Experment with Democracy.

Jarod said:
An executive is generally elected by a broader base than the legislators. One who is elected by a broader base is, in theroy, less likely to allow condone or promote opression of any particular minority, thus the veto, in theory, would be used to prevent such opression. In theory the executive elected by a broader base of people, would be more responsive to a minority, because his majority would have to be made up or a cooalition of minorities. It would not be based on constitutionality but who he represents.
Click to expand...
In this case the Executive is elected by the Legislative Branch, there is no "broader base" to extract from.

The Judiciary, supposedly non-partisan or free from the necessity of election, is supposed to judge on the constitutionality of law because of that freedom from partisan politics. The Executive, elected from the same group enacting law, would not be a good judge of the protection of freedoms of the minority.
 
Damocles said:
In this case the Executive is elected by the Legislative Branch, there is no "broader base" to extract from.

The Judiciary, supposedly non-partisan or free from the necessity of election, is supposed to judge on the constitutionality of law because of that freedom from partisan politics. The Executive, elected from the same group enacting law, would not be a good judge of the protection of freedoms of the minority.
Click to expand...

In what case?
 
Jarod said:
In what case?
Click to expand...
In the case of a true democracy. The same group of people making laws are the ones that vote in the Executive. There is no "larger base".

So, in the case of your "experiment" in the tyranny of the majority, the executive is elected by the legislative branch of the government.
 
Damocles said:
A true democracy would inevitably lead to the oppression of the minority..
Click to expand...

And our modern system doesn't?

You're argument goes nowhere, because using it there should just be no rule whatsoever.

The point is to see who can make the best decisions. The masses actually do, usually, make very good collective decisions. However, this effect falls apart if they are whipped into a moblike frenzy. That's one of the bad points of the initiative system in California.

However, legislatures often get whipped into a frenzy, and usually aren't any more immune to it. If anything, the constant debate that the chamber is in gets them whipped into frenzies more often. Think about how often wars get voted on 434 to 1, or anonymous, supposedly fair juries come to unanimous, outrageous verdicts.

I'd like to at least have one chamber of the legislature that is non-deliberative, and who's members just vote based on their own personal gut feeling.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
The veto can do that also. If an executive is elected by a large base of individuals he would be less likely to allow opression of a minority.

The legislative does it also, using mostly the bill or rights, but they are not the only one to do it!
Click to expand...

But the executive will often use the veto just to bully it around and make it pass his preferred legislation. I'd prefer to just let the legislature do its job, and let the judiciary strike down anything that's unconstitutional.
 
The executive is there to EXECUTE THE LAW, nothing else. The legislature is there to pass - and to not pass - laws. The veto violates seperation of powers.
 
Watermark said:
And our modern system doesn't?

You're argument goes nowhere, because using it there should just be no rule whatsoever.

The point is to see who can make the best decisions. The masses actually do, usually, make very good collective decisions. However, this effect falls apart if they are whipped into a moblike frenzy. That's one of the bad points of the initiative system in California.

However, legislatures often get whipped into a frenzy, and usually aren't any more immune to it. If anything, the constant debate that the chamber is in gets them whipped into frenzies more often. Think about how often wars get voted on 434 to 1, or anonymous, supposedly fair juries come to unanimous, outrageous verdicts.

I'd like to at least have one chamber of the legislature that is non-deliberative, and who's members just vote based on their own personal gut feeling.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. At least not in the way a true democracy would. If this were a true democracy, it would be a "Christian Nation". I would believe illegally in a different religion. If this were a true democracy, Gays would have no state whatsoever with marriage as 70% of the nation was against it when Mass. decided to go that route...

We can go on, but the reality is, oppression of the minority is far more prevalent under direct democracy than in any other system.
 
Damocles said:
No, it does not. At least not in the way a true democracy would. If this were a true democracy, it would be a "Christian Nation". I would believe illegally in a different religion. If this were a true democracy, Gays would have no state whatsoever with marriage as 70% of the nation was against it when Mass. decided to go that route...

We can go on, but the reality is, oppression of the minority is far more prevalent under direct democracy than in any other system.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think the American people would do that?

Granted, I prefer having a constitution as a safeguard, but the people in general just wouldn't vote to do any of that. It's the will of the people that matters in the end, Damo, not the system of government.
 
Jarod said:
With technology it might be possable to do away with the legislative or executive branch all together.

It would be an interesting experiment at the local level to do away with a city counsel, you would still need administrators. But a good computer program could allow all issues to be brought to a vote by all citizins who were interested. You could come home and sit up to the computer and vote on the issues of that week.
Click to expand...
In other words, back to a pure democracy, with technology to help it run more smoothly and quickly.

Pure democracies self-destruct pretty quickly. Part of the reason is because they are awkward and clunky, tough to get people to vote on every little thing. But that's NOT the main reason they fail.

Pure democracies fail mostly because the electorate is frequently fickle, weak, and emotion-driven. Original Greek democracy died for that reason, more than for being too unwieldy. The technology you recommend, would simply make that tendency worse, not better, and the pure democracy would scuttle itself even more quickly.

A BAD idea all around, with little to redeem it.

Want to try a "pure" democracy? Try it with these rules. They are based on the idea that societies get along best when they have the fewes rules holding them back - only really important rules like don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, etc.

Rule #1: Any proposed law must get a simple majority of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS to pass. In other words, if an election has less than a 50% turnout, ain't no laws gonna get passed no way. A majority of registered voters can probably be gotten to vote for the laws I mentioned above. If they can't be gotten interested in a law, then we're probably better off without it.

Rule #2: Any law currently on the books, can be repealed by a 1/3 minority of VOTES CAST. If one third of the people who are interested enouh to go to the polls, don't like a law, we're probably better off without it.

Rule #3: Any law passed, has an automatic 2-year sunset date. It is automatically repealed two years after it is enacted. If people want the law, they have to re-pass it every year. The only exception, is for laws passed with a 3/4 majority of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS. Those laws will have an automatic 6-year sunset date.


Ready? One-two-three-GO!!!

I doubt the above scheme would be better than a Republican form of government like we now have. But it would be much better than the simple-majority-of-votes-cast pure democracy you proposed.
 
Watermark said:
Do you actually think the American people would do that?

Granted, I prefer having a constitution as a safeguard, but the people in general just wouldn't vote to do any of that. It's the will of the people that matters in the end, Damo, not the system of government.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. As people got used to the power of the majority the American people, like any other, would use their power to enforce what they think is right, against the rights of the minority.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Please stop being an ignorant douche.

With an elitist representative system we're getting noahide theocracy anyway.
Click to expand...
Why do you worship Jews? And why would you use "elite" to describe those people you think are selling you out to sticky furniture named minority religious groups.
 
Little-Acorn said:
In other words, back to a pure democracy, with technology to help it run more smoothly and quickly.

Pure democracies self-destruct pretty quickly. Part of the reason is because they are awkward and clunky, tough to get people to vote on every little thing. But that's NOT the main reason they fail.

Pure democracies fail mostly because the electorate is frequently fickle, weak, and emotion-driven. Original Greek democracy died for that reason, more than for being too unwieldy. The technology you recommend, would simply make that tendency worse, not better, and the pure democracy would scuttle itself even more quickly.

A BAD idea all around, with little to redeem it.

Want to try a "pure" democracy? Try it with these rules. They are based on the idea that societies get along best when they have the fewes rules holding them back - only really important rules like don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, etc.

Rule #1: Any proposed law must get a simple majority of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS to pass. In other words, if an election has less than a 50% turnout, ain't no laws gonna get passed no way. A majority of registered voters can probably be gotten to vote for the laws I mentioned above. If they can't be gotten interested in a law, then we're probably better off without it.

Rule #2: Any law currently on the books, can be repealed by a 1/3 minority of VOTES CAST. If one third of the people who are interested enouh to go to the polls, don't like a law, we're probably better off without it.

Rule #3: Any law passed, has an automatic 2-year sunset date. It is automatically repealed two years after it is enacted. If people want the law, they have to re-pass it every year. The only exception, is for laws passed with a 3/4 majority of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS. Those laws will have an automatic 6-year sunset date.


Ready? One-two-three-GO!!!

I doubt the above scheme would be better than a Republican form of government like we now have. But it would be much better than the simple-majority-of-votes-cast pure democracy you proposed.
Click to expand...

This is idiotic.
 
Damocles said:
Why do you worship Jews? And why would you use "elite" to describe those people you think are selling you out to sticky furniture named minority religious groups.
Click to expand...


I don't worship jews. Most people, however, are brainwashed on the matter. I use elite in a power sense. They're powerful. They're not morally elite, if that's what you're confused about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top