Can Democracy Survive The “Defenders Of Democracy”?

[Timjoebillybob]

I see your argument, but what I'm saying is that permitting more voting for more things, is fundamentally inching further towards democracy rather than a democratic republic.

Just about any kind of democracy is a democratic republic. Heck one of the earliest the Athens republic was a direct democracy with everyone voting for each law/policy/etc. Except for officials, those were chosen by lottery.

Limiting voting to a much smaller subset of the population, and keeping direct voting for reps to a state or township level, would do wonders for reverting us back to how this country is intended to function.

Just for senators or all elected officials? And what criteria would you use to limit voting?

 

[Tombs]

Just for senators or all elected officials? And what criteria would you use to limit voting?

If it was up to me to rework things for a country this size:
You would only be able to elect local politicians, township level.
Township level politicians would elect state level politicians.
State level politicians would elect federal level politicians.

As for limiting it to who can vote, I would require it to be people who pay income tax.

Ultimately this would get federal politics out of people's heads and make the battles for issues a very local issue. It would also make it awkward to do sweeping federal legislation, on top of being vastly harder to influence with money and media. We would also end up with a much more stable federal government, better able to accomplish long term foreign strategy and settle disputes, rather than being focused on inane nonsense 99% of the time.

At the end of the day almost all of our issues come from using the federal government to legislate on local issues with a 1 size fits all approach. And as things become more deranged and our values drift further apart from each other, it's eventually going to end in a civil war.

While this sounds dangerous, keep in mind this would create a dramatically different political atmosphere. It would also be more inline with the intent of the constitution, even if it's getting away from how the constitution prescribes our government to be set up. It doesn't provide very good protections for making sure local issues stay local instead of becoming federal legislation.

 

[jamil]

What if I told you it was both?

Noooooooooo! The man on the u tubes said we’re not a democracy! Somethin’ ‘bout sheeps and wolves and lunch. Idunno. I was hongry so’s I dint pay much ‘tention ta that part. Anyways. We’s a ree-public!

 

[jamil]

I see your argument, but what I'm saying is that permitting more voting for more things, is fundamentally inching further towards democracy rather than a democratic republic.

Limiting voting to a much smaller subset of the population, and keeping direct voting for reps to a state or township level, would do wonders for reverting us back to how this country is intended to function.

If you’re lamenting that our representative republic is getting closer to a direct democratic republic, I agree. But we’re not any less “republic” for it.

If the sovereignty of a nation is derived from a person, especially a monarch, its not a republic. In a republic, political power (sovereignty) is derived from or at least in pretense, from the citizens. We’re really an autocratic republic pretending to be a representative republic.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If it was up to me to rework things for a country this size:
You would only be able to elect local politicians, township level.
Township level politicians would elect state level politicians.
State level politicians would elect federal level politicians.

As for limiting it to who can vote, I would require it to be people who pay income tax.

Ultimately this would get federal politics out of people's heads and make the battles for issues a very local issue. It would also make it awkward to do sweeping federal legislation, on top of being vastly harder to influence with money and media. We would also end up with a much more stable federal government, better able to accomplish long term foreign strategy and settle disputes, rather than being focused on inane nonsense 99% of the time.

At the end of the day almost all of our issues come from using the federal government to legislate on local issues with a 1 size fits all approach. And as things become more deranged and our values drift further apart from each other, it's eventually going to end in a civil war.

While this sounds dangerous, keep in mind this would create a dramatically different political atmosphere. It would also be more inline with the intent of the constitution, even if it's getting away from how the constitution prescribes our government to be set up. It doesn't provide very good protections for making sure local issues stay local instead of becoming federal legislation.

Not sure where to start. What type of township? Federal survey township? State civil township? I can see multiple problems with either. And how would you apportion the votes?

Votes weighted by population? One vote per township? One vote by each township level elected official, either weighted or not? Which township officials get to vote? Most iirc townships in IN have one elected official, the trustee. Marion county has two.

Survey township could quite likely lead to tyranny by the majority or minority depending on a number of factors. State level civil could do the same. Not to mention that the majority of states don't have townships.

Indiana has 1008 townships, they range in size from well under a 100 to over 160k.

What about city/town level? There is at least one city in Indiana that contains several townships, and some townships that contain multiple cities/towns.

And that's just Indiana, no idea of how the other 19 states that have civil townships are set up.

And that is just covering the township issue of your post. Nothing on the rest.

 

[jamil]

CNN Freaks Out Over MAGA Republicans Calling US a 'Republic'—and the Big Problem This Exposes

redstate.com

---

But then there was a crazy segment from CNN where they suggested that MAGA people are peddling conspiracies by saying that our government is a "republic."

---

In Marxism, "democracy" is the utopian state achieved when the population is no longer constrained by the labor market. It doesn't surprise me they don't know what a Republic is. And when they say, "MAGA is ruining our democracy" I'm pretty sure they mean it in the Marxian sense. MAGA is not communist so yeah, it would tend to stand in the way of a Marxist Democracy.

 

[Shadow01]

let the population vote if they pay property tax. They vote for anything inside the county and town they reside in. Each county gets a single elector to place a vote for every elected office above the county, all state and federal elected offices. That elector can be recalled within the county by having an emergency county vote within 30 days of it being requested By a citizen in writing to the county clerk. If you have chosen to live in an urban utopia and don’t like the fact that your county only gets 1 elector for state and federal elections, then move to a less populated county to give you the feeling your vote represents a larger percentage. president is elected by most counties he receives.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

let the population vote if they pay property tax. They vote for anything inside the county and town they reside in. Each county gets a single elector to place a vote for every elected office above the county, all state and federal elected offices. That elector can be recalled within the county by having an emergency county vote within 30 days of it being requested By a citizen in writing to the county clerk. If you have chosen to live in an urban utopia and don’t like the fact that your county only gets 1 elector for state and federal elections, then move to a less populated county to give you the feeling your vote represents a larger percentage. president is elected by most counties he receives.

One vote per county you say...

 

[Tombs]

Not sure where to start. What type of township? Federal survey township? State civil township? I can see multiple problems with either. And how would you apportion the votes?

Votes weighted by population? One vote per township? One vote by each township level elected official, either weighted or not? Which township officials get to vote? Most iirc townships in IN have one elected official, the trustee. Marion county has two.

Survey township could quite likely lead to tyranny by the majority or minority depending on a number of factors. State level civil could do the same. Not to mention that the majority of states don't have townships.

Indiana has 1008 townships, they range in size from well under a 100 to over 160k.

What about city/town level? There is at least one city in Indiana that contains several townships, and some townships that contain multiple cities/towns.

And that's just Indiana, no idea of how the other 19 states that have civil townships are set up.

And that is just covering the township issue of your post. Nothing on the rest.

The finer details are for minds far better than mine to work out. I'm just laying down a frame work to build on.

The entire point is to push governmental power far closer to the people rather than being ruled by people far away, or entire states being despotically controlled by one dense city, such as Illinois.

I would be surprised if the founders wouldn't approve of such a system after they saw the size of the country today.

 

[rbhargan]

When Democrats talk about "Democracy," what they really mean is Democrat control of the government - a one Party system (like in the PRC). In their mind there can be no other meaning.

 

[jamil]

One vote per county you say...

View attachment 360198

Well. I was against it. But you put it that way, I’m willing to consider it.

 

[foszoe]

Interesting that the blue counties exactly overlap the counties with the highest concentration of both HOAs and cyclists.

 

[firecadet613]

Interesting that the blue counties exactly overlap the counties with the highest concentration of both HOAs and cyclists.

And the highest population density...

 

[jamil]

Interesting that the blue counties exactly overlap the counties with the highest concentration of both HOAs and cyclists.

This wins best post of the day. Congratulations.

 

[foszoe]

This wins best post of the day. Congratulations.

I have been recognized for my ability to synthesize information from across various spectrums to form a cohesive picture.

That said, your congratulations ranks near the top of my list when it comes to recognition awards.

It's close to what happened Tuesday when I was sitting across the table from two physicists. One who works at CERN and one who works at Fermilabs. While discussing leptoquarks, I compared them to T-cells.

Their minds were blown.

 

[Mikey1911]

And the highest population density...

The populations of "blue" counties are extremely dense.

And, there are a lot of them packed into relatively small areas, too.

 

[JettaKnight]

It means something else to those people, DDR was the German Democratic republic, where it's even in the name.

East Germany, led by such egalitarian luminaries as Eric Honecker and Walter Ulbricht.

View attachment 358404

Democratic Kampuchea was run by another paragon of equality, Pol Pot. Everybody got equal under his democratic leadership, dead.

View attachment 358403


"When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean."

I thought that first photo looked familiar - I was there a few years ago; it's a terrifying place.

Gedenkstätte Berlin-Hohenschönhausen: Das Stasi–Gefängnis

www.stiftung-hsh.de

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It means something else to those people, DDR was the German Democratic republic, where it's even in the name.

East Germany, led by such egalitarian luminaries as Eric Honecker and Walter Ulbricht.

View attachment 358404

Democratic Kampuchea was run by another paragon of equality, Pol Pot. Everybody got equal under his democratic leadership, dead.

View attachment 358403


"When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean."

And today we're also still dealing with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, as an example of what the Democrats consider proper "democracy."

 

[Magyars]

And still more from VDH

The Logic in All the Madness

Biden's agendas may have altered the country for decades —and will require tough remedies that may be almost as unpopular as the wreckage they wrought.

victorhanson.com

 

[Tombs]

When Democrats talk about "Democracy," what they really mean is Democrat control of the government - a one Party system (like in the PRC). In their mind there can be no other meaning.

I think they're fine with some republicans being in office. Like the ones that approve endless amounts of funding to Israel at the drop of a hat.

Their goal is power, they couldn't care less what it's labeled.