Coll, lets discuss this then. Your ideas do not support equality. They support mob rule. Equality of voting is an interesting standard, but it is not absolute. Equality of rights under the law is more important. We touched on this before in the liberal thread. How would you prevent a simple majority from electing a tyrant?
The problem, I think is that you misrepresent the simple majority as the “will of the people”. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not. People vote mistakenly. Ballots are miscounted. Lots of things can come between the “will of the people” and a simple 50% plus 1 vote majority.
The constitution requires a much larger majority for certain decisions. Laws are enacted with simple majorities in most cases. Changing this rule, however, requires a super majority. This assures us that the “majority rules” rule is only subject to a certain “will of the people”.
Specifically, then, we do not have an unequal say in how we are governed. We only have an unequal say in changing this relationship. That is, it requires a super majority to elect a tyrant.
It doesn’t bother him that minorities would get slaughtered, haven’t you been reading? He cares only for abstract principles, not the fact that under his ludicrous and evil system 50,000,001 people could vote for the execution of 49,999,999 and that would be perfectly “democratic.” He’d probably line up to help run those democratically-empowered guillotines.
The constitution does not promote “democracy” to the exclusion of all other values. (And a good thing too) It is designed to create a dynamic balance between “democracy,” or majority rule, and “liberty” or the respect for the rights of individuals.
The central principle of the constituion–and the reason it is an unparalleled work of genius–is that no individual, and no group, can wield unchecked power. Not the President, not the Senate, not the Supreme Court, and, wait for it, not a bare majority of the voting population and any given time.
Now, regarding the electoral college and the apportionment of the Senate, I share your concerns about these insitutions. The “everybody large and small gets 2 Senators” rule was–as I’m sure most people reading this thread already know–a political compromise plain and simple. We’ve almost certainly outgrown it and I’d be happy to see it go. Same goes for the electoral college (which continues the crazy arithmetic by granting every state a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators + the number of it’s congressional representatives).
But your criticism goes far beyond the flaws in these two institutions–which flaws were largely (although not entirely) historical accidents in that they stem from the need to make certain compromises to get the Constitution adopted. You’re not only against non elected institutions–such as the Supreme Court–checking the majority. You’re even against making decisions (such as a decision to amend the constitution) by super majority vote.
You’re in favor of democracy (i.e. the rule of the 50.0001 % majority at any particular moment, above all else) and seem to believe either (1) that a democratic system is the best way to guarantee liberty (that is, protection from arbitrary rule) for all it’s citizens, or (2) that the concept of liberty is itself just an excuse used by the powerful (or the conservative, or both) to limit the majority from taking their proper place at the head of the table.
The problem, as Richard Posner explained so well, is that “too much democracy in the short run leads to too little in the long run.”
2sense can you really not see the danger inherent in letting a bare majority make every decision?
What if that bare majority decided to trample on the rights of a minority–by, I don’t know, enslaving them or something?
What if a majority today decided to change the law and disenfranchise everyone born from here on out? No new voters. What’s to stop them?
What if they voted that everyone had to get a tatoo?
What if they voted to kill an old man named Socrates because he was corrupting the youth by asking all kinds of upsetting questions?
That’s the nicest thing anyone ever said about me on these boards. Unfortunately you decided to follow that statement with a qualifer about me making mindless platittudes. Let’s exam that just for a moment.
**
**
You asked how it could be justified and I provided a reasonable answer. It wasn’t long drawn out explanation but I’d hardly call it mindless.
**
The minority can’t deny a persistent majority. If the Executive branch vetos a bill then the Legislative branch can still pass it with a 2/3rd majority. If the courts rule the law to be unconstitutional then the majority can amend the Constitution.
…and come to think of it, we ARE all close to a position of (nominal) “equality”. We’re all “equally” stuck within the less-than-absolutely-democratic structure. And even in the ultra-democratic state, those of us with money and connections and skills at “gaming” the system could still get an advantage over those without.
In what sense have we “outgrown it”? You couldn’t get the states to agree to change it, so I’d say it’s still a valid concept. And it’s not just the small states. By using the winner-takes-all system, a large state like CA can exert more influence with the EC than it could if the PV were used instead.
We’ve outgrown the idea that a small state gets–by historical accident–disproportionate representation in the national legislature. We’ve outgrown it in the sense that it was never such a great idea to begin with, and was done merely as a compromise to get the smaller states to join the union.
We’ve outgrown it in the sense that small population states, which are mainly but not entirely in the west, have disproportionate influence on the way our government runs. The chief beneficiary of the system is NOT California, which gets two senators like everybody else, but Alaska, which gets just as much say in the Senate as California, despite having a miniscule population.
Let’s say we said that, rather than dividing up voters geographically, we divided them up by the first letter of their last name. So, there are two Senators representing everyone whose last name starts with an “A” and two Senators representing everyone whose last name starts with “Q” etc. The Q’s and X’s get too much of a say. The A’s and S’s and E’s get too little. It get’s worse because this would also tend to favor those ethnicities that had lots of people whose last names started with Q, or X, etc.
The proportional representation issue is, in my view at least, a different issue. You could have that whether or not you gave every state two Senators.
The fact that the states wouldn’t agree to change it does not, in my mind, testify to it’s ongoing validity, because of course the people doing the voting are those that benefit from the status quo. Wyoming (sorry to keep picking on them, but getting picked on by me is a small price to pay for having two senators) and Alaska and company would block any effort to reduce their representation. And who can blame them.
By the way, I’m not arguing that it would be worth it to fight this fight. I’m just saying that the two Senators per state rule is much harder to justify than, say, the idea of a Supreme Court and a bill of rights.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that if the people are not willing to change (or are not even interested in changing) the current system under the rules by which they entered the Union, how can we possibly have “outgrown it”? Clearly it serves a purpose or it would be relatively easy to chage, even if that purpose is “preference for the status quo over the unknown”.
Again, look at how the EU is developing to see how a population with basically the same modern sensibilities we have deals with the issue of states joining together to form a larger whole. In particular, the Council of the European Union. Not exactly the same as the Senate, but still not a proportionally representative body.
Well, you could nullify that a bit by dropping the “winner take all” system in favour of the districting plan already used in Maine and Nebraska. Let each of California’s 52 congressional districts have one electoral vote, and give two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the state’s overall popular vote. California can keep its overall 54 EC votes. It’s one step in the direction of pure PV, and the changes are minor and easy to implement.
2sense has raised objections to this, but I’ve never understood his reasoning.
In any case, the basic premise of the thread (“How Democratic Is the American Constitution?”) begs a question: is being more “Democractic” desirable or useful or will it lead to a more perfect union? There’s no point slapping on a label like “democratic” and using it as your gold standard if it just masks abuses or potential abuses of individual freedom. Several nations with governments that are dictatorial by U.S. standards have used “democratic” in their names (i.e. that hotbed of freedom known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and during one of the more surreal moments of 2002, some Iraqis were claiming that their election was more “democratic” than the American 2000 election, because their President had gotten 100% of the vote.
It might be “fair” to settle every issue in the U.S. by simple referendum. It could also be “fair” if members of the audience could walk on stage and start playing with the orchestra. It would sound awful, but it would be fair, by God.
Yes, you could, but my point was that even larger states may find it in their interest to keep the EE. It is often assumed that the EE only benefits the smaller states.
My precious EC…
Ahem. Well, I can eaily imagine a candidate making all kinds of promises to California in an attempt to win 51% of the state (and 54 EC votes), rather than just doing the math and thinking (under a districting plan) “Hmmm, 20 of those districts have always gone with my party, so I’ll get 20 votes anyway, and may as well spend my time trying to win over the contentious people of the great state of Oklahoma.”
In any case, the natural selection of political strategies would have impressed even Darwin.
I don’t see how this is pertinent here but as it happens I don’t follow your reasoning. I don’t see how senators represent their state any less for being popularly elected instead of chosen by state legislatures. As for the Chesterton quote, as always he has a flair with words but are you really ready to follow him into necrocracy?
** How nice for you. I don’t agree and resent that the system doesn’t give my opinion equal weight as yours. Can you understand why I find your position selfish?
This is mere opinion. Can you show how our constitution favors freedom over tyranny? We live under a system of government that was imposed upon us. How is that not tyranny? Exactly what is “cautious” about skewing the system toward retaining tyranny?
** I find this assertion astonishing. How is it possible for historical change of any sort to refute, or affect in any way at all, some contemporary objections to a contemporary situation?
Ironically the historical change you speak of trends away from this conclusion. We are more unified today than we were in 1776, or 1781, or 1788, or 1860, or 1933. But even if you were right about this nation, what of it? That would just make it so. It wouldn’t make it just.
** Actually, that turns out not to be the case. First of all, nothing close to a majority were allowed to vote. The ballot was restricted to property owning white men ( and women in New Jersey ) with the proper religious and/or political beliefs for that state.
If the Constitution had been ratified by all 13 legislatures before going into operation then it wouldn’t have been unconstitutional because that is exactly the procedure called for to amend the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. But it didn’t. Not one state legislature ratified it. Instead it was ratified in special conventions called for that purpose illegally dissolving the “Perpetual Union” in theory in 1788 when the 9th state convention approved it and in reality the following year when the new government was inaugurated as a Union of Eleven excluding North Carolina and Rhode Island.
The same can not be said, as I have attested, for every constitution in America. And we elect people to legislate for us. Who alive has elected representatives to approve the Constitution for them? ( Other than those few who are still alive who elected the territorial governments that accepted the Constitution in order to join the Union, as you point out. I hadn’t thought of that. ) Why should the living be bound by the votes of dead people?
Also your assertion that the Constitution was never voted on directly is mistaken. On March 24, 1788 Rhode Island held a referendum and the Constitution was rejected 2,711 to 289 though it should be noted that the local “Federalists” boycotted the vote to avoid demonstrating the actual dimensions of their numerical inferiority. Rhode Island remained outside the new Union for 2 more years.
** I see no such thing. The historical precedent I see is mostly one of involuntary merging when one nation conquers another. But either way, cooperation or subjudgation, it only explains how things got to be the way they are; it doesn’t justify the status quo.
While the franchise was limited in Pennsylvania as it was everywhere else we can take for an example the democratic governmental structures of its revolutionary constitution of 1776. It lasted until 1790 and the state did not collapse or suffer undue chaos despite earnest attempts by conservatives to sabotage it. It had a unicameral legislature which selected an Executive Council to a one year term and judges to seven year terms. I would rather not have the numerous term limits it imposed nor the Test Act but yes, we can find sucessful examples of relatively simple representative governments without even looking to foreign parliamentary democracies. Georgia and Vermont had similar constitutions.
** I ask again: What is “mob rule”?
I’m glad we agree. I’ve maintained that there are other considerations since the very first paragraph of this thread.
In your opinion. I see no reason to consider one more important than the other.
Yes, we have gone over this before and my arguments remain the same. We can’t prevent a simple majority from electing someone you or I consider a tyrant. Only a majority can.
** Ignoring the difficulties in attaining complete accuracy in counting votes I would say that if more than half of the people vote for something then that represents the will of the majority at that time.
Again I disagree that a minority opinion can represent the will of the people. If 60% say “Change it!” and 40% say “No!” then how can the latter be said to represent the wishes of the people?
If we don’t have an equal say over the rules of government then we can’t possibly have an equal say in how we are governed unless there is absolute consensus in favor of those rules. To be clear I do not consent to them. I say we have tyranny right now because people are denied political equality.
Again I have to stop. I apologise for not having time to reply to all those posts which merit a reply. Board traffic usually slows down on the weekend so I may possibly catch up before Monday but I can’t guarantee anything as we have to prepare to have the inlaws over for a holiday dinner on Saturday and there are televised NFL games on both days.
Well, heck, dump the constiution and all laws and if anyone is charged with a crime, put the verdict to a vote. Heck, since there are no laws any more, how can anyone be chraged with breaking them? If an individual has done something the public doesn’t like, they can vote themselves a new law, then vote the verdict. Or, for that matter, skip the law and just vote the verdict, since you wouldn’t want some future generation complaining that your law is being imposed on them and is therefore undemocratic.
The OP’s continued attempts at disingenuousness (‘I ask again: What is “mob rule”?’) are pointless. I’ll just ask what happens if the majority of the population decides he is an undesirable for any reason whatsoever. Can he be enslaved, disenfranchised, tortured or killed? After all, all the laws that give him protection from these outrages aren’t democractic, since he didn’t vote for them; a bunch of dead white guys did.
Might I recommend a book on the subject? The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria is a very good book on the subject of limited government.
In effect, on this issue, he makes the argument that democracy and freedom do not always go hand in hand, and oftentimes actually oppose one another. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is inconcievable for anyone to think that a problem could actually be caused by more democracy.
Mob rule is the idea that, at any given moment in time, that 50% + 1 of the population is infallible on any and all issues. Any restraint on this idea would be a restraint on democracy. Some restraints are good. Most are bad. But to abolish them all would mean catastrophe.
The American Constitution was, and still is, a very democratic document, though it could be more democratic. Unfortunately, more democratic is not always a good thing, as liberty can be sacrificed in the process.
I am wondering if you read have read the thread. As I have pointed out repeatedly, my concerns are based upon principle and practical considerations. No one has shown that majoritarianism would cause minorities to get slaughtered. If you want me to believe this is anything more than a knee jerk assumption on your part then by all means, bring forth some evidence.
This is a conclusion reached by select definition. It’s true if you limit “group” to any of the groups you talk about but if we consider “Republicans” as a group then they certainly can control all branches of government at any given time and have unchecked power. Are Republicans a group? I think they are.
Here is my take on it: dividing governmental control and requiring supermajorities makes it more difficult to enact change. That’s good if you are a member of the landowning, slaveowning, and powerholding elite. It makes it easier for you or your descendants to maintain your elite status. I don’t believe that is fair. I don’t think the government should be prejudiced against my opinion that the status quo is a big steaming pile of shit.
** You haven’t quite got it. I believe that every question should devolve eventually upon majority rule. I would have no problem, for instance, with the courts overturning acts of Congress because they violated the Constitution if that constitution were under the control of the majority. But I don’t require that that control be of the sort that can be exercised on a moments notice. If the Constitution faced a periodic plebescite that would suffice.
Liberty is a very useful concept but it is relative. One person’s liberty is another’s tyranny. If everyone agreed on a single definition of liberty then there would be no problem with privileging liberty over democracy since no one would vote against freedom anyways. But that’s not the case so when a person says that liberty is favored over, or balanced with, democracy what they are really saying is that their conception of liberty is privileged over democracy or the conceptions of liberty of a majority of the people. They are talking about bias.
I believe that attempts to limit democracy in order to prevent arbitrary rule are not only impossible but paradoxical as well. Any conception of arbitrary rule to be defended against is itself arbitrary.
If this explanation is based upon anything other than Posner’s personal politics I would be interested.
First off, I am not against channelling majority rule. For an example I would denounce as undemocratic a legislative rule that required a 2/3 majority to bring any bill before the assembly but I am perfectly OK with the rule of the Texas Senate that requires a 2/3 majority to consider anything other than the first bill on the agenda and their tradition of placing an uncontrovertial “blocker bill” in that position. This encourages compromise because the minority can prevent easy consideration of controvertial policies while the majority retains the ability to eventually dispense with the blocker bill if they can agree that the minority is just stonewalling.
As for the danger, of course I see it. Any power granted can be abused. My point is that the power has already been granted. I’m not pushing to give the government any more power than it has now. I’m just quibbling over how that power should be controlled. I think every citizen should have an equal say. I favor majority rule. Why should I feel safer with that power in the hands of the minority? Can you really not see that there is no middle ground? That failing to decide to act is a decision itself? That without majority rule there is only minority rule?
Is this likely? Has any modern democracy voted to enslave people? I know of no instance of this. In fact, the only governments which I know of that allowed slavery were examples of minority rule. Yes, it is easy to concoct scary scenarios about the majority enslaving the minority. I can do the same thing. What if senators from the square states and New England representing about a third of the population banded together in fear of standing armies and refused to enact any military appropriations and three years later we were overcome by the Chinese Communist hoards? What if the Supreme Court overturned Brown v the Board of Education and reaffirmed the concept that blacks had no rights a white man was bound to respect? See how easy it is? Power exists. The question of is merely one of who should control it. I feel safer with it in the hands of the many rather than the hands of the few.
I wasn’t trying to insult you. As I said, I think you are pretty reasonable. I used “mindless” in contrast to “thoughtful”. I can’t count how many times posters have used the “Tyranny of the Majority” in response to my support of majoritarianism. Yet these responses like yours typically don’t go any farther than that. If you care to argue the point then fine. I would ask why you prefer the Tyranny of the Minority. Arguing requires thought. I don’t consider automatic responses as a reasonable answer to my criticisms. Automatic responses are the friend of ignorance. The easiest way to keep someone in the dark about something is to convince them they already know the answer. Then they won’t ask questions.
A supermajority is not a persistent majority. A persistent majority is a simple majority sustained over a period of time. No matter how long the majority in Congress maintains its support it can’t get past the veto unless it turns into a supermajority. Same with the Constitution. The majority can never amend it as long as the minority continues to resist.
So it would have been principled and practical to put the legitimacy of Jim Crowe laws to a vote in the South in the 1950s? What would have protected blacks?
To let a nation that was majority male vote about female reproductive rights? What would have protected women?
To let a nation that is 90-someodd percent heterosexual to vote on whether or not gays should be allowed to even acknowledge their unchangeable and inherent sexual orientation? What would protect gays?
In your worldview, only the opinions espoused by a majority of individuals – even if they’re only 50% plus 1 in a population of 300,000,000 – deserve consideration. That’s nonsense. If that’s your philosophy, then you have no understanding of how politics works, the danger of political power and the need to protect those who differ in opinion or demographics from the majority position.
You also seem to have a stupid hang up on the Articles of Confederation – which, if you haven’t yet gotten to that chapter in your textbook, failed miserably. So yes, we had a bloodless coup d’etat. Thank your lucky stars we did.
How old are you, 15?
Pure democracy is no different than mob rule. How do mobs treat people different from them?
The Constitution strikes a perfect balance between protecting the governing – NOT RULING – power of the majority with rights which protect the freedoms and safety of minorities.
What you are proposing is not only stupid and untenable, it is morally abhorrent. Which tends to sum up the positions you take on every issue. You’re quite a specimen.
