The GOP and Minority Rule

#76
#76
evillawyer said:
One of the best analyses I've read concerning the structural problems with American democracy. We're not on a good path if the GOP continues their anti-democratic ways.
The insurrection was put down. The GOP plan for minority rule marches on.
Click to expand...

LOL - I see this completely ignores Dem minority rule when they are out of power as well as ignoring Dem gerrymandering.

The analysis on the Senate and it representing White Power is ludicrous and ignores the founding notion of the Senate. The Senate represents states - it always has; nothing new here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, MemphisVol77, UT_Dutchman and 3 others
#78
#78
evillawyer said:
This is specifically addressed in the article (hence, why don't people engage with the arguments).

There would still be two parties -- but this is the important thing: If you remove the structural aspects that allow for minority rule, the party that was previously able to exercise minority rule MUST START TRYING TO APPEAL TO A MAJORITY. Right now, there is no attempt to do that by the GOP because they can exercise power with less than a majority. And if there is a "battle for the middle" both parties need to appeal to those in the middle, instead of just one. This would have a moderating effect on BOTH parties, which I think is a good thing.
Click to expand...
This applies to both parties. I don’t know of many people who voted Biden, a lot that voted against Trump....and based on your posts you probably are in the same boat. The house and senate are both wide open in 2 years so both parties had better address the gorilla in the middle and the dems won’t have “But Trump” to roll out
 
#79
#79
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
It wasn't an insurrection. It was mainly a peaceful & patriotic protest by Trump supporters voicing their displeasure w/the government. Most Trump supporters would never act out to destroy gov. buildings like Antifa/BLM.
Antifa & BLM members infiltrated "some groups" that caused a mob scene in trying to cause chaos inside the Capitol building. It was democratic lunatics that the left-wing Democrats back & support to burn it all down making it look like the supporters of President Trump the guilty ones on that terrible day....
Click to expand...
And how do we explain that the leader for the Proud Boys immediately comes out as an FBI informant, did someone in the FBI direct or encourage some of the actions of the Proud Boys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#81
#81
volinbham said:
Interesting that when the article talks about the history of the filibuster they conveniently leave out the Democratic senators that used it to fight civil rights - instead they refer to them as "Southern Segregationists".

Also zero mention of any Harry Reid obstruction.
Click to expand...
The filibuster is good. It prevented a bad patriot act from being so much worse. It’s interesting that Democrats forget they won’t always be in charge and how they can be run over just as bad when they’re not
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and AM64
#82
#82
So let's take the Senate argument - because each state gets 2 regardless of population the authors argue people in large states are underrepresented. This supposedly is anti-democratic.

The "fixes" to this include statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. Well, D.C. is smaller than 48 other states - granting them 2 Senators would make the under representation problem WORSE. Likewise, 30 states are larger than Puerto Rico so like the case of statehood for DC; granting this to PR would make the problem WORSE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, AM64, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#83
#83
One of my favorites

"If congressional obstruction forces Biden to use his executive authority to fulfill key campaign promises on issues like immigration and the environment,"

He didn't wanna do but he was forced to. Funny that didn't apply to Trump or W; only Obama and Biden. They had no choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Kristy*, loggervol and 3 others
#84
#84
volinbham said:
One of my favorites

"If congressional obstruction forces Biden to use his executive authority to fulfill key campaign promises on issues like immigration and the environment,"

He didn't wanna do but he was forced to. Funny that didn't apply to Trump or W; only Obama and Biden. They had no choice.
Click to expand...
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess you find sister evil’s compelling argument lacking any real substance 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and AM64
#85
#85
evillawyer said:
So did anyone actually read the article and engage with its arguments? There are huge problems facing American democracy and Republicans, in an attempt to maintain power in a shifting America, are doing everything they can to maintain their minority rule. This will not end well if the GOP keeps it up.
Click to expand...
Read the entire article. Both parties are shifting in dramatic fashion to appease their voters. This is nothing new. This is politics and sadly there is no light at the end of the tunnel for the foreseeable future With indications of the two parties playing ball together. Why Does the Democratic Party want to abolish the electoral college now? The EC has provided a way for a Dem President to be elected in the last three elections.
 
#86
#86
volinbham said:
So let's take the Senate argument - because each state gets 2 regardless of population the authors argue people in large states are underrepresented. This supposedly is anti-democratic.

The "fixes" to this include statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. Well, D.C. is smaller than 48 other states - granting them 2 Senators would make the under representation problem WORSE. Likewise, 30 states are larger than Puerto Rico so like the case of statehood for DC; granting this to PR would make the problem WORSE.
Click to expand...

So is this a problem or not?

"Despite Democrats’ Georgia wins, the GOP’s structural advantage in the Senate is only growing, given its dominance in small rural states. The level of inequality in the Senate today would have shocked the likes of James Madison. In 1790, the country’s most populous state, Virginia, had 12 times as many people as its least populous, Delaware. Today, California has 68 times the population of Wyoming. Fifteen small states with 38 million people combined routinely elect 30 GOP senators; California, with 40 million residents, is represented by two Democrats. This imbalance is getting worse: By 2040, roughly 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states with 30 senators, while the other 30 percent, who are whiter, older, and more rural than the country as a whole, will elect 70 senators."

You can either say yes or no. If you say yes, then you should believe in senate reform to make it more proportional to population. However, like other Republicans, I'm guessing you would say no. If that's the case, then you have no real principled argument against DC and PR statehood. You have a political argument, but not one based on principle.

If Dems are dealing with purely political actors who refuse to act on principles, then Dems need to play by those rules and "even up the playing field" by bringing in DC and PR.

If structural features of the senate favor Republicans--and Republicans refuse to alter those structural features--Dems should be able to use those same structural features to obtain a more democratic result.
 
#88
#88
evillawyer said:
So is this a problem or not?

"Despite Democrats’ Georgia wins, the GOP’s structural advantage in the Senate is only growing, given its dominance in small rural states. The level of inequality in the Senate today would have shocked the likes of James Madison. In 1790, the country’s most populous state, Virginia, had 12 times as many people as its least populous, Delaware. Today, California has 68 times the population of Wyoming. Fifteen small states with 38 million people combined routinely elect 30 GOP senators; California, with 40 million residents, is represented by two Democrats. This imbalance is getting worse: By 2040, roughly 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states with 30 senators, while the other 30 percent, who are whiter, older, and more rural than the country as a whole, will elect 70 senators."

You can either say yes or no. If you say yes, then you should believe in senate reform to make it more proportional to population. However, like other Republicans, I'm guessing you would say no. If that's the case, then you have no real principled argument against DC and PR statehood. You have a political argument, but not one based on principle.

If Dems are dealing with purely political actors who refuse to act on principles, then Dems need to play by those rules and "even up the playing field" by bringing in DC and PR.

If structural features of the senate favor Republicans--and Republicans refuse to alter those structural features--Dems should be able to use those same structural features to obtain a more democratic result.
Click to expand...
Now do the House and the damn population centers. Minority rule... LMFAO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, UT_Dutchman and AM64
#90
#90
evillawyer said:
So is this a problem or not?

"Despite Democrats’ Georgia wins, the GOP’s structural advantage in the Senate is only growing, given its dominance in small rural states. The level of inequality in the Senate today would have shocked the likes of James Madison. In 1790, the country’s most populous state, Virginia, had 12 times as many people as its least populous, Delaware. Today, California has 68 times the population of Wyoming. Fifteen small states with 38 million people combined routinely elect 30 GOP senators; California, with 40 million residents, is represented by two Democrats. This imbalance is getting worse: By 2040, roughly 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states with 30 senators, while the other 30 percent, who are whiter, older, and more rural than the country as a whole, will elect 70 senators."

You can either say yes or no. If you say yes, then you should believe in senate reform to make it more proportional to population. However, like other Republicans, I'm guessing you would say no. If that's the case, then you have no real principled argument against DC and PR statehood. You have a political argument, but not one based on principle.

If Dems are dealing with purely political actors who refuse to act on principles, then Dems need to play by those rules and "even up the playing field" by bringing in DC and PR.

If structural features of the senate favor Republicans--and Republicans refuse to alter those structural features--Dems should be able to use those same structural features to obtain a more democratic result.
Click to expand...

I say it is not a problem - it is a key feature in our political structure.

My argument against DC statehood is grounded in it's role as the seat of Federal power.

As for PR statehood why not all territories? I rarely see those pushing of PR advocating for our other territories. I'm generally ambivalent about PR statehood but recognize all those pushing for it assume it gets them more Democratic power which is telling.

Further assuming your answer is YES to the Senate problem then adding DC and PR makes the matter worse as I noted above in a prior post.

Finally, the cat is out of the bag with the author's and your repeating it statement about "old, white, rural". These are people characteristics rather than party characteristics. The entire article is a screed against Republicans, it completely ignores the identical actions taken by Democrats because it's central argument is "Democrats" should be in power.

So it is your (and this article's) argument that is political and not principle based. Principle based arguments would not only single out one side in talking about fundamental system problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loggervol, red butler, AM64 and 1 other person
#91
#91
volinbham said:
I say it is not a problem - it is a key feature in our political structure.

My argument against DC statehood is grounded in it's role as the seat of Federal power.

As for PR statehood why not all territories? I rarely see those pushing of PR advocating for our other territories. I'm generally ambivalent about PR statehood but recognize all those pushing for it assume it gets them more Democratic power which is telling.

Further assuming your answer is YES to the Senate problem then adding DC and PR makes the matter worse as I noted above in a prior post.

Finally, the cat is out of the bag with the author's and your repeating it statement about "old, white, rural". These are people characteristics rather than party characteristics. The entire article is a screed against Republicans, it completely ignores the identical actions taken by Democrats because it's central argument is "Democrats" should be in power.

So it is your (and this article's) argument that is political and not principle based. Principle based arguments would not only single out one side in talking about fundamental system problems.
Click to expand...

No, the article is based on principle: namely, that in a democracy, the will of the people is the touchstone. That will is currently being stymied by structural impediments that the minority party is using to entrench minority rule. Those structural impediments (EC, Senate) cannot be changed by traditional democratic means because they require supermajorities. So we're left with two options: allow the minority party continue to take actions to entrench themselves or act within the existing rules and admit two new states that, once admitted, would make it more likely that the will of the majority would be observed.
 
#93
#93
evillawyer said:
No, the article is based on principle: namely, that in a democracy, the will of the people is the touchstone. That will is currently being stymied by structural impediments that the minority party is using to entrench minority rule. Those structural impediments (EC, Senate) cannot be changed by traditional democratic means because they require supermajorities. So we're left with two options: allow the minority party continue to take actions to entrench themselves or act within the existing rules and admit two new states that, once admitted, would make it more likely that the will of the majority would be observed.
Click to expand...

1. We are not a democracy - never have been so it's a specious argument
2. Neither you nor the author acknowledges that the "sins" of the minority have occurred from both (and those parties predating the current ones) parties. Your partisanship is the driving force - it's clear as day.
3. If American Samoa or any other territory of the US has a chance to lean Republican I'm 99% sure both you and the author would oppose their statehood. Your admission criteria is clearly focused on admitting the "right" people.

The current system absolutely allows the will of the people to be expressed and represented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agVOL90, Rickyvol77, MemphisVol77 and 4 others
#95
#95
evillawyer said:
No, the article is based on principle: namely, that in a democracy, the will of the people is the touchstone. That will is currently being stymied by structural impediments that the minority party is using to entrench minority rule. Those structural impediments (EC, Senate) cannot be changed by traditional democratic means because they require supermajorities. So we're left with two options: allow the minority party continue to take actions to entrench themselves or act within the existing rules and admit two new states that, once admitted, would make it more likely that the will of the majority would be observed.
Click to expand...
😂🤡
 
#96
#96
volinbham said:
Here's a way simpler solution and one that is in line with the Founding:

Reduce the size and scope of the Federal government and return more power to the states.
Click to expand...
This is our federal government
iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Carl Pickens and NorthDallas40
#97
#97
volinbham said:
Here's a way simpler solution and one that is in line with the Founding:

Reduce the size and scope of the Federal government and return more power to the states.
Click to expand...
The catch phrase itself is pure ********. “Minority rule” 🙄. The House weights the population. The number of seats are directly proportional to the number of citizens. The Senate weighs equal representation of the states. This has been the intent since day one. This whole disingenuous diatribe is based on “ok we’ve got the population representation firmly under grip due to population centers under our control now we need to dismantle the formation basis of the Senate.” There are no principles involved here with regard to sticking with our founding principles. This BS is specifically unprincipled with how our Congress was set up. Not shocked by who is pushing it here either. It fits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*, UT_Dutchman and AM64
#98
#98
volinbham said:
I say it is not a problem - it is a key feature in our political structure.

My argument against DC statehood is grounded in it's role as the seat of Federal power.

As for PR statehood why not all territories? I rarely see those pushing of PR advocating for our other territories. I'm generally ambivalent about PR statehood but recognize all those pushing for it assume it gets them more Democratic power which is telling.

Further assuming your answer is YES to the Senate problem then adding DC and PR makes the matter worse as I noted above in a prior post.

Finally, the cat is out of the bag with the author's and your repeating it statement about "old, white, rural". These are people characteristics rather than party characteristics. The entire article is a screed against Republicans, it completely ignores the identical actions taken by Democrats because it's central argument is "Democrats" should be in power.

So it is your (and this article's) argument that is political and not principle based. Principle based arguments would not only single out one side in talking about fundamental system problems.
Click to expand...

Funny how the left omits the fact that the District of Columbia was drawn up for a specific purpose, and part of the decision was that no state should be the seat of the federal government. All done on purpose. The one mistake was failing to zone DC as permanently non residential and removing any residents in perpetuity. Perhaps the solution to DC residents claiming they pay taxes and have no representation is to pare down DC and give parts back to VA and MD. The other solution is DC residents could simply move to a place they feel more represents their political whims and quit bitching. Of course, none of that fits the dims desire for a couple more sure votes in congress and the EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, MemphisVol77, hUTch2002 and 1 other person
#99
#99
evillawyer said:
No, the article is based on principle: namely, that in a democracy, the will of the people is the touchstone. That will is currently being stymied by structural impediments that the minority party is using to entrench minority rule. Those structural impediments (EC, Senate) cannot be changed by traditional democratic means because they require supermajorities. So we're left with two options: allow the minority party continue to take actions to entrench themselves or act within the existing rules and admit two new states that, once admitted, would make it more likely that the will of the majority would be observed.
Click to expand...

Ever think that the concept of a supermajority was to keep a mob (believing themselves to be the ruling faction) from doing something stupid?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top