5 ms·

> I think this understanding is common, but it's totally incorrect and is part of the larger project to get fewer people to vote. Which is what the Founding Fa

> I think this understanding is common, but it's totally incorrect and is part of the larger project to get fewer people to vote. Which is what the Founding Fathers intended. The word “democracy” does not exist anywhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. As Ben Franklin put it, we have a republic, if we can keep it. We have done a terrible job at that.

aeturnum 8y ago
I do think that the constitution is a fundamentally undemocratic document! But I disagree that this particular discourse is in the tradition of the founding fathers' concerns about popular opinion. Their project to prevent "the unwashed masses" from expressing themselves came in the form of limiting enfranchisement to white man with property. They would have vehemently disagreed with the idea that those propertied white men should worry a lot about being ignorant and only vote if they were sure they had properly prepared!
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Which is what the Founding Fathers intended. Even if that was true (and most generalizations about the Founding Father's aren't because they were a diverse group with often diametrically opposed intentions), “what the Founding Father's intended” (other than some role in the legal interpretation of text of laws written by them, including the Constitution) ought not have any special weight.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  Fair enough. But you need only look to history for examples to see the ultimate outcome of populism or democracy. It leads either to tyranny or total societal collapse. So I don’t agree with the notion that everyone should vote.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    It's at least equally, if not more, accurate to say “you need only look to history for examples to see the ultimate outcome of limiting franchise, whether de jure or de facto, to a group that views themselves as the right kind of people to rule over everyone else. It leads either to tyranny or total societal collapse, and usually both in one order or the other.” So, I don't agree with the notion that only the “right people” should participate in their government.
    - hcg 8y ago
      Except the US was founded on the idea of a limited franchise.
  - hcg 8y ago
    But you should right?
hcg 8y ago
A republic which partially uses representative democracy, but mostly exists to ensure power to the landowning minority. Nowadays it's not about land of course, but it still exists to serve the wants of the powerful and only the powerful. Even the one part that was supposed to be actually representative isn't. Start over. No more senate. Elected president. Representative parliament.

aeturnum 8y ago

I do think that the constitution is a fundamentally undemocratic document! But I disagree that this particular discourse is in the tradition of the founding fathers' concerns about popular opinion. Their project to prevent "the unwashed masses" from expressing themselves came in the form of limiting enfranchisement to white man with property. They would have vehemently disagreed with the idea that those propertied white men should worry a lot about being ignorant and only vote if they were sure they had properly prepared!

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Which is what the Founding Fathers intended. Even if that was true (and most generalizations about the Founding Father's aren't because they were a diverse group with often diametrically opposed intentions), “what the Founding Father's intended” (other than some role in the legal interpretation of text of laws written by them, including the Constitution) ought not have any special weight.

0x8BADF00D 8y ago
Fair enough. But you need only look to history for examples to see the ultimate outcome of populism or democracy. It leads either to tyranny or total societal collapse. So I don’t agree with the notion that everyone should vote.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's at least equally, if not more, accurate to say “you need only look to history for examples to see the ultimate outcome of limiting franchise, whether de jure or de facto, to a group that views themselves as the right kind of people to rule over everyone else. It leads either to tyranny or total societal collapse, and usually both in one order or the other.” So, I don't agree with the notion that only the “right people” should participate in their government.
  - hcg 8y ago
    Except the US was founded on the idea of a limited franchise.
- hcg 8y ago
  But you should right?

hcg 8y ago

A republic which partially uses representative democracy, but mostly exists to ensure power to the landowning minority. Nowadays it's not about land of course, but it still exists to serve the wants of the powerful and only the powerful. Even the one part that was supposed to be actually representative isn't. Start over. No more senate. Elected president. Representative parliament.