Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I'd say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy. But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents. How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy? In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

... by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority....

How is that different from the force of an overbearing minority, as we are experiencing now.

The problem appears not to be "majority" or "minority," but the overbearing part.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-04 07:45 PM | Reply

#1,

I think one big reason is to ensure large groups, like the poor, couldnt just enact laws that take money directly from small groups like the rich. Our system is good when people are compromising, not so much in today's climate.

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-04 08:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think one big reason is to ensure large groups, like the poor, couldnt just enact laws that take money directly from small groups like the rich. Our system is good when people are compromising, not so much in today's climate.
#2 | Posted by boaz

While I agree in general with what you say, what remedy is there when a minority ignores the will of the clear will of the people on numerous issues? And through either chicanery or the whims of the EC cannot be held accountable?

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-04 08:19 PM | Reply

@#2 ... I think one big reason is to ensure large groups, like the poor, couldnt just enact laws that take money directly from small groups like the rich. ...

Likewise, small groups, like the wealthy, should not be able to give huge tax breaks to their brethren small groups, like the wealthy.


But more to your point...

When I was in high school, the history teachers always said that democratic rule by a majority must also take into account the opinions of the minority. That, a democracy does not give absolute power to the majority.

Looking at the Senate and the Oval Office nowadays, I'd have to proffer that both the aims of a Republic and a Democracy have been foiled by the Republicans.


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-04 08:27 PM | Reply

Why shouldn't the poor pool their votes to strip money off the rich? The rich have been #&*$ the poor for centuries. Maybe its time to revolute.

#5 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-05 12:59 AM | Reply

Just begging to be drafted....

#6 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2020-02-05 07:03 AM | Reply

This is a mystifyingly stupid argument. We are a democratic republic, a democracy. There are several different organizational methods to get to democracy, and we have one. I've always thought that the flat denial the US is a democracy is intended to pave the way for whatever Donald Trump and the formerly patriotic Right want to see next.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-05 08:09 AM | Reply

Why shouldn't the poor pool their votes to strip money off the rich?

Umm.. because it isnt their money..

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-05 08:17 AM | Reply

When I was in high school, the history teachers always said that democratic rule by a majority must also take into account the opinions of the minority.

And that's one of the issues. This was also assuming that they majority could other's opinions into account and implement other opinions other than their own.

All or nothing politics is the opposite of what the founders intended.

One example is abortion. I dont like it. I dont think we should have it legal on demand. But I also understand that it's needed in some cases. Having abortion up to and until four months is a compromise. That's the majority taking into account the minority. That's also called moderate thinking.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-05 08:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Umm.. because it isnt their money..

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-05

What about those circumstances when it isn't the rich's money, either?

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-05 08:26 AM | Reply

What about those circumstances when it isn't the rich's money, either?

Money is personal property, it isn't some communal pie like taxes are.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-05 10:03 AM | Reply

Money is personal property, it isn't some communal pie like taxes are.

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-02-05 10:03 AM | REPLY

If you really get down to brass tacks. The dollar bills in our wallets and purses don't actually belong to us. They belong to the treasury which allows us to use them for transactions both public and private.

#12 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-05 10:11 AM | Reply

Yes, we're a republic. The people and their elected representatives have the power, and the representatives' authorities are restricted by a constitution. That's a republic.

More accurately, however, we are a representative democratic republic. Citizens elect representatives, who enact laws in their stead. In the US, our Constitution went one step further to protect against the "tyranny of majority" by giving every state an equal seat at the Senate table.

#13 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2020-02-05 10:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I think one big reason is to ensure large groups, like the poor, couldnt just enact laws that take money directly from small groups like the rich.
#2 | POSTED BY BOAZ"

So you're saying that doesn't happen.

The poor don't take money from the rich in America.

Not even that welfare queen with thousands of dollars worth of government benefits.

So then... Where's that money come from, Boaz?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-05 10:38 AM | Reply

The dollar bills in our wallets and purses don't actually belong to us.

Actually it does, you used to be able to return dollars for gold.

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-05 10:38 AM | Reply

Money is personal property,

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-05 10:0

Not if you steal it.

That's why Trump has had to refund a few tens of millions dollars.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-05 10:52 AM | Reply

Look at Jeffrey Epstein, or rather his murdered and moldering corpse.

Than man had an awful lot of money and no one yet understands where it came from. Best theory is blackmail. His money never belonged to him, he stole it from other people; many of which stole it in their turn.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2020-02-05 10:53 AM | Reply

"Actually it does, you used to be able to return dollars for gold."

OK Boomer.
In 2020 what can you return them for?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-05 10:59 AM | Reply

If we were a democracy, NY and Cal would elect all presidents. It is like 3 wolves and one sheep deciding what is for supper.

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-02-05 11:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If a majority of people,many of whom happen to be poor,elect representives and senators who vote to create high progressive taxes on the rich. Is that stealing their money? Is taxation theft if a person feels it to be too high? The rich in this country seem to want very low or no taxes on themselves or their interests. At the same time they want services in the form of legal protection from theft,common infrastructure and access to markets. They want no antimonopoly laws to stop them from gouging the public and weaker producers of goods and services. They want no environmental protection for other species because that drives up the COST of production. Seem to me they want and GET an awful lot. The poor are trying to survive and maybe get ahead a little. In the balance it seems to me that many rich folks are just parasites on the labor and puchasing power of everyone else. This is a very OLD story, it's why socialism is coming in one form or another. The rich will not get EVERYTHING their own way forever.
Y
,

#20 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-05 11:46 AM | Reply

Our system is good when people are compromising, not so much in today's climate.

#2 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I think even when things are good the system should be updated to proportion EC votes by vote percentages.

Winner takes all at the state level isn't better than winner takes all at the national level.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-05 11:58 AM | Reply

That's also called moderate thinking.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

LOL now do the second civil war!

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-05 12:00 PM | Reply

Winner takes all at the state level isn't better than winner takes all at the national level.

The federal level should have no business in what the states are doing.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-05 01:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Actually it does, you used to be able to return dollars for gold."

OK Boomer.
In 2020 what can you return them for?

#18 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If the Democratic Party is any indicator, you can swap dollars for votes.

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2020-02-05 02:28 PM | Reply

#23 sounds like a talking point that sounded great in the argument in your head.

Doesn't at all address what I said though.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-05 06:18 PM | Reply

"The federal level should have no business in what the states are doing."

Spoken like a true Confederate!
Weird how you spent your life fighting for the wrong side in that war...

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-05 07:02 PM | Reply

"The federal level should have no business in what the states are doing". If that's true than states should be free to ban guns and the Constitution itself would be moot. We would have 50 countries not a United States.

#27 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-06 12:22 AM | Reply

If that's true than states should be free to ban guns and the Constitution itself would be moot.

They are free to put controls on gun ownership, they just cant ban it's ownership outright. Which is what is happening. Problem is, liberals want to ban them all over the country, even in places where the liberals themselves might not live. That's why the country is a republic and not a democracy.

We would have 50 countries not a United States.

In a way, we do. And that's what the founders envisioned. They envisioned people joined together as a state, sharing a shared country, but the state being autonomous.

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2020-02-06 06:10 AM | Reply

If we were a pure republic, most Republicans would be swinging from a gallows right now.

But today's rat-infested gop has a way of ignoring reality, history and scholarship.

#29 | Posted by kudzu at 2020-02-06 09:20 AM | Reply

If we were a democracy, NY and Cal would elect all presidents. It is like 3 wolves and one sheep deciding what is for supper.

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-02-05 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:
| Funny: 1

Wou are one stupid SOB if you find the truth funny.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-02-06 11:27 AM | Reply

"The federal level should have no business in what the states are doing."

Someone forgot to tell Lincoln.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2020-02-06 11:55 AM | Reply

Maybe 50 countries constantly at war would be better than a United States. Europe certainly has done well. We need more languages though,that makes the hating easier LOL.

#32 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-02-06 12:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort