PM to majoritarian democracy guysm

Doog_de_Jour said:

Houhusky said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.'' A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

Yella you know damn well my attention span for Tequilla only applies to posts that I write.

Lengthy pedantic posts for me, not for thee.

Give me the Cliffs.

It's a miracle from Dios that you got a pretend lawyer degree @creepycoug with your hatred of reading.

Everyday I get texts from my righteous liberal frens complaining about how "un-democratic" the Senate is. My response is always the same- i.e., "duh, that was the point". The founders believed that rule by 51% or majoritarian democracy could be just a tyrannical as despotism. Progressives in this country want to have it ALL- e.g., Medicare for All, Universal Pre-K, New Gun Control Laws, etc, but they don't want to do the hard work of winning substantial majorities in the Senate like FDR and LBJ did. Quit trying to cater only to what CA and NY voters want and go win some seats in rural states like you guysm used to.

You really pinged it at the end. If the Dems moderated some of their social justice shit, and actually went after non coastal elites they could get everything they wanted. Instead they are the party of big city government, transgender bathrooms, and illegals.

Cracks me up how the progressives always scream "RAYCISM!!!" and Nixon Southern strategy as to why they can't win in rural America. Fuck all that bullshit. The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964. Dems Senators were regularly winning in red meat states well into the early 2000s. Tom Daschle was from South Dakota for Christ's sake. If they hadn't become exclusively big coastal city liberalism this wouldn't even be an issue.

Its also pretty hard to define red/blue states once you start to look into it. Do you go by governor, presidential elections, or state legislatures?

Texas had NEVER had a Republican governor until 2000 with Rick Perry

West Virginia had ONE full term Republican Senator elected in 1942 and then never had another republican senator until 2014

Mississippi from 1882 - 1978 (almost 100 years) did not have a single Republican in ANY of its executive offices. 2007 was the first year since 1878 where Republicans held a majority in one of the states legislature.

But are we going with our modern day definition of the Republican and Democratic parties here?

Present day southern red states were NOT down with the “Party of Lincoln” until probably the early 1950s.

Houhusky said:

Doog_de_Jour said:

Houhusky said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.'' A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

Yella you know damn well my attention span for Tequilla only applies to posts that I write.

Lengthy pedantic posts for me, not for thee.

Give me the Cliffs.

It's a miracle from Dios that you got a pretend lawyer degree @creepycoug with your hatred of reading.

Everyday I get texts from my righteous liberal frens complaining about how "un-democratic" the Senate is. My response is always the same- i.e., "duh, that was the point". The founders believed that rule by 51% or majoritarian democracy could be just a tyrannical as despotism. Progressives in this country want to have it ALL- e.g., Medicare for All, Universal Pre-K, New Gun Control Laws, etc, but they don't want to do the hard work of winning substantial majorities in the Senate like FDR and LBJ did. Quit trying to cater only to what CA and NY voters want and go win some seats in rural states like you guysm used to.

You really pinged it at the end. If the Dems moderated some of their social justice shit, and actually went after non coastal elites they could get everything they wanted. Instead they are the party of big city government, transgender bathrooms, and illegals.

Cracks me up how the progressives always scream "RAYCISM!!!" and Nixon Southern strategy as to why they can't win in rural America. Fuck all that bullshit. The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964. Dems Senators were regularly winning in red meat states well into the early 2000s. Tom Daschle was from South Dakota for Christ's sake. If they hadn't become exclusively big coastal city liberalism this wouldn't even be an issue.

Its also pretty hard to define red/blue states once you start to look into it. Do you go by governor, presidential elections, or state legislatures?

Texas had NEVER had a Republican governor until 2000 with Rick Perry

West Virginia had ONE full term Republican Senator elected in 1942 and then never had another republican senator until 2014

Mississippi from 1882 - 1978 (almost 100 years) did not have a single Republican in ANY of its executive offices. 2007 was the first year since 1878 where Republicans held a majority in one of the states legislature.

But are we going with our modern day definition of the Republican and Democratic parties here?

Present day southern red states were NOT down with the “Party of Lincoln” until probably the early 1950s.

because they werent "red states" then....?

sorry I dont get the question.