Yes, once a decade.
It’s also the case that once in power at the state level, majorities can use an array of means at their disposal to keep power, which is what Republicans are doing in states with large minority populations (voter purges). Essentially, what Republicans are doing is proving that democratically-elected representatives can, once in office, destroy democracy, or at least the kind of democracy that is inclusive to a cross section of the population. Hence the term flawed democracy.
At least my old timey rhetoric doesn’t kill tens of thousands of people a year.
Just for the record, are you saying that a “regular” democracy should use the powers of the government to make it harder for people to vote?
You’re right, the president who won a majority of electoral votes should indeed get to see his or her Supreme Court nominees get hearings and confirmation votes from the Senate.
I’m sure he thinks it should be harder to vote only for those people that he fears would vote differently than he does. But it’s alright ma, it’s LEEEEEEEEEEEEGAL!
Incoherent.
Is the interval for election district configuration subject to democracy? Should election districts be reconfigured every election? I don’t think there is a majority in support of that.
So the rules of elections should not be subject to the whims of majorities? Sounds antidemocratic.
Only if you’re an idiot.
Says the guy who channeled 18th century slaveholding aristocrats to support democratic principles.
Those guys had really great ideas about equality and justice, it just didn’t occur to them to apply those ideas to people who weren’t white men. Shame on them.
Some of us are smart enough today to figure out how to do it. The big question is whether or not you’re in that category, or want to keep throwing down with the “it’s OK to make it hard to vote” crowd.
You are not this stupid. This was a response to “the majority makes the laws” as a defense of democracy. In that context, it thus means the majority of the people. Hence bringing up an example where the majority of the people were on the other side. ]
Changing the majority to mean the majority of a partially unelected body that only make pro forma votes due to rules is disingenuous, and a clear attempt at a dishonest tactic.
We have your number here. We know you use trickery and doublespeak to perform your rhetoric. We’re ready for any time you try to pull one over on us. Is there a reason you continue with this rather than debating honestly?
We are a hostile audience. You should have learned in school how to deal with one.
Holy shit man. How many times does it have to be spelled out to you that it’s not about the legality of the move, it’s about the ethics. Your axiom in the quote above has no grounding in reality and only has meaning in law. It appears you can not separate the two ideas.
Your stubborn adherence to legal axioms for your ethics & morals means you could easily be replaced by a contemporary digital assistant. You still haven’t defended Kemp’s actions on moral grounds.
Bricker isn’t stupid. He’s just a piece of shit troll who has abandoned any attempt at actual discussion long ago.
That’s a nice philosophical sentiment, but practically we know that this is false. You cannot infer that, because the government is elected, all governmental actions align with the people’s wishes.
He’s literally acknowledging that argument and dismissing it. According to Bricker it’s a tautology that a republic is expressing the will of the people, nevermind how patently false that is.
No they understood it fine. They just didn’t want everyone to vote because they were anti-democratic. You have adopted the preschool interpretation of history. I’m not interested in bedtime stories about the founders’ great democratic ideas.
Soooooo, the question as to whether or not you want to make it harder or easier for citizens to vote is still unanswered.
What does WillFarnaby think is democratic? Clearly it’s not the preschool interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, I wonder what it is? I’m guessing it really really depends on whose vote is being made difficult. Like Bricker, if it’s a member of our Armed Forces, the law should be ignored if their ballot happens to technically violate it, but if it’s a Welfare Queen™ technical violations are the best kind of violations. Those people should get with the program and not be such Losers™ who don’t have easy access to drivers licenses, and who foolishly ignored the wrong piece of mail.
A reminder of the mentality that is being dealt with here: Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube
The right to vote should be restricted whenever possible. It is only acceptable to vote in self-defense and the vast majority of voters vote for the initiation of force. Elections are public relations efforts by the state. If they are viewed as just, the state can get away with more mischief.
This explains why the voting privilege was extended as the government grew in scope and magnitude. What bout those thousands slaughtered and jailed each year? They were victimized by democratic laws.
As far as priorities, net tax takers should lose the vote before net tax payers. This means welfare queens and their military brethren should lose their vote at the same time.
Said laws can be changed through democratic force, provided that we have conditions that favor a true democracy that encourages the informed participation of different segments of society. Your solution to the corruption of democracy is simply having less of it, which is neither intelligent nor appealing. But we appreciate you for revealing your authoritarian colors.