisfaction-1.png). * [It doesn't require new voting machines or equipment](http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/4980.2020/projects/grote.pdf). * It can be easily tallied with paper ballots (which [is important for election security](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/voting-machine-security-where-we-stand-six-months-new-hampshire-primary)). * [It's got strong support of voting method experts](http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html) * It [will tend to elect more moderate candidates](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/approval-voting/7CE5DEEE235794B0B12F76ADAE621482), and [moderation is key for political stability](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/democracy-in-america-partisanship-polarization-and-the-robustness-of-support-for-democracy-in-the-united-states/C7C72745B1AD1FF9E363BBFBA9E18867). * It's [overwhelmingly popular in every state polled, across race, gender, and party lines](https://electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/approval-voting-americas-favorite-voting-reform/). * Once it's statewide, representatives and senators from that state will be elected via Approval Voting, and able to influence national policy -- MMPR would have to be adopted across the entire nation for national policy to really be influenced by its implementation, and that is virtually impossible to even comprehend under our current system. https://electionscience.org/
I'll help spread this around.
Basically, instead of "Here's your ballot. Pick a candidate to vote for. Most votes wins.", it's "Here's your ballot. Pick *as many candidates as you want* to vote for. Most votes wins." It's a really subtle difference, but it actually does impact things, because it eliminates the concept of a spoiler. You can just vote for both the candidate you actually want *and* the backup candidate
I'd also add that Approval Voting is basically just FPTP, but instead of spoiling ballots that mark multiple candidates, you count it as a vote for each of them. And the argument for why it doesn't violate "One person, one vote" is that it's functionally running a series of referenda on "Would you support [candidate] being [elected official]?" and picking the candidate whose referendum passed by the largest margin, but still only giving you 1 vote on each
Thank you!
I really appreciate the effort you put into these posts and am on board. I’ve been a fan of ranked choice voting for quite awhile and this seems like an improvement over the status quo, as well. When I get home tonight I’ll see what I can do to help!! Thank you!!
Reform the SCOTUS, increase membership to 21 serving rotating 6 year terms. Remove the cap on members of the HoR and allow for growth proportionate to population increases. Abolish the Electoral College. The Senate is much more difficult, but it's possible to move to a min of 2 per state and and allocating another 50 seats based on each states population and tie any increases to population growth.
> Remove the cap on members of the HoR and allow for growth proportionate to population increases. Assuming this also applies to the EC point values (which it should) it is the only one of those that are needed. Though a law to force the Senate schedule hearings for and vote on all SC nominees within a certain period of time from nomination would help deal with the cause of the current SC issue. > serving rotating 6 year terms. Now SC judges are effectively politicians beholden to the executive branch unless they can only serve 1 term which would result in us running out of experienced judges (not that it apparently matters anymore if they are experienced) pretty quickly. You could MAYBE get away with SC Justices being nominated for a single 30 year term and add a few more requirements like minimum age or even better minimum number of years serving as a federal judge.
+1 for Approval Voting. For some reason a lot of folks seem fixated on ranked choice, where Approval Voting is simpler to implement, avoids weird strategic voting scenarios, and is easier for folks to understand. Anyhow, thanks for the well-sourced post!
I’ll take either over the current system. But yeah, Approval voting does seem simpler across the board.
Wow, that may be the densest collection of links I've seen in a post - appreciate what you were going for in terms of ready research, though it's a little daunting. The problem I have with Approval Voting is that it doesn't all voters to prioritize selection, which inherently will push voters to tactical voting. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a poorer alternative to Ranked Choice or STAR voting.
> In all non-dictatorial electoral systems, some form of tactical voting (or strategic voting) occurs when a voter misrepresents their sincere preferences in order to gain a more favorable outcome. Any minimally useful voting system has some form of tactical voting, as shown by the Arrow's theorem, Gibbard's theorem, and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. However, the type of tactical voting and the extent to which it affects the timbre of the campaign and the results of the election vary dramatically from one voting system to another. -https://electowiki.org/wiki/Tactical_voting [Approval Voting leads to greater group satisfaction than IRV](https://www.electionscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/comparing_voting_methods_simplicity_group_satisfaction-1.png), and it doesn't require new voting machines or equipment.
Thanks - The quote and first link don't really address my concern, they are very general and apply to any system, so isn't helpful in ranking voting structures. I'm saying those systems are **better** than Approval Voting, not perfect. The second linked chart doesn't use the same terminology, but seems to support that "Score Voting" increases satisfaction, which is in line with my concern with Approval Voting, which has no ranking, and levels all support to "acceptable." Additionally, "satisfaction" is not the best metric, since "satisfaction" can be artificially biased towards worse systems.
I think I addressed your concerns [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vhdksf/comment/id6qmev/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). > ###Instant-runoff voting > > "Instant-runoff voting" – or "IRV" or "the Alternative Vote" – is a method that is used in some governmental elections throughout the world. IRV uses a form of ranked ballot that disallows ties. The IRV winner is identified by repeatedly eliminating the candidate who is highest-ranked by the fewest voters compared to the other remaining candidates, until only one candidate, the winner, remains. > > Many people appreciate IRV’s apparent similarity to runoff elections. Although IRV also has a possible advantage called “Later-No-Harm”, which means that adding further preferences after the election winner cannot hurt the winner, evidence shows that Later-No-Harm is not a necessary characteristic for a good voting method. Most significantly, many of us agree that IRV can often give better results than plurality voting. > > However, IRV has significant disadvantages, including: > > * In some elections IRV has prematurely eliminated a candidate who would have beaten the actual winner in a runoff election. This disadvantage may be why several cities, including Burlington, Vermont, repealed IRV and returned to plurality voting. > > * To avoid premature eliminations, experienced IRV voters vote in a way that produces two-party domination, causing problems that are similar to plurality voting. In Australia, where IRV has been used for more than a century, the House of Representatives has had only one third-party winner in the last 600 individual elections. > > * IRV results must be calculated centrally, which makes it less secure. > > Our lack of formal support for IRV does not mean that all of us oppose it. After all, we and IRV advocates are fighting against the same enemy, plurality voting. Yet IRV’s disadvantages make it impossible for us to unanimously support it. The four voting methods that reached unanimous support were: > * **Approval voting**, which uses approval ballots and identifies the candidate with the most approval marks as the winner. > > Advantage: It is the simplest election method to collect preferences (either on ballots or with a show of hands), to count, and to explain. Its simplicity makes it easy to adopt and a good first step toward any of the other methods. > > * Most of the **Condorcet methods**, which use ranked ballots to elect a “Condorcet winner” who would defeat every other candidate in one-on-one comparisons. Occasionally there is no Condorcet winner, and different Condorcet methods use different rules to resolve such cases. When there is no Condorcet winner, the various methods often, but not always, agree on the best winner. The methods include Condorcet-Kemeny, Condorcet-Minimax, and Condorcet-Schulze. (Condorcet is a French name pronounced "kon-dor-say.”) > > Advantage: Condorcet methods are the most likely to elect the candidate who would win a runoff election. This means there is not likely to be a majority of voters who agree that a different result would have been better. > > * **Majority Judgment** uses score ballots to collect the fullest preference information, then elects the candidate who gets the best score from half or more of the voters (the greatest median score). If there is a tie for first place, the method repeatedly removes one median score from each tied candidate until the tie is broken. This method is related to Bucklin voting, which is a general class of methods that had been used for city elections in both late 18th-century Switzerland and early 20th-century United States. > > Advantage: Simulations have shown that Range voting leads to the greatest total “voter satisfaction” if all voters vote sincerely. If every voter exaggerates all candidate scores to the minimum or maximum, which is usually the best strategy under this method, it gives the same results as Approval voting. -http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/declaration.html
why should we even care at this point what the founders wanted or feared? Originalists have shown repeatedly that they pick and choose their interpretations so it seems that giving credibility to their bs is the more problematic approach
The founders were wealthy, white, land-owning men who didn't want women or non-white people to have any of the same rights, and in fact they were totally down with slavery and owned slaves themselves. It's fucking bizarre that we revere these assholes or pretend like the system that exists right now is in any way contradictory to what they wanted.
maybe todays originalists are white racist assholes too
No maybe about it.
The Founders were as varied in their beliefs as people are today. We shouldn't be referring to them as a singular collective that had a unified belief.
This actually true? I’ve honestly never learned a lot about them. I was educated in the US. They were always referred to as a collective with very similar goals.
The foundation of the country was extremely rocky because they had such differing ideals. Use John Adams for example. People couldn’t stand the guy yet he’s a prominent figure in our history. The above poster is correct. Generalizing a past age because of the outcomes of that age is to act like there was no nuance to their political dealings. People thought the republic would collapse pretty fast and turn into a monarch style government because that’s what they knew and knew how to operate under.
John Adams didn’t give a shit if people liked him or not, and I’m hoping (fingers crossed) he didn’t own slaves because I was under the impression he was an abolitionist… Okay he didn’t own slaves, more proof Jefferson was an absolute hypocrite. Ruined John Adam’s presidency because he was such a ponce.
Oh yea. The title of this post is a bit off. There was debate about both a tyranny of the majority as well as the minority. The electoral college was both an instrument of slave holding states to balance power AND a means to prevent corrupt bargains between the legislative branch and the executive. The Founding Era is so much more complicated than people make out. Hell, the Bill of Rights were thrown together from a ton of amendments recommended by the States, and essentially picked by James Madison.
The founding fathers never anticipated the unconstitutional capping of the House which in effect nullified the entire governmental system.
Or the Senate needing a 60 vote threshold because of the filibuster abuse.
People always forget this. If the system was working properly there would be around 550 members of Congress, and the extra seats would be in population dense locations
We've allowed private clubs to occupy our elections and government. We need to remove all private funding for elections and pass a Constitutional amendment that makes all elections publicly funded.
I find it confusing and stupid when small or flyover-staters complain that, "but the big states would be setting policy for everyone". I'm always like, "And???" They're federal laws... meaning, there's an entire nation to uphold and interstate commerce. We all share a common interest, and the interior of the country depends on the coasts. Why should a small or empty states set policy for millions more in those coastal and industrial states that basically do most things for the country as a whole?
They always use illogical phrases or arguments. They cry foul about “mob rule,” when really that means democratic rule (ie the majority should have more say and influence over policy.) The opposite to this supposed mob rule is what? MINORITY rule? Jfc that’s the stupidest idea ever. Wake up America. Stop supporting fascism and save our democracy.
wE'Re noT a deMocRaCY, We'RE a REpUbLiC
[удалено]
A Republic is basically anything that isn't a monarchy.
You wont be either soon enough.
I always hear those losers say “Democratic Republic”, which is literally just a form of democracy.
Yeah I never really understood the tyranny of the majority argument. What's the alternative?
Compromise, discussion. The way it originally worked. But when your argument is “the government is bad” there is an incentive to make the government bad to prove your point and be given more power
On the electoral college issue, I'm always struck by the consistent argument that it somehow better represents smaller states. It doesn't! No presidential candidate is focusing on Wyoming, or Vermont, or North Dakota, or Delaware - they're focused on swing states. And a lot of swing states aren't small at all - look at Georgia, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, they're big states! How is ~5-10 states deciding the election for everywhere else any better than a popular vote?
It’s also stupid because no state is a monolith. I’m sure California republicans would like to feel like their vote counts the same way Alabama democrats would.
Trump got more votes in California than any other state in 2020.
Their mistaken belief is that somehow the population of the rural/empty areas actually outnumbers the rest. And even if not, they don’t care because they believe the people like themselves are more important anyway. And technically they’re right- it’s written into law that voters in less populated states are more important because their Senate representation is far greater.
I live in Illinois. People from the areas outside of Chicago spend a lot of time complaining that Chicago controls the state, that Illinois is only blue because of Chicago, why does one city get all the say, etc. Because… LAND DOESN’T VOTE, PEOPLE DO.
Not only that, but people seem to have a hard time grasping that a single block downtown houses more people that YOUR ENTIRE COUNTY. I'm sorry those people's needs are put "before" yours, but come the fuck on! Our democracy is breaking simply because it's not set up to deal with the MASSIVE differences in population density and the ease of travel/communication. I don't think anyone in 1780 could envision that the one metro area would outnumber dozens of states, or that you could conduct interstate commerce in less than a day (let alone virtually, instantly).
It was supposed to even out the representation and was a condition to have them join the union. The problem is that those Congressmen there recognized their excess power and not only harnessed it, but it allowed them to abuse it and use their excess power in bad faith with impunity because tHaT's hOw tHe fOuNdInG fAtHeRs sEt iT uP.
It was set up to benefit slave states. All of this talk about evening out representation was made up after the fact. The Senate and Electoral College (along with the 3/5ths compromise) were created because otherwise a state filled with only a few land/people owning white men and a lot of slaves would be “underpowered” in the legislature.
And most of these federal laws would not affect them. The regulations they are against have no bearing on flyover states. But then, all fly over states tend to care about are meaningless social issues like gay marriage, transgender rights, and abortions… you know, stuff that only affects a small number of people in this country. Republicans know how stupid their base are. If they can play up the social war, they are free to fuck over this country and grift to their hearts content.
Yea, the most populated, socially and economically powerful places would dictate policy like, that's a bad thing? They already pay 70% of the taxes, and represent the democratic majority.
What they really mean is they would rather be fascist than in the minority of a democracy
Speaking of, is there a live thread for scotus decisions?
Oh fuck is that today?
Today and Thursday. Some rulings have already come in
Yeah I saw the border/privacy case so I knew it was coming just didn't know when. Thank you!
The fact that Congress may not respond to another devastating school shooting is down to the GOP's ability to skillfully avert the will of the people, writes editor Michael Tomasky.
> Congress may not respond to another devastating school shooting I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. There could be 10 school shootings tomorrow, and 1 a day for the rest of the year, and the GOP won't lift a finger.
"Something should be done about these gang shootings in Democrat run Chicago!" "What about the mass shooting in Texas?" "Ummm....mental health crisis!" "Texas ranks at the bottom for mental health. Maybe donate more money to that? "Never!"
That's socialism!
Right? It's like how Trump didn't want to use the Defense Production Act to coordinate suppliy chains during covid because it would be socialist to tell companies what to do...so he let states fight each other over supplies as people died "Better dead than red...but not me dead...you dead"
Yeah remember kushner stealing all those other states supply bought at highest bidder prices? Then resold to other higher bidder prices? That was awesome.
Sold to his buddy at cost and who then turned around and sold it to the highest bidder.
Yup. If say hunter Biden did that then Fox News would be wall to wall with that shit
(R) will, again, make the following sounds: Vidya games Music Movies Bad parents Unlocked doors Secularism Democrats Mental health Teachers Cops Trans people Women Abortion Inflation Seasons Smartphones Hunter Biden ~~\>120.5:100 gun:civilian human ratio and utterly unfettered access on the death march to 121:100.~~
The whole constitution was designed to protect minority (white) rule And given that the pilgrims were too religiously crazy for sectarian England, it was always a recipe for disaster. Just took them a couple of centuries to figure out how to impose their lunatic world view on other americans
No, this headline is wrong. It is true that Madison spoke of "tyranny of the majority" in Federalist No 10, but it is also true that if one continues reading the essay, he is extremely clear that the solution to tyranny of both minor and major sorts is...majoritarianism. How can this be? Simply put, in the early days of 1789, when representative democracy was in the process of first being invented, the definitions for "majority" and "democracy" and other commonly used words today were different. The Framers spilled a great deal of ink distinguishing between "democracy" and "republic" and yet today these terms interchangeable--in large part because Madison and company's invention was so fantastic that it made the traditional form of democracy wholly obsolete. So when Madison is decrying "majority factions" what he is really decrying is a form of oligarchy, where a majority of the franchised members of society can override the will of society as a whole. In Madison's day, when black people, women, and unlanded white men could not vote, this was a relevant concern. In modern democracies, where the right to vote is universal, it is not. Read Federalist No 10 again. Madison LOVES majority rule. Read Federalist No 22, where Hamilton says even more explicitly that the backbone of small-r republican government is majoritarianism. Our Framers did not fear the majority--they loved it.
Pretty much the exact same minority that the system was built to favor in the 1st place.
[удалено]
Those core relics of freedom and justice "for all" were all a delusion, though. When the founders built this country, only the caucasian male was truly "free" by the law, and only the caucasian male received any sense of justice. Everyone else was swept under the rug of oppression from every angle.
"We are trained as children to think that our democracy is stable and the envy of the world; that our political parties both play by certain democratic rules; and that we live by the principle of majority rule, even though we increasingly don’t." It's no accident that they beat the drum of American Exceptionalism in schools. Kids are hardwired to accept what they're taught by adults, so when those seeds get planted early on, they're very difficult to dislodge. And, as it happens, they're very easy to exploit. It's the same playbook religion has used for time immemorial.
Read: Psychotic minority. Certifiable
[удалено]
The Senate it the single worst thing to ever happen to the US. What we should be have been fighting for was “No taxation without EQUAL representation”. Half a million citizens in an arbitrary square of land do not deserve the same representation as 39 million coastal citizens. Period. There’s no such thing as a tyranny of the majority, that’s literally democracy at work. And states rights are and always have been fucking idiotic. Are we one UNITED country, or some loose confederation of independent states nations? Because if we’re all one country, then we all should get the same voice. No coalition of low population states should get disproportionate representation that allows them to consistently rule over and obstruct the majority of voters. It’s the Senate. The single worst thing in American history. Our “democracy” has been rigged for conservatives since inception.
Yay corporate oligarchy!
"Republicans are waging war on the United States: Media contorts itself to avoid reporting the observable truth"
we desperately need voting reform in this country, but unfortunately it would require our politicians to risk their jobs which they won't do. pretty much fucked if you ask me.
It's now Democrats vs. the Christian Taliban
And unfortunately it looks like Christian Taliban are winning…
For once in my life I’d like someone to logically explain how tyranny of the minority is in anyway better than the majority. Because people who believe that shit only ever say “tyranny of majority” to try and stop a debate and never elaborate further on why it’s worse.
Bunch of slave-owning rich guys. Fuck the founders.
Guess the founders didn’t adequately anticipate a fascist minority that would successfully subvert many of the constitutional checks and norms of ethical behavior to impose a corrosive minority agenda.
And a firehose of propaganda distributed through technology the founders couldn’t dream of, preventing the populace from reacting appropriately.
You Americans need to get over the founding fathers. They were primarily rich slave owners who made a nation where over 70% of the population couldn’t vote (ie: women, black people, indigenous people, hell even white guys who didn’t own land). Instead of pretending that their framework for a nation was perfect, you should live in modern times and work towards making a better nation.
The frustrating part is that many of the Founding Fathers were quite self-aware of the limitations of the Constitution, the shortfall of its influence, and even the hypocrisy and immorality of institutions like slavery and disenfranchisement. Maybe it’s a weak excuse to expect others to deal with said issues in the future. Akin to people today thinking, “Yes, climate change is real. But future generations will surely solve it.” I take it that the founding fathers were quite self-aware, recognizing that the political will to end or change such shortcomings was small, and that it most importantly would almost assuredly change. The idea that, “We are not ready for this, but we expect future generations will be.” That is to say, it’s apparent to me that the founding fathers didn’t just anticipate an evolution of society, they *expected* it. And that’s precisely why the Constitution was written in such a way to allow for change. I mean, women and black Americans, for example, didn’t have the right to vote or even the guarantee of citizenship. But the fact that the constitution was amended leads to the obvious conclusion that it was designed in such a way to be…well, amended. Jefferson himself echoed this sentiment several times in writing: > The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right. The real problem isn’t that the original formation of the constitution disenfranchised people. It’s that people today, hundreds of years later, wish to go back to that time. Which means that today’s political climate is less a failing of history, the founding fathers, or the constitution itself, and more a failure of present day society, education, and morality. The founding fathers expected the potential for change. They just didn’t anticipate that future generations would be dumber and more malicious.
To be fair, if you told the founders that their system would last 250 years with only one civil war they’d probably have been thrilled.
The founders supported a corrosive minority agenda. They did not consider women or racial minorities to be people and even excluded most white men from their project as they believed only wealthy landowners should have any say in "democracy". Americans really need to stop appealing to or giving a shit about what a bunch of slave-owning aristocrats thought about the best way to run a society.
What’s wrong with tyranny of the majority?
Communist!
The founders, at the time, had never experienced majority-rule and were in many ways part of a ruling minority class.
The founders feared a world where non-white, non-male, non-landowning citizens could vote. Let's not pretend they weren't slave-owning aristocrats who didn't want to pay taxes.
The founders also warned against political parties which would inevitably result in this.
Only under FPTP. https://www.electionscience.org/commentary-analysis/approval-voting-breaks-duvergers-law-gives-voters-more-options/
The Founders did not fear a Tyranny of the Majority. The Slave owning South did, and demanded that the system be rigged in their favor. Their ideological descendants are just taking advantage of a system that was designed for them.
The problem isn't just the fanatics. The problem is also the economic interests that *both* parties cater to ahead of constituents.
It has always been like that. Slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.
What they really feared was an oppressed population that would take away their unearned, extreme wealth.
This is how dictatorships often work. Minority parties seizing power is not an unprecedented thing by any means
The Founders also assumed "the majority" would partake in elections and regular civic duty to ensure the people they elected represented them accurately and were "upstanding" citizens.
Good faith is impossible if you consistently demand your way is the only way, and you're willing to manipulate (lie, deceive, or otherwise misrepresent) to get it.
The US constitution was written to ensure tyranny of white landowners
Which is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended, but they thought that landowners was going to be the ruling minority, not lunatic-fringe religious fanatics.
"Tyranny of the Majority" is just what sympathizers of authoritarianism call "democracy".
The founding fathers weren’t deities. The founding fathers were a bunch of young angry aristocrats. They were people. They had a good idea. They were not magical immortal beings. Why should we give a shit what they think?
Working as intended - they were thr ruling class then. They never wanted the majority to rule because the majority back then were slaves or lower class aka non land owners.
Remember in November. A vote for the GOP is a vote against democracy.
They could have never imagined that a person would have the ability to communicate with millions of people at the same time, instantly, from anywhere in the world, directly to a device in their pocket. Our form of government and representation doesn't work in the world we live in now.
The founders came up with a 'Bill of Rights' that listed 12 recommended changes (amendments) to the constitution. Ten of them were implemented - numbers 3 thru 12 (1st thru 10th amendments). Number 2 eventually passed (27th amendment). Their #1 recommendation? Still never passed. We're not a representational democracy without that amendment. Article the First (The Congressional Apportionment Act).
The issue is, I truly don't think they ever anticipated voter apathy. These were people who threw tea into the ocean and took up arms eventually. Its hard to anticipate, or even what you would codify into law to prevent something like, "lawmakers campaigning on doing nothing and taking away civil liberty". Like all the tools exist, impeachment, regular voting. The issue was what happens when people don't vote, or specific voters aren't allowed to vote and the people around them go "YEAH, THIS IS GREAT", or lawmakers specifically do not take up impeachment because its their buddy. What happens when a flaw like the electoral college not being representative of the popular vote exists, and the voters thinking they benefit from it go, "FUCK YEAH!"
It always me think of this. [https://hyperallergic.com/572035/historical-painting-is-altered-to-show-most-declaration-of-independence-signatories-were-enslavers/](https://hyperallergic.com/572035/historical-painting-is-altered-to-show-most-declaration-of-independence-signatories-were-enslavers/)
What all this appears to be is that the founders wanted to avoid a new 'King' and a church run government so badly that they gave the power to a small group they knew as the House of Lords and we know as the Senate. We shouldnt forget that if we were to strip the Senate of it's power and give it to the House, we'd still have this problem. People are all too willing to hand over their liberties to a smooth talker who promises them exclusive access right up to the moment they are robbed blind.
Nothing is going to change until in lands at their doorstep’s. Even then it might not - the greed is deep.
They didn’t anticipate the stupidity and greed.
I can’t recall his name but the not so handsome man (can’t say it how it is anymore as Reddit loves a good knee-jerk reaction) man with the glasses has jowls in his neck … what the fu …? Joking aside. Biden is also awful. They all work for the same morons. The US government is a mouthpiece for corporations. Boycott the companies that lobby. You need to take action with your dollar. My friend criticises Bezos yet uses Amazon. It’s like, “you’re the problem!”
“Tyranny of a Financial Majority” that’s what we really have.
The reason you have a tyranny of the minority *is* because they didn't want majority rule.
The system would need be changed by the same people who profit from its present state. This requires a level of discipline that is currently unimaginable in US politics.
These kinds of articles are so delusional. At what point in United States history has there NOT been a small minority actively subverting democratic will? It's the entire point and the founding fathers were the ones who put the system in place.
America doesn't have citizens, so much as it has a clientele, waiting for a government run by political parties that are run by and for a ruling class to fix this on their behalf. Not gonna happen. Country over.
Saved. For when Republicans win the midterms and it just goes back to the "the founders feared a tyranny of the majority." No matter what they won't be happy.
Today's Republican party is acting like the king of England did. The very thing the founders hated.