Anyone for Democracy? (Zombie Coup derail)

[JimC]

What I find extraordinary about the US political scene is how individual states can decide on how Federal elections can be run. I get that states can decide stuff that pertains to their own state (something similar occurs here), but one would think that there should be universal rules for federal elections.

IIRC, under the Articles of Confederation, the States had their own constitutions and widely different qualifications for suffrage. The Framers punted and left it to the States, so we don't have a federal right to vote and 50 different election systems. The problem is that it's hard to take that power now and impose a uniform system without amending the Constitution, which isn't likely since voter suppression is a winning strategy for the GOP these days.

I also get that your original constitution locked in this ramshackle democratic system. Back in the day before easy continent-wide travel and communication, it probably made sense. Now, this emotional reverence for an ancient tradition sits oddly with a supposedly modern society, and hamstrings any efforts to make your electoral system fit for purpose in a modern world...

[L'Emmerdeur]

What I find extraordinary about the US political scene is how individual states can decide on how Federal elections can be run. I get that states can decide stuff that pertains to their own state (something similar occurs here), but one would think that there should be universal rules for federal elections.

IIRC, under the Articles of Confederation, the States had their own constitutions and widely different qualifications for suffrage. The Framers punted and left it to the States, so we don't have a federal right to vote and 50 different election systems. The problem is that it's hard to take that power now and impose a uniform system without amending the Constitution, which isn't likely since voter suppression is a winning strategy for the GOP these days.

The US Constitution is not completely silent on the matter. See Article IV Section 4. As noted in the commentaries though, it has not got much play over the years.

The USA.gov site asserts that 'According to the U.S. Constitution, voting is a right.' However it does not cite the specific section or clause in which this right is enumerated, because indeed there is no such section or clause.

Then there's 52 U.S. Code § 10101 which repeatedly refers to the right to vote. On a careful reading all it does is attempt to prevent discrimination in voting, and merely assumes an overarching federal right to vote.

[Scot Dutchy]

That's a fair amount of direct democracy for a stodgy old republic.

That has FA to do with democracy. It is power tinkering. No two states are the same. At federal level it is totally corrupt. Just why is every state allowed to have different rules concerning federal elections? Even different voting systems? Why? Corruption.

[Joe]

That's a fair amount of direct democracy for a stodgy old republic.

That has FA to do with democracy. It is power tinkering. No two states are the same. At federal level it is totally corrupt. Just why is every state allowed to have different rules concerning federal elections? Even different voting systems? Why? Corruption.

As usual, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of political science. Here's what the smart people have to say.

direct democracy, also called pure democracy, forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to indirect or representative democracy. Direct democracies may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referenda and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties. The term is also sometimes used for the practice of electing representatives in a direct vote rather than indirectly through an electing body, such as the electoral college, and for the recall of elected officeholders. Direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but in modern times it most often consists of specific decision-making institutions within a broader system of representative democracy.

This is exactly what we do in our states, and your quibbles are irrelevant. You clearly don't understand federal republics, or republics at all, and I doubt you ever will.

As for your question about the differences among the States, perhaps you should read the thread and learn something.

[laklak]

It was all downhill once they removed the requirement to own property. People who rented could vote! Ridiculous. What next? Women in the voting booth? Immigrants? Makes a patriot's blood boil, I can tell you.

It's the end of The Republic, that's what it is. And it's all down to those pesky kids!

[Scot Dutchy]

Joe Joe. You really love to cherry pick. Your system is corrupt or you are having trouble what corruption means. I understand fully what democracy means and I definitely dont see it in your system. What you do or not do in your states varies so much that a vote in one state is not the same in the other. You dont have an equal voting system.

Quoting some article without source does not help. What happens at state level is often chumocracy; "I'll scratch your back". You have constituencies therefore open to gerrymandering. Also each state can apply electoral suppression. You have a Senate that only has two senators per state for every one regardless of size which of course is far from being democratic. How about the Electoral College? Win key states and your in as happened to Trump.

It is all geared to the rich. Does the poor black have a chance to vote? In some states no.
Why can each state can determine the method of voting; voting machines in one with dubious software and paper in another or travesty that happen in Florida. Now what does have anything in common with pure democracy? Nothing whatsoever.

We directly elect our members of parliament so no vote is wasted. We dont have an Electoral College or any body in between the voters and MP's. We dont have constituencies so no gerrymandering. It is direct and open to anyone over 18. There are not any restrictions only that they must have Dutch nationality for national elections and proof of residency for local elections. Local town councils are often a pure representation of the vote with no party in power.
We have multiple parties representing various points on the election compass. Last election we had 44 parties. Town councils have many local parties also. You dont have to register here. Your residency is sufficient.

[Joe]

What I find extraordinary about the US political scene is how individual states can decide on how Federal elections can be run. I get that states can decide stuff that pertains to their own state (something similar occurs here), but one would think that there should be universal rules for federal elections.

IIRC, under the Articles of Confederation, the States had their own constitutions and widely different qualifications for suffrage. The Framers punted and left it to the States, so we don't have a federal right to vote and 50 different election systems. The problem is that it's hard to take that power now and impose a uniform system without amending the Constitution, which isn't likely since voter suppression is a winning strategy for the GOP these days.

I also get that your original constitution locked in this ramshackle democratic system. Back in the day before easy continent-wide travel and communication, it probably made sense. Now, this emotional reverence for an ancient tradition sits oddly with a supposedly modern society, and hamstrings any efforts to make your electoral system fit for purpose in a modern world...

It isn't just reverence IMO, though there's certainly an unhealthy amount of that. Many of the Framers distrusted democracy, even as they felt that the People should have a voice. I believe they made our federal government hard to change for the purpose of dampening momentary public manias, but still allowing movements that reflected durable desires for change to ultimately succeed.

It just takes a long time with constant public focus, and our politicians excel at distracting us. The latest example is the critical race theory "issue."

[Scot Dutchy]

So Joe you agree your system is far from anything to do with democracy?
At best it is a plutocracy.

[laklak]

Which system? Federal? Florida? New Hampshire? Cedar Key, FL? New York City? Manatee County School District?

[Joe]

Joe Joe. You really love to cherry pick. Your system is corrupt or you are having trouble what corruption means. I understand fully what democracy means and I definitely dont see it in your system. What you do or not do in your states varies so much that a vote in one state is not the same in the other. You dont have an equal voting system.

Quoting some article without source does not help. What happens at state level is often chumocracy; "I'll scratch your back". You have constituencies therefore open to gerrymandering. Also each state can apply electoral suppression. You have a Senate that only has two senators per state for every one regardless of size which of course is far from being democratic. How about the Electoral College? Win key states and your in as happened to Trump.

It is all geared to the rich. Does the poor black have a chance to vote? In some states no.
Why can each state can determine the method of voting; voting machines in one with dubious software and paper in another or travesty that happen in Florida. Now what does have anything in common with pure democracy? Nothing whatsoever.

We directly elect our members of parliament so no vote is wasted. We dont have an Electoral College or any body in between the voters and MP's. We dont have constituencies so no gerrymandering. It is direct and open to anyone over 18. There are not any restrictions only that they must have Dutch nationality for national elections and proof of residency for local elections. Local town councils are often a pure representation of the vote with no party in power.
We have multiple parties representing various points on the election compass. Last election we had 44 parties. Town councils have many local parties also. You dont have to register here. Your residency is sufficient.

Okay Scot, here is the correct link to the article about direct democracy from the Britannica website. It backs my assertion, and nothing you've written here disputes that. Sorry I pasted the wrong link in.

I stand by what I wrote. The United States practice direct democracy to varying degrees. If you wish to contest my source, please do a better job than you've done here. Your unsourced assertions are off topic and irrelevant to our initiative process.

As for the Netherlands, it's also irrelevant to the thread, and you repeatedly bringing it up only demonstrates your lack of relevant knowledge. How about showing some evidence that you've actually studied the US and its political system? Right now, you sound like you're blowing smoke about what you know, and substituting prejudice for erudition.

[Scot Dutchy]

You have various degrees of democracy. The USA is not a democracy by any measure. Until you get rid of the senate, election college and the so many inflicted conditions on the electorate that vary from state to state. If you remove corruption and the systems that lead to corruption you have not got a hope in hell of being a democracy.
The Netherlands is very relevant as it shows how close you can get to pure democracy. You have not produced any evidence why we are not a democracy.
You live in corrupt plutocracy and just realise that. You have no idea how European democracies function. I dont have to study the USA system. I read the opinion of the political experts in Europe. You have no idea what is like to live an democracy. You are ignorant on so many levels.

[Scot Dutchy]

The United States Is Not a Democracy. Stop Telling Students That It Is

When U.S. voters cast their votes in the 2020 November election, an unchecked pandemic raged through the nation, uprisings against racism and police violence stretched into their eighth month, and new climate change-intensified storms formed in the Atlantic. The reactionary and undemocratic system by which we select our president was an insult to the urgency of the moment. Although the most recent tallies show more than 5 million more people voted for Joe Biden than for Donald Trump, thanks to the Electoral College, it took several days to learn who won. To the relief of many, it appears that this time — unlike 2000 or 2016 — the candidate who got the most votes nationwide also won the election.

When our students only learn about this exceptionally strange system from their corporate-produced history and government textbooks, they have no clue why this is how we choose our president. More importantly, they develop a stunted sense of their own power — and little reason to believe they might have the potential to create something better.

To review: A voter in Montana gets 31 times the electoral bang for their presidential vote than a voter in New York. A voter in Wyoming has 70 times the representation in the Senate as a voter in California, while citizens in Puerto Rico or Washington D.C. have none. The Republican Senate majority that recently confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, was elected by 14 million fewer votes than the 47 senators who voted against her confirmation.

A great democracy my arse.

Students deserve an explanation for the origins of the Electoral College. Instead, the textbook offers mere description, dry as dust. We learn that the Electoral College emerged from a disagreement among delegates, but nothing about the actual substance of that disagreement or the interests at stake. Shouldn’t the authors explain to students why our founders rejected direct election of the president by the people, the most democratic option? With no sense of the problem, textbook writers assure students that the Electoral College was a “solution” and send them on their merry way.

But for whom was the Electoral College a solution? Many of the 55 White men at the Constitutional Convention worried about giving too much power to the people. Alexander Hamilton said the masses were prone to passion and might use their vote unwisely. Of course, both passion and wisdom are highly subjective terms. James Madison listed the “wicked schemes” inflaming the people to act so unwisely: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property. . .” Madison called voters advancing their own economic interests wicked, but referred to his brethren — insulating their own wealth and power in Philadelphia — as “enlightened statesmen.” The Electoral College was a “solution” to the bankers and plantation owners in 1787 but looked like exclusion if you were a poor indebted veteran in western Massachusetts, an enslaved person in Virginia, or a Hitchiti person fleeing land-thieving White settlers in Georgia.

The Electoral College was for the rich.

Madison expressed another set of concerns about the direct election of the president. He pointed out that a popular vote would deprive the White South of “influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.” He was, of course, referring to the 40 percent of the southern U.S. population made up of enslaved people. Since the men at the Constitutional Convention had already adopted the Three-Fifths Compromise, establishing that enslaved people would bolster enslavers’ representation in Congress, the Electoral College was a “solution” because it meant the humans they violently exploited would inflate their influence in presidential elections too.

When my textbook matter-of-factly declares that the Electoral College was a “solution,” but makes no mention of the elite and white supremacist interests for whom that was true, nor the exploited and disenfranchised peoples for whom it was a disaster, it does not educate students, but lies to them. The very same textbooks that paint the Three-Fifths Compromise as a shameful relic of slavery, treat the Electoral College as an unremarkable feature of our system, as if they were not borne of the same white supremacist original sin.

Still think it is a democracy?

On November 2, 2020, one day before the general election that would deny him a second term, Donald J. Trump issued an executive order establishing the 1776 Commission. The commission’s mandate? A “restoration of American education” to emphasize the “clear historical record of an exceptional Nation dedicated to the ideas and ideals of its founding.” President Trump has been defeated, but this commitment to institutionalize the teaching of American exceptionalism has not. We educators must fight for a curriculum that teaches our students facts not fables. The United States has never been a democracy, defined by freedom and equality for all. But nor has there ever been a time when people did not struggle toward a democratic future, dreaming of freedom, risking life and limb to make those dreams manifest, and creating a more just society along the way. Let’s teach civics and history that affirms for our students there is nothing sacrosanct in the political and economic status quo, that freedom fighters, past and present, are founders too, and we all have a right to be framers — to redesign this structurally unsound house to better shelter our lives, safety, comfort, and full humanity.

[Scot Dutchy]

America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy

America is a republic and not a pure democracy. The contemporary efforts to weaken our republican customs and institutions in the name of greater equality thus run against the efforts by America’s Founders to defend our country from the potential excesses of democratic majorities. American republicanism and the ordered liberty it makes possible are grounded in the Federalists’ recognition that non-majoritarian parts of the community make legitimate contributions to the community’s welfare, and that preserving these contributions is the hallmark of political justice. But, the careful balance produced by our mixed republic is threatened by an egalitarianism that undermines the social, familial, religious, and economic distinctions and inequalities that undergird our political liberty. Preserving the republican freedoms we cherish requires tempering egalitarian zeal and moderating the hope for a perfectly just democracy.

Contrary to popular belief, America is not, nor was it meant to be, a pure democracy. America is a republic. Nevertheless, more and more voices today are calling for America to become a direct democracy.

This is the type of crap repugs just love this. The Republic is just fascism in another coat.

[Scot Dutchy]

The rich won.

[Tero]

Republic is a bit different from "democracy." But the US, and EU, are federations.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic