4 ms·

In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropria

In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropriate term.

_qulr 6y ago
There's no democracy to preserve. The Supreme Court is inherently anti-democratic. As is the electoral college, the Senate, etc. The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.
- karpierz 6y ago
  Can you explain how the US Constitution is anti-democratic? Or I guess, what you mean by democratic?
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic. Limited ≠ Anti Representative democracy is also limited compared to direct democracy, for example.
    - bonzini 6y ago
      You are talking about direct democracy, which is but one kind of democracy. Representative democracy is still democracy. Remember that Plato defined democracy in opposition to monarchy and aristocracy. Universal suffrage, freedom to form parties and to manifest against the government are (part of) what defines modern democracies. Even Switzerland only resorts to referendums in relatively rare cases.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    I would define it as continual majority rule. The anti-majority aspect should be obvious at this point: the President lost the popular vote (and indeed got the votes of only 26% of eligible voters), and the majority of the Senate represents a minority of voters. The continual part is also essential. The less frequent the votes and/or elections, the less the public is able to express their wishes (and hold representatives accountable). Lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are the worst aspect of this. A member of the Supreme Court may be nominated by a President who lost the popular vote, confirmed by the Senate controlled by a minority of voters and whose members are only up for election once in 6 years. The Supreme Court justice then may hold power for decades, even as the "political winds" shift underneath the Court. It's also important to note how difficult it is to change the laws, especially the Constitution itself. The Constitution was amended relatively frequently in the past, but now it's almost unthinkable. Separation of powers, checks and balances, mean that a determined minority can prevent pretty much anything from happening. They can completely thwart the majority from acting or changing the existing laws (which unfortunately have no expiration date).

In this case, it's about the preservation of our democracy (Trump has already indicated he will contest the election), so I don't think "petty" is the appropriate term.

_qulr 6y ago

There's no democracy to preserve. The Supreme Court is inherently anti-democratic. As is the electoral college, the Senate, etc. The US Constitution is explicitly anti-democratic, and it always has been, as the founders intended. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that's what it is.

karpierz 6y ago
Can you explain how the US Constitution is anti-democratic? Or I guess, what you mean by democratic?
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > Well democracy is ruling by the demos - think three wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner. The moment you say that mutton is off the menu you are limiting the power of the demos to rule. So it is anti democratic. Limited ≠ Anti Representative democracy is also limited compared to direct democracy, for example.
  - bonzini 6y ago
    You are talking about direct democracy, which is but one kind of democracy. Representative democracy is still democracy. Remember that Plato defined democracy in opposition to monarchy and aristocracy. Universal suffrage, freedom to form parties and to manifest against the government are (part of) what defines modern democracies. Even Switzerland only resorts to referendums in relatively rare cases.
- _qulr 6y ago
  I would define it as continual majority rule. The anti-majority aspect should be obvious at this point: the President lost the popular vote (and indeed got the votes of only 26% of eligible voters), and the majority of the Senate represents a minority of voters. The continual part is also essential. The less frequent the votes and/or elections, the less the public is able to express their wishes (and hold representatives accountable). Lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are the worst aspect of this. A member of the Supreme Court may be nominated by a President who lost the popular vote, confirmed by the Senate controlled by a minority of voters and whose members are only up for election once in 6 years. The Supreme Court justice then may hold power for decades, even as the "political winds" shift underneath the Court. It's also important to note how difficult it is to change the laws, especially the Constitution itself. The Constitution was amended relatively frequently in the past, but now it's almost unthinkable. Separation of powers, checks and balances, mean that a determined minority can prevent pretty much anything from happening. They can completely thwart the majority from acting or changing the existing laws (which unfortunately have no expiration date).