fatslob-:O said:
Anti-democratic is ideal, no group should have too much power in a representative republic and the electoral college is a good fail-safe for preventing voter fraud since swing states are monitored much more heavily ... (Just because the rest of the americans don't fall inline with the either of the coastal elites such as California or New York doesn't make them any less american.) Can a majoritarian decmoracy be trusted to hold the integrity of the judiciary branch such as holding up a precedent without having feelings sway court rulings ? No ... Can a majoritarian democracy be directly trusted with legislative powers where they have the ability to change national laws and the very consititution itself to protect the rights of the minority ? Absolutely not ... Do you try to renege on the state legislatures of their right to elect executive powers as granted originally by all other state legislatures ? Then how can a union be justified at that point if we don't want to if we don't respect the other member's states consensus ? A government needs to be consistent (need a constitution and a court), stable (keep feelings of the masses at bay), decentralized (respect notions of federalism) and seperated (have distinct branches) in order for a sovereign nation to prosper in peace and I believe the founding fathers understood tyranny better than anyone else ... (afterall they were the ones who designed our very institutions to indefinitely last) It is not by accident that all states have equal constitutional powers to ratify amendments ... |
See, that doesn't make sense. If every vote is equal no group will have a bigger weight. They will have the same weight. But above all, they are all american's right? Why are you considering these groups above beeing americans? It makes no sense to me. That's what old monarchies and dictatorships do. You have special groups that hold more power in those systems and their voice carries more weight than the average people. Out of principle i disagree with that. Equality is the principle of true democracy.
I think the other things you mention are a product of the 2 party system and not spreading power accordingly. I also think the current system doesn't work because of those reasons. The power gets heavily dumped in just 2 parties. The judiciary system should be completely independant from the executive power. It's amazing how the president and senate designate who the top judges should be. Does that not stink of corruption to you?
Well... i can tell you that in the portuguese system you need 2 thirds of the assembly to be in favor to make constitutional changes (it then has to go through presidential and court aproval). Governmants obviously put forth laws on their politics and these need to go through the assembly to be aproved aswell, but just require a majority. Not massively different than what happens in the US, but theres more parties and therefore the parties have to come to agreements that represent the people.
Tbh i don't understand the states thing. The states were lines drawn in a map. They were never individual countries with their own independance. The states are simply regions created for local government. I don't know what makes one think that state X is more important than state Y for an election.
And btw majority governments are totally legitimate because they represent the will of the majority of the citizens.
It sounds to me that the system is lost in these virtual states rather than beeing focused in the country. It seems designed to create discord and divide, wich is why it keeps showing cracks. Again, this all made sense when information wasn't so acessable and there may have been need to protect some states, but now it's outdated. I really have to disagree.
Like... the part that says "keep the feelings of the masses at bay". Why? The masses are the citizens, they should be the representatives of the citizens. If the masses are complaining you should probably listen to them, not ignore them.
Oh... one other thing is saying that the system is made to compensate electoral fraud. That is also wrong in principle. The system shouldn't be trying to make those changes, voter fraud should be eliminated. Again, something that would be impossible to enforce in the past, but with proper overseeing could be enforced today. Unfortunely i can see how corruption could happen in certain states given the established local power may try to misuse it's power. But then that's where the police comes in... but again the FBI director is nominated by the guy the president nominates. It's a web of corruption if you ask me.
