Okay, are you looking for a debate on the viability or merit of each individual proposal you listed, assuming for the sake of argument that the first list consists of problems in need of fixing?
~Max
I’m looking for a debate based on the assumption that democracy should be egalitarian and represent the will of the people while still protecting the rights of minorities and the marginalized. I feel the founding fathers failed miserably at this. If other people in the thread want to debate that, that is fine but my intent with the debate was discussion how much we’ve undone the damage they did in the last 240 years, but also what new reforms we need to pass in the future to continue to undo the damage they did.
But as I said, some reforms are realistic and some are probably unconstitutional and unrealistic.
Okay, please bear with me as I try and pin you down to a question.
The first question is, over the past 240 years, how much damage have we undone to democracy in the United States? Premise, democracy was damaged by the founding fathers, rather than built by them and their successors.
The second question is, how do we fix democracy in the United States? And otherwise is not limited in scope. For this second question why not visit one of the two existing threads?
~Max
The basic problem I have with this is just that if we’re going to have a legal age of majority, it should be ONE legal age of majority. I’ve always found the scattershot approach kind of silly. If you can vote at 16, you should also be able see an R-rated film (or X, for that matter), join the military, sign legal contracts, drink booze, smoke cigarettes, get married, consent to sex and all the rest of it. If you (or society) don’t think 16 is sufficient for any of those then it should be set at 17, 18 or whatever.
Regardless it is not like giving 16-year old the vote would make a bit of difference in elections. 18-year olds already don’t turn out much, 16 and 17-year olds would be even worse.
Authors such as Charles Beard, William Hogeland, and Robert Overtz—among others—have argued they didn’t screw up, they built more or less the system they wanted and all things considered, it continues to function more or less as they wanted it to.
The issue is we have multiple ages which are milestones of maturity. In the US ages 16, 18 and 21 are big ones. But there are other ones too. 25, 30, 35, 55, 59.5, 65, etc.
I agree totally. They didn’t screw up accidentally, they wanted an aristocratic system that wasn’t responsive to the will of the people. Thats why we’ve had to spend 240 years fixing it and still have a lot of work left to do.
Moderating:
This thread appears to be discussing virtually the same things as the two threads referenced above by @Max_S. Please let me know which of those two you would prefer to have this thread merged into. Thanks.
I haven’t read it yet, but the title of Hogeland’s latest book is The Hamilton Scheme: An Epic Tale of Money and Power in the American Founding. The aim was to “concentrate national wealth in the hands of a government-connected elite” and “suppress a rowdy egalitarian movement,” according to the synopsis.
That one seems like a better match
Thanks. I’ll merge them.
At the time, pretty much all fields were just “philosophy”. Galileo described the path of the stars over a century earlier (not to say that his version was perfect, but it was many levels past a crayon scribble on a napkin) but was working in the same field as John Locke. Astronomy broke out on its own in the 18th century.
The framers reviewed and commented on the history of political systems, that they knew until that time.
There were many voting systems in the literature and the condorcet condition was proposed in the 13th century.
The Framers were people who had experience as politicians, coming from a variety of states and organizations with different cultures and election systems.
To be sure, just as we’ve improved our knowledge of the stars, we’ve improved our knowledge of the trade-offs of different political systems. But that is a different statement than saying that they were ignorant in the field.
To my awareness, there’s no evidence that a shift from a well-appointed republic to a more direct democratic system that the results are better.
In general, the more democratic you get, the more you get populist leaders that trash everything and try to lock up their opponents.
I think we were ignorant. The concept of political science as a field didn’t even exist until the late 19th century. How many books, studies and articles have been written in the last 240 years? Generally the more knowledge we have the better. Nobody would claim medicine, economics or mathematics was better in 1770 vs 2024.
As an example of why a more democratic system is better, consider the fact that in the beginning only white men, age 21+ who owned property and paid taxes could vote.
I believe this map is from 2016. If only white men were allowed to vote, Trump would’ve won with 493 EVs. Because non-whites and women could vote, Trump only won with 304 EVs.
Also we’ve been locking up our opponents from the start. In WW1 people were given 20 year prison sentences for opposing WW1. This was before non-whites and women could vote.
America didn’t get worse as we opened the voter rolls. It got better. There has been some pushback though. Empowered women and minorities are causing whites high in bigotry to become more bigoted, but that always happens when out-groups grow in number and power.
Not really a fan of this; from my experience with California’s ballot initiatives they are really easy for demagogues and the wealthy to use to ram their dream schemes into law. You’d be more likely to get an initiative outlawing universal health care.
Since Dobbs, there is political will to do it, but the opposition prevents it. Not the same as saying, “we have what we want now, no need to pursue it,” that was the case under Roe.
I do like the idea of making things more fair. I haven’t fully reviewed the linked material, but I’m coming over to the secret ballot side. Weakening party affiliation and platforms and pushing more for evaluation is the candidates as individuals sounds great.
However, part of the reason parties exist is to provide some means of knowing candidate positions without having to take the time to meet or research every candidate individually.
Think about all the slots on your ballot, not just the top federal ones, but the ones down the ballot. Do you spend the time to find out what each judge or county commissioner or seat on the Land Commission has to say? How many voters are like that? There’s only so much time on our lives that isn’t already taken up by work and family and sleep.
But I do like making parties more competitive and having more options with different focus goals. Make the system allow wider differentiation than just more left vs more right.
I certainly support some means of ensuring fair access. Pulling federal electing out of state hands would be beneficial. Although it could lead to temptation for easier means to interfere on a large scale, since there would be one system to hack our influence.
I also recommend shrinking the total number of elected positions and giving people a day off for election day.
We should be voting for:
- Presidential elector
- Governor
- House representative
- State equivalent to a House representative
- County head
- County committee representative
- State head of elections - non-partisan role
From those, they should be able to appoint all of the rest. We shouldn’t be electing judges, AGs, school heads, etc.
For Senate and Senate-like roles, I recommend that the House-likes use an up-or-out system where, as they hit their term limits, they vote to continue or replace their Senate counterparts.
Ballot initiatives have flaws, yes. They can be used to take rights away from minorities. A lot of ballot initiatives were passed 15-20 years ago preventing gay people from getting married. California passed a ballot initiative about property tax that screwed up government funding.
The public generally want low taxes and high spending, which is not possible. So in that regard ballot initiatives are going to cause problems.
But ballot initiatives can also be good too. Some states have passed ballot initiatives codifying abortion access in red states. Some states have passed marijuana legalization. Some states have passed medicaid expansion under the ACA despite the state government opposing this.
Its a mixed bag. But if we could do ballot initiatives that have constitutional protections for minority rights it could be a good thing on the federal level.
Well I like your intent and 6/7 is pretty good but …
You do realise that if you elect ‘em, you get a partisan, no?
Now when you roll the electoral dice you might get a benevolent partisan, but fire-breathing partisans have a better track record in winning election campaigns.
I agree that this one is a bit questionable.
That said, appointment isn’t very nice and I’ve seen that some states have rules for “non-partisan” positions, that make it difficult to run with party affiliation. I’d want to review how those work and see if they seem up-to-snuff.
Assuming that they do work, I’d recommend a vote.
If they don’t, then my general fallback is to use sortition and a bit of internal voting among the resultant group, to create a citizen appointment committee that head hunts, interviews, and appoints the person.