This, by the way, is nothing but fallacious reasoning. The fact that they were slavers doesn’t make all their opinions suspect (do you really think we should toss out the entire Constitution because it was written by slavers?), and the fact they were landowners doesn’t mean that they were against giving population centers more weight (remember, the compromises that resulted in political power NOT being held by states with large population centers came about on behalf of states that didn’t have these slave-holding large landowners).
John Adams would’ve been very surprised to hear you say that. So would Benjamin Franklin.
Hence all that rot about all men being created equal.
Is there any amount of unequal representation you would find unacceptable? If California had 100 million people and all the other states a total of 1 million, would you just shrug and say “well, they’re not technically disenfranchised, so whatareyougonnado?”
If your vote is counted less than the vote of someone else–if it’s not one person, one vote–then you’re disenfranchised to the extent that your vote counts for less.
It’s exactly the same except it’s nothing like. It is not disenfranchising to lose because suddenly your vote is the same as everyone else’s. Urban voters are disenfranchised because their votes are each worth less, because of this bizarre idea that if you stand too close to one another maybe your opinions aren’t as important as people that stand farther apart.
Yeah, there are fewer rural voters than there are urban voters. Guess what? There are fewer black voters than there are white voters–should we have a system that weights black voters more heavily so they’re not disenfranchised? There are fewer atheist voters than Christian voters–should we weight atheist votes higher to keep them from being disenfranchised? There are fewer immigrant citizens than native-born citizens–how much should we weight their votes to keep them from being disenfranchised?
All of these are groups that, like rural voters, are a minority of citizens who tend to have common interests. But nobody ever makes the argument that they should have political influence larger than their presence in the population. This silly argument is only raised for rural voters.
No it didn’t. A bunch of violent slavers wanted to keep slavery, and the war was about that. Sure, those traitors realized they were a political minority, but they were also truly terrible people. I see no evidence that modern rural voters are as terrible as the slavers who started the Civil War to promote a dystopic vision of the Western Hemisphere.
Geographic areas cannot be disenfranchised.
My point wasn’t that all their opinions were suspect because they were slavers–it’s that they specifically believed in disenfranchising people based on race and on the amount of land they controlled, and so when we’re talking about no longer disenfranchising people based on race and on the amount of land they control, appeal to their authority is not persuasive.
I said “essentially disenfranchised”, and they are essentially disenfranchised in the same way as
In your statement, are you claiming that rural people do not get to vote?
Why is that a rule? I can see how it would be hard to balance things exactly, so you may have one legislator for 99,500 people, and another for 100,500 people, but if the representation differential is more than an insignificant percentage of the vote, then you are favoring one group over another. There is no reason that that has to be the case. Can you not imagine a representative democracy where everyone gets pretty close to the same power for their vote as everyone else?
That’s how it works in my city, when I vote for council and mayor, it’s how it works when I vote for the school board, it even works for how I vote for my county coroner. Why is it that when I get to electing the people who represent the legislature of my state of federal government, suddenly, it becomes impossible for my vote to matter as much as someone else’s?
How are they disenfranchised? They get the same vote as everyone else, right? Why should they get more power to their vote, just to make up for the fact that there are fewer people that share their views? Urbanization is increasing, if we get to the point where there are 10 people in the city for every person in the country, are you going to demand that the rural vote is now 10 times as powerful, so that their interests can continue to dominate?
No, we had a civil war because southern states were afraid that one day, they wouldn’t be able to continue to own, breed, and sell people as though they were chattel property.
I disagree that living in a place that has little going for it so that few people choose to live there should have more power than those who live in places where people actually do want to live.
That “all men are created equal” clause was written by a slaver.
Well, sure – except that I would argue that someone seeking to change the status quo bears the burden of persuasion. So my “lucky break,” is that the current system happen to be the one I favor.
No.
But that’s a meaningless question. I feel that most politicians act unethically; I feel most Democratic politicians act unethically; I feel most Republican politicians act unethically.
So the question of whether they acted unethically does not serve to set them apart in much of a meaningful way.
You can be for strengthening democracy or you can be for weakening it. You favor weakening it. That gives *you *the burden of persuasion, one which you have not even begun to try to meet.
So whaddaya got, Counselor?
They did, and the courts agreed.
Does this logic apply to any other unethical behavior? If I rob a bank, is that ok since someone else might have robbed it instead?
John Adams didn’t write the constitution, unless I’m sorely mistaken. He did engineer the Massachusetts convention, which gave the franchise to “the freeholders and other inhabitants of this commonwealth, qualified as in this constitution is provided”. In other words, only land-owners had the franchise, unless those elected by landowners passed laws to give it to others. Adams may have opposed slavery, but he also opposed abolitionism.
Franklin opposed the landowners-as-voters ideas, but he was overruled.
My point about how much respect I give to the founding fathers on the specific question of their views of who gets the franchise remains. Even if one or two founding fathers weren’t dicks on this subject, as a group they were.
This question assumes facts that are not in evidence – that I regard the actions as “OK,” somehow – and it’s a failure as an analogy as well, since the correct analogy would be to some event that was commonplace, as opposed to the rare event that bank is. In other words, I contend unethical behavior by politicians is the norm, which makes singling out one unethical action difficult.
It’s that aspect of my comment that your analogy ignores.
So far, sure. If the Gill v Whitford decision upholds “a broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state,” then my answer may change.
I think this totally misses the point. Sure, politicians might be ethical like a bunny rabbit is a superpredator. But when we’re looking at one particular unethical action, we CAN single it out, by virtue of, y’know, singling it out.
We can talk about how politicians who pressure pages into sex are behaving unethically. Anyone who tries to shut that conversation down by saying, “All politicians are unethical” is being silly.
We can talk about how politicians who accept lavish gifts that are just this shy of illegal are behaving unethically. We can talk about how politicians who blatantly lie about their programs are behaving unethically. We can talk about how politicians who make promises they never intend to keep are behaving unethically.
Indeed, if we are ever to address any problem, we have to single it out to be addressed. Throwing up our hands at the vast scope of problems in the world is a cop-out.
4251 bank robberies last year (warning PDF).
Not all that rare. More than 10 a day qualifies as commonplace to me.
(I actually had no idea…)
You prefer it when people don’t get equal representation. Got it.
I think the claim he’s trying to make without actually, you know, making it, is that there’ll be unequal representation regardless because the Democrats are just as bad, though he’s provided no evidence to support such a claim. Also it’s unclear why such a state of affairs would lead him to do anything other than support a solution that actually addresses said state of affairs, such as a bipartisan committee. But instead he’s defending to the death the status quo in spite of the explicitly admitted malevolence on the part of its creators.
They’re as disenfranchised as the rural voters in your hypothetical. You’re arguing about your own viewpoint, as you repeated.
So it’s fine for low-population areas to determine what’s best for everyone, but not for high-population areas?
That’s a fancy word for the right to own other people. Why don’t we use “slavery” instead?
Oh, heaven forfend the saintly Democrats would ever do such a mean, undemocratic thing! My stars and garters!