Most Democrats Do Not Want To Safeguard Our Democracy

I'll easily answer your question. Yes and no. Why? Because one day, if humans get beyond their pettiness, a one world government, working co-operatively with the people, would actually be a boon to humans. But that can only happen when human greed, power hunger, and pettiness is gotten past. But right now, it's simply not possible. So, at this point in time, I don't want it, but I can see a future where there are no borders.

As to why I asked the question, simple. You also want to get rid of the EC.

 

You suggest that there is a zero sum answer. That is a fallacy. You can support democracy, but also be against a direct democracy. Which is what you are advocating for.

 

That question is non sequitur to my wanting to get rid of the EC.

IN fact, it's a non sequitur question, period.

If you want to put some context around it, please do, but you didn't, and when I asked you to do so, you still didn't.

As for a one world government, that would require more evolution on mankind's part, for that idea to be even remotely viable.

 

Because you assume that everything is equal. Its not. Congress currently has an approval rating of 22.4. However each rep/senator in their own personal districts has at least above 50% approval rating. See the disconnect? There are Reps and Senators RIGHT NOW, that the majority of Americans would LOVE to get rid of. On both sides. But they rarely get voted out because the majority in their district disagrees with the rest of America. So its not near as simple as you make it out to be.

Is it worse? Really? Is it? We're currently giving billions to Afghanistan in "relief" money when it is currently being controlled by terrorists who have a history of interrupting that relief for their own personal benefit. Do we really need such a thing passed?

SCOTUS is not limited in order to help keep politics out of it. It is also to keep the experienced on the bench. It is also to prevent activism.

 

Marriage is a Right held by the people. No, I don't support the majority trying to take that Right away.

Didn't expect that answer? Surprise! I support same sex marriage and I argued in favor of it long before SCOTUS got involved.

 

Then I suppose you are outraged at Democrats:

FILIBUSTERS ARE RACIST RELICS OF JIM CROW, ALSO USED BY DEMOCRATS YESTERDAY:

Russia

Please point me toward your outraged posts over Dems using the filibuster.

 

You assume. As I stated to another poster, right now Congress has a 22.4 approval rating. However the individual reps/senators have at least 50% approval rating in their home districts. For supposedly not getting anything done and sucking at their job...they sure do get re-elected easy enough. Contrary to what you state here.

The only purpose of this fake filibuster rule was to limit what Civil Rights acts could be made law. 1970[/QUOTE]

The filibuster existed LOOONG before the Civil Rights acts. Learn your history before making such statements. The first filibuster ever used was to prevent a censure against President Jackson being expunged.

 

We have direct election of Governors, in 50 states.

We have representative democracy for bills being introduced and passed via the house of representatives and via representative legislatures in each state.

That is what 'representative democracy' means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy, is a type of democracy where elected persons represent a group of people, in contrast to direct democracy.

Representative democracy does not refer to how the president is elected no more than it refers to how a governor is elected.

"Direct Democracy" means a system were laws are passed by popular vote. No one is suggesting such a thing, and no western democracy, or the vast majority of them, are not direct, they are indirect. None of that refers to how the president is elected.

One can be for eliminating the EC, which was designed before parties existed, noting that the EC of Hamilton no longer exists, the EC of which is an idea whose time has passed, and replaced with 'one man, one vote' ( man or woman ) an idea whose time has come, and still be for representative democracy

The fallacy is yours.

 

Its not a non-sequitur if you understand what the EC is meant to do. However you believe that due to the 14th Amendment the reason that the EC exists is no longer valid and State Rights are no longer a thing to worry about. Which is why you want to get rid of the EC. You see it as archaic because you do not see the States as separate from the Federal Government. So, its a reasonable question when you consider your argument.

Already acknowledged.

 

and why is that? It's because of the filibuster, nothing gets done, so congressional approval drops.

When the filibuster was rarely used, approval of congress was a lot higher,

Congresses ever increasing disapproval is inversely proportional to the rise of the filibuster.

Doesn't change the above point.

Irrelevant deflection. We need to stop the gridlock, and the reason is the filibuster is being used on everything.
That never used to be the case, and we got things done.

The problem is NOT the filibuster, it is the ABUSE of the filibuster.

When a child abuses a toy you take it away.

However, restoring the talking filibuster would stop the abuse.

But permanence put politics into it, permanently.

The right and the left appoint judges whose 'judicial philosophy' conform to their policy objectives.

Now the right is blocking the left's appointments, until they get their own guy as president, at which point they appoint judges whose 'judicial philosophy' conforms to their policy objectives.

In other words, politics.

The best way to prevent lopsided courts is to set term limits.

 

We actually have a Republic. It is slightly different from a representative democracy, and largely different from a direct democracy. It is different in that our form of government has a separation of powers. By getting rid of the EC you are abolishing part of that separation.

 

When you ask " get rid of states" that goes way way way beyond any issue with the EC.

By that measure, it's non sequitur.

To remove the non sequitur, provide context, i.e., establish precisely what you mean by 'removing states'. .

 

yes, we have republic, now you are sidestepping the argument.

We have a representative democracy, a constitutional republic, and pretty much all of these things are two sides of the same coin.

None of this negates the notion that the election of the president via popular vote is an idea whose time as come. It means one person, one vote. It's done is a lot of representative democracies. In fact, are we not the only one with an EC? Other countries think we are crazy, and they are correct. (I suspect).

 

You might have a point...if the HoR also didn't have low approval ratings. They don't have a filibuster rule.

You brought up that its a bad thing that nothing gets done. :shrug: Blame yourself.

Then stop advocating getting rid of it. I'll support the talking filibuster...provided that everyone else on the Senate is under the same rules as the one doing the filibustering. IE: Not allowed to take breaks/leave etc etc.

No, politics put politics into it.

Or perhaps we just stop politicizing the courts.

 

I'm not sidestepping anything. You're ignoring the reason that EC exists. I've already previously stated why.

 

The EC is ABOUT the States. That is its purpose. If you get rid of the EC, then you might as well get rid of States and just label districts. That includes getting rid of the 10th Amendment. And just making the Federal government the sole power in the US. But then...it wouldn't BE the US would it since the "S" stands for "States".

 

I’m glad we still have a few people here who understand the Constitution. The 10th Amendment is so important I think every single act of federal government should be required to show how it specifically complies with it, or be rejected from the get-go.

 

LOL. So, you admit you have not lost any voting rights?

 

congress is comprised of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
They are joined at the hip. A bill requires consent and input of both houses, so the filibuster affects the bills both jointly produce.

Therefore, I do have a point, and point is still valid.

I brought nothing up about Afghanistan.

Great, we'll agree on the talking filibuster.

And now it's permanent. My point stands.

How are you going to stop Presidents from appointing judges whose judicial philosophy is compatible with his/her policy objectives?

Ain't gonna happen.

 

Should I have?
Have you?

 

I know why it exists, but the reason it exists was designed at time when the nation was something it no longer is.

The 13 states were relatively similar in size, with a few small ones the EC was designed to bring a larger voice to, as well as to diminish the tendency of factions to tyrannize other factions. .

However, it was never meant to penalize a state with 39,000,000 people so that Rhode Island would have a stronger voice because the framers could not have foreseen a state like California, not to mention that country is so large now the issue of factions no longer is relevant, what has emerged are two dominant parties which did not exist at the EC's conception. So, the entire reason for the EC is no longer works as it once did, the nation has evolved, our nation is constrained in harmful ways by it, not to mention that the EC of Hamilton ended a long time ago..

It's a dinosaur that has outlived it's usefulness.

The ONLY reason republicans like it is because it gives a republican vote far more weight than a democrat vote, and that isn't right.

I don't care how you slice it, it's not right, and that problem needs fixing.

The ONLY way to fix it is to do this:

One person, one vote, and whichever candidate gets the most votes, wins.

We will still have representative democracy.

 

In a sense, yes, but that doesn't mean get rid of states.

We would still have elections for governors, state legislatures, etc, these are all needed, interstate commerce regulations, and the like.

Currently a republican vote has more weight than a democratic vote, and that's not right. The problem did not exist when the EC was designed.

 

And the end result is that Presidential elections from then out play out to the wishes of four or five big states, ad infinitum. No thank you.

 

Getting rid of the filibuster is dumb now, just like it was dumb when Harry Reid changed the rules during his tenure. The Republicans clearly abuse it, just like the Democrats will when they are in the minority, but the only thing worse than the filibuster stalling government is government doing whatever it wants because the minority party gets no say. This is a step towards one-party rule and it's moronic. I wouldn't agree with this move even if I agreed with every item on the Democratic agenda, which I absolutely do not.

 

It does that now, and.........

not if the votes were counted on the same day, at the same time, and limiting
candidates electioneering, speeches, ads, etc., by national TV ads and hour long spots, occasionally, each given the same amount of time, federally financed. Physical appearances could be limited to five, appearing only in five states, chosen at random, every year, by lottery.

Takes all states out of the running, and all money out of the influence.