kniz, thanks very much for the quotes on limiting democracy. They were very interesting. However, the website, lexrex.com, where the first two articles are from, is of a decidedly “out-there” bent, and I’m a bit dubious as to how much weight they really carry for me.
However, let’s look at the merits of the arguments in these articles for their own worth. They do provide some parameters for responding to the question of how much democracy is too much. However, they do not provide any support (at least, not to me) for the position taken by most of the posters in this debate that the proposed 435-Senate would be too much.
The cite from the first article omits the very next sentence. Here is the quote:
So, according to this logic, the government as it exists now (a representative democracy) is already violative of this principle. By eliminating the very next sentence, this is a bit of a dishonest use of citations, if you ask me. (Yes, I know the article then goes on to define Great Britain as a representative democracy, but follow along with me.)
That article then goes on to discuss that America in actuality is neither a direct nor representative democracy, as our government is limited by the Constitution. The article therefore defines America as a republic. Here is a quote:
That is as true today as it would be under the 435-Senate. If you really want to protect the Individual’s (the minority’s) unalienable rights by limiting democracy, why not:
(1) outlaw elections for judges (I mean on the state level); or,
(2) go back to the pre-17th Amendment days when the State Legislatures would appoint the senators (as has already been argued by some here); or,
(3) have each of the governors of the 50 states select the senators instead?
Each of these would achieve the goal of limiting democracy. But they’re not the point of this thread. I want to increase democracy by a bit.
The third article discusses current attempts by Republicans to change the Senate’s rules. But this is just as true in the current 100-Senate as well. If they can do it now, what stops them from doing it under 435-Senate? While interesting, I don’t see how this point is relevant to this discussion.
The fourth article discusses the cloture rule. The “anti-democratic” cloture rule was not even instituted until 1917, and at that time it was a 2/3 majority. Again, I have already pointed out that the cloture rule would continue to exist in 435-Senate. Or it wouldn’t, if the 435-Senate voted it out. But it also wouldn’t if the 100-Senate voted out. I don’t see the point here (although I didn’t know how recently cloture had been “invented”).
What you all seem to be suggesting is that the current federal government is “perfect” or as nearly perfect as it can be made. I suggest that it can be made “more perfect” by changing to a 435-Senate.
Since the founding of this great republic, more democracy has been instituted on a number of separate occassions: allowing blacks to vote, allowing women to vote, allowing for the direct election of senators. I’m asking for one more. **How is this too much democracy? **
Again, thanks for the articles, kniz. **
And BTW, ExTank, f*ck you, too. :wally Apology accepted. Don’t take this thing so seriously! It’s just a great debate, and not such a great one at that! I hope your personal stuff wasn’t too bad.
No problem. I’m glad that you were able to see the information for what it was worth. I realize that those sites have their own agenda, but what I quoted was to the point of what I felt needed to be put forth.
You know I debated about including that sentence. I decided against it simply because it got into a subject that I wasn’t talking about. It also would have greatly increased the amount I was copying and the rules of the board were a consideration.
I eliminated it for the above reasons and resent the claim that I was being dishonest. Afterall, I gave the link and you found that sentence, if I wanted to be dishonest I know how to make a link that doesn’t work.
So why get into the “representative democracy” issue, since our government is what’s under discussion?
That is the subject of our disagreement.
Well the reason I’d do away with electing judges is that the electorate generally knows nothing about the candidates. I have often skipped over voting for judges simply because I’d have been picking a name only.
I hate to admit this but I think my vote for Senator is more informed than my vote on State Representatives or State Senators.
Why didn’t you just say “Hi, Opal”, if you felt the need for a third point?
We agree totally on this, the subject is changing the Senate and limiting democracy only applies as it deals with the subject.
That quote only applies in that it thwarts the majority rule in the Senate.
I am sorry, but your assurances that it would work the same in a larger body is falling on deaf ears. I would also point out that it doesn’t apply to the House of Representatives, which is the legislative body set up to represent the principles of democracy. The Senate is set up to limit democracy, which is why most of us do not want to mess with something that is working and has worked for over 200 years.
That is true, but in this case I intentionally limited my quote. All I was interested in was his statement about the Senate, which did not include cloture rule specifically.
That isn’t taking anything out of context, just using it for the statement it makes.
I have not used the word “perfect” and don’t remember any other posters using that word. What we are against is watering down the Senate’s intended role of limiting democracy.
Rather than “more perfect”, I seem to recall your stating it would make the Senate “a little more democratic”. You never commented on my assumption that your true purpose was to increase the power of the municipalities power and decrease that of the rural areas. This would be done thru gerrymandering, which I still maintain is the flaw in your proposal. In your example the 19 Senators that were still serving their elected terms would have had their districts redrawn, as well as the districts of the 10 new Senators. That means they would be representing some people who had not voted for them. It also means that some people would be voting for one candidate in 2000 and another in 2002, while conceivably some voters would be denied voting in the sixth year.
Isn’t this what is called a “strawman”? Fact is that included in the right to vote for blacks and women was the right to vote for Senators. The last point is getting very old. I don’t care whether the Senators are elected by the people or the legislators. It is how they function in the government once they get into the Senate. It seems to have worked both ways.
kniz, just wanted to state that I understand your reasons for not including that extra sentence. I didn’t mean that you were personally dishonest (I only said “a bit”), just that the argument was, in that I felt that it needed that extra sentence to be clear, in relation to. I apologize if I offended you. We disagree; that’s OK.
Well, even though the article discusses “representative democracy” in terms of Britain, I believe I have, in this thread, referred to the US as a representative democracy, albeit one limited by the Constitution. So, I felt that that next sentence added to my position by showing that the article wasn’t as reliable.
You are referring to where I was stating that there would be no difference between the 435-Senate and the 100-Senate in terms of protecting the rights of the minority. You’re right; the minority would not be as protected under 435-Senate. But while protecting the rights of the minority is an admirable goal, I do not think it should be done to subvert the declared will of the majority. (OK, that makes no sense, but follow along.) The example is the Electoral College. Just as the Electoral College is an anachronism that should be safely disposed of, so should the 100-Senate.
I agree; here in NY, the voting machine says “pick any 6” and there are 6 listed. So I refuse to vote in such fascistic/communistic circumstances. I think that appointing judges is much better for the judging anyway, as they are less beholden to special interests (i.e., election contributions), even if it is anti-democratic. Judges running for election makes no sense to me.
What the heck is “Hi, Opal”? (See the thread on punctuation for the placement of that question mark outside of the quotes.)
Why wouldn’t a 435-Senate have cloture? Are you saying that just because it is represenative of districts, it would become more like the H of R this way? If this is your main beef, I don’t think it’s a big one.
And as you say in your last point (and as ExTank so eloquently pointed out in his), the idea of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is not relevant. You say in your last point that you don’t care if senators are chosen or elected. Was the senate broken in 1913 when they adopted the 17th A? I’ve never seen any evidence that it was. Research at the History News Network shows that the 17th was adopted to prevent eqregious vote-buying that had been taking place in the State Legislatures for senators to get elected. Now we have campaign finance problems. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I don’t think the Senate is “the” indispensible check and balance; I think it’s a dispensible check and balance. I think that judicial review is a much more potent check and balance than the Senate. I also think that the 435-Senate’s continued 6 year term would allow it to remain a check and balance against the ever-changing will of the majority.
Yeh, I was being a bit poetic - “a more perfect union”, dontcha know. I had that Schoolhouse Rock song running through my head. My point is that the Senate can still have it’s role of limiting democracy (if that’s what you, and the Senators, want) due to the cloture rule. In my view, the rule doesn’t change from 100-Senate to 435-Senate. I think this is where we disagree.
Yeah, 435-Senate results in an increase in power to municipalities, but not as a goal unto itself. I want to increase the power of people, not entities such as the states. You say I would do this thru gerrymandering, but that’s not how I see it. Gerrymandering occurs now for its own reasons, unrelated to what goes on with a 100-Senate or a proposed 435-Senate. All I said was that gerrymandering would continue (which it does now with 100-Senate anyway), and that it would not affect the Senate as well as the House.
As for Senators serving after their districts were redrawn, how is this different than what happens now in Representative elections (as I’ve already stated)? After the lines are redrawn, Reps continue to serve in the new “4th C.D.” until they’re reelected (as 95% of them are anyway). So Reps now represent people who haven’t voted for them; if you think this is wrong for 435-Senators, why is it not wrong for the current House?
Sure, some voters would vote for one Senator in 2000, be placed in a different district and vote for another one in 2002, but again, the same thing happens currently in House elections. The only difference is the length of time the new 435-Senators serve until the new election. I don’t see how they would be denied voting in the sixth year.
Since I’m a newbie here, I don’t understand the concept of a strawman. :eek: If this is somehow offensive to debating, let me know.
A small nitpick - that ain’t entirely correct. The right to vote for Senator was in the 17th Amendment; the right for blacks to vote was in the 15th. It was not included for them (altho it was included for women = 19th Amendment).
Yeh, I agree it’s old, but no one’s provided me with anything convincing yet! (Although you at least tried.)
And, BTW, I think you’ve argued against yourself in your last point - if you really wanted to keep the democracy limiting powers of the senate in place, you would be gung-ho for the repeal of the 17th A - appointment of senators by the states, and not by direct elections.
I also wanted to point out that the new thread on majority rule (which I see you’ve already contributed to, and from the same lexrex site, no less!) is probably much more interesting than this one, and has attracted some of the greater political lights (they know who they are) of this board. So let’s adjourn there for a while and see how that goes.
I second your motion for adjournment, after a discussion of what seems to be a misunderstanding.
I have confused gerrymandering with the real problem involved with redistricting.
Gerrymandering is the use of redistricting to gain political advantage. It doesn’t apply to the Senate at present since each of the two Senators are elected from the state at large and no districts exist. Redistricting would exist under your proposal for an expanded Senate.
The problem that I have referred to is not a problem in the House of Representatives, since each and every representative is re-elected every two years. If the districts in a state have to be redrawn, the next election has each and every representative run in those new districts. There is no overlap, just all new districts with all new representatives elected to them.
Now take your new Senate with members holding office for six years and alternating the years they run in. Sometimes redistricting is because the state has gained or lost in the number of representatives. Other times it is just because there has been a shift in population. Or both. Again using your example where only 10 representatives are running in the coming election and new districts are drawn, then 10 senators will be serving for two years and 9 will serve 4 years in a district different from the one they were elected to. This does not happen in the House, again because every representative is elected in every election.
I also can’t believe that you condone the fact that someone could vote in two elections. If you were my neighbor and we were out in our yards and I said “Who are you voting for Senator” and you said “I voted for Merl Wright two years ago and you voted for Ted Stiles, what do you mean you’re voting again?”. When I reply that it is because of the redistricting and Ted is running in the new district, you really would be OK with that. I doubt it. :dubious:
Ah, I definitely didn’t get it before, and now I see the problem. I thought you were talking about the length of time, and instead your talking about votes. And . . . I don’t see much of a solution either. I give - the idea of 435 separate senatorial districts is unworkable!
The only solution I can see is to avoid the problem entirely and have proportional representation. In my example, every two years the whole state (NY, in my example) votes by parties for a slate of 9 or 10 candidates. So, let’s say the vote total breaks down like this:
Reds - 5,000,000 votes
Blues - 4,500,000 votes
Greens - 400,000 votes
Purples - 100,000 votes
Total 10,000,000 votes
Out of 9 slots to be filled, The Reds would get 5 votes, and the blues 4. The Greens and Purples would not get anything for two reasons - their vote total is too low and they didn’t get 5% of the vote (or some other arbitrary low figure).
If it were California - 53 senators - their would be 18, 18, and 17 each election. With the above vote total, Greens and Purples would still be shut out; but if the Greens managed to get about 550,000 votes, they’d get a senator!
In Delaware, it would be winner takes all - all 1 that is.
This actually seems to me to be more along the “state appoints the Senators” idea, because the 9 senators would probably be party hacks appointed to the position by state nominating committees or somesuch. Not that great of an idea either.
Don’t take this thing so seriously! It’s just a great debate, and not such a great one at that! I hope your personal stuff wasn’t too bad. 
