4 ms·
> As for the "anti-democratic" American system of government, a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers would demonstrate that the Framers believed that majori
by ardy42 6y ago
> As for the "anti-democratic" American system of government, a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers would demonstrate that the Framers believed that majoritarian democracy was, in fact, tyranny of the majority....Majoritarian rule stinks if you happen to fall into a minority, and that's the entire point of having a constitutional republic.
Well, it's also not the point to entrench minoritarian rule, either. With the structural advantages granted to less populous states in the Senate and presidential elections plus ruthless gerrymandering of House seats, that's entirely possible and arguably worse. Most actual tyrannies have been of minorities.
It's also not like the framers had everything figured out. Their electoral college system went haywire almost immediately, for instance. If their system becomes so dysfunctional and looses legitimacy in the eyes of the majority (which it may be on track to doing), it won't last, to the detriment of us all. IMHO, that will mean some way of eliminating partisan gerrymandering and and replacing the electoral college with a presidential popular vote (since nearly everyone views the former as a proxy for the latter, anyway).
- cal5k 6y agoThe president and house were won by the Democrats. Why does a functioning democracy require them to also control the Senate, when the American system of government was expressly designed with this sort of legislative tension in mind?
- ardy42 6y ago> The president and house were won by the Democrats. Why does a functioning democracy require them to also control the Senate, when the American system of government was expressly designed with this sort of legislative tension in mind? You'll notice I didn't complain about that. What I did complain about was that Republican hardball tactics seem to headed towards the conscious goal of not needing to seek majority support in order to control the government. That's frankly unacceptable (and I'm not even talking about the recent nonsense about trying to literally throw out votes on a massive scale until they win a race they lost). I'm no Democrat, and I think they need to mellow on cultural issues to appeal in rural states like they used to, but the Republicans seem to be playing a far more dangerous game to maintain power that risks the legitimacy of the whole system.
- jgwil2 6y agoBecause a majority of the population is represented by Democratic senators?
- Simulacra 6y agoI am very happy there is a split government. I would much rather one party control the House, and the other to control the Senate. Presidency is a toss up, but I'm personally grateful the next two years will be completely stagnant.