Is 'Democracy' like 'Equality' ?

[Sensei]

All you are saying is indirect democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Where all eligible citizens elect their representatives from time to time.

The representative (whatever is called) expresses (or usually lies about) his beliefs and makes election promises.

 

IIRC I heard in the past we had a case a person sued his representative for not keeping his election promises (or even doing the opposite) and lost the case. Bizarre.

So basically, anything a representative tells you to get elected can be full of nonsense and lies and will not be punished for it.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A constitution is designed, by those that know better, to freeze the intention of those word's,

Is that why they include and amending formula? Everyone has a right to walk on public roads, too - yet I wouldn't let my three-year-old out by himself, even if he wanted to. I guess that's because of my know-better fascist tendencies.

My point is, the founding father's genuinely wanted a better society and designed it with that intention in mind; understanding that it has to flexible enough to be amended.

How do you think it should have been written, that would have avoided the shit storm that's currently raging?

 

At least with my proposal, the increase in votes would dilute the marginal, pseudo-smart, fuckwits.

28 minutes ago, Sensei said:

All you are saying is indirect democracy.

All who is saying?

 

30 minutes ago, Sensei said:

All you are saying is indirect democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Where all eligible citizens elect their representatives from time to time.

The representative (whatever is called) expresses (or usually lies about) his beliefs and makes election promises.

 

IIRC I heard in the past we had a case a person sued his representative for not keeping his election promises (or even doing the opposite) and lost the case. Bizarre.

So basically, anything a representative tells you to get elected can be full of nonsense and lies and will not be punished for it.

There has to be reprasentatives, otherwise what's the point of a vote, why don't you put yourself up as a "None of the above" ticket... 😉

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

There has to be reprasentatives, otherwise what's the point of a vote, why don't you put yourself up as a "None of the above" ticket... 😉

In a direct democracy, laws or executive orders are voted on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

In the 20th century and before, representatives were needed because of the inability to gather all the people in the country in the same place. In the 21st century, representatives are not needed anymore because everyone has a method of communication (smartphone/computer) that connects people to remote locations in real time..

 

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In a direct democracy, laws or executive orders are voted on:

who gets to vote, directly? 

What you seem to be saying is, only those with a Wi-Fi connection, is that due to a lil' bias perchance... 🤔

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you think it should have been written, that would have avoided the shit storm that's currently raging?

You mean the American ones? They made a right dog's breakfast of it, actually.

They should not have excluded so many people

Quote

75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters. But this voting group fell far short of a majority of the people then living in the English colonies. After eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.

They should have included more safeguards against fraud

Quote

Voting fraud and abuses were common in the colonies. Sometimes large landowners would grant temporary freeholds to landless men who then handed the deeds back after voting. Individuals were paid to vote a certain way or paid not to vote at all. Corrupt voting officials would allow unqualified persons to vote while denying legitimate voters the right to cast their ballots. Intimidation and threats, even violence, were used to persuade people how to vote. Ballots were faked, purposely miscounted, "lost," and destroyed.

They should have restricted states rights

Quote

After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures.

So, the different states had different election rules, and levels of popular representation. 

Quote

By including three-fifths of slaves (who had no voting rights) in the legislative apportionment, the Three-fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states.

And, of course, the splitting the country into slave / free halves was a horrendous blunder that not only led directly to the biggest slaughter in US history

Quote

Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. 

And even more of disease in the aftermath.(by comparison, 405, 400 were killed in WWII, when the population was ten times the what it was 1860. Meanwhile, the wretched existence of enslaved people resulted in immeasurable suffering, which continues today.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My point is, the founding father's genuinely wanted a better society and designed it with that intention in mind; understanding that it has to flexible enough to be amended.

Maybe so, but they seemed more interested in a strong, economically successful federation that could stand up to England and Spain than the welfare of the general populace. To that end, they made disastrous compromises.   

However, the amending formula did serve, over time, to mitigate many of the effects. (Which may be why some vested interests want to tear it up.)

Quote

A well-funded, highly coordinated national effort is underway to call a constitutional convention, under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, for the first time in history. The result of such a convention could be a complete overhaul of the Constitution and supporters of the convention are dangerously close to succeeding

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Peterkin

[Endy0816]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They should have restricted states rights.

 

So, the different states had different election rules, and levels of popular representation.

 

Why would the States give the Federal government any more powers than were absolutely necessary?

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You mean the American ones? They made a right dog's breakfast of it, actually.

As opposed to everyone else, who had done so much better at that point.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Why would the States give the Federal government any more powers than were absolutely necessary?

To prevent a civil war?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As opposed to everyone else, who had done so much better at that point.

Not opposed to or compared to anybody; in terms of their own future.

I was answering a question with an honest opinion, based on subsequent events, some of which should have been foreseeable. I'm sorry if this offends.

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

To prevent a civil war?

 

They wouldn't agree to ratify such a change.

An all-powerful Federal government was and still is a concern.

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

They wouldn't agree to ratify such a change.

An all-powerful Federal government was and still is a concern.

Yes. A uniform electoral system throughout a federation hardly translates to "all-powerful", but can be twisted to tell the voters that.

Seems to me unending civil war is a bigger and more immediate concern.

For some citizens, the disenfranchisement of large segments of the population is a concern.

We all have different concerns.

[Endy0816]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. A uniform electoral system throughout a federation hardly translates to "all-powerful", but can be twisted to tell the voters that.

Seems to me unending civil war is a bigger and more immediate concern.

For some citizens, the disenfranchisement of large segments of the population is a concern.

We all have different concerns.

Main issue is lot more than that would be impacted and that the States themselves would have to agree. In theory, Federal government is only there to handle interstate and foreign affairs.

With our setup, Congress typically has to compromise to accomplish anything. This did help to put off Civil War for decades, but also extended Slavery.

 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They should not have excluded so many people

Hehem, that's exacly my point in the contex of this topic.🤔

As for the rest of your post, you do them a disservice, sir!!!

They did the best job they could with the tool's at hand, the easiest job for a builder is to criticise the work of the previous builder (he said with a van full of modern power tools).

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Not opposed to or compared to anybody; in terms of their own future.

I was answering a question with an honest opinion, based on subsequent events, some of which should have been foreseeable. I'm sorry if this offends.

Based on subsequent events, meaning you have the benefit of hindsight, and not acknowledging the reality of politics in general or the political views at the time. Compromises had to be made because not everyone agrees on what direction to go, or how to get there, or on what the priorities are, or acknowledging that different people have a different level of comfort with change.

The 3/5 compromise was an echo of the debate on slavery in the Declaration of Independence, where a passage was stricken in order to get the southern vote. No compromise, no constitution, so any objection about slavery is moot.

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They did the best job they could with the tool's at hand

Yes!

They included a provision to change the constitution, which was an acknowledgement that it was not a finished document.

[studiot]

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

n the 20th century and before, representatives were needed because of the inability to gather all the people in the country in the same place. In the 21st century, representatives are not needed anymore because everyone has a method of communication (smartphone/computer) that connects people to remote locations in real time..

My understanding of all past 'democracies', all the way back to the Magna Carta and beyond to SPQR, was that the voters only represented their own self interest, they did not represent anybody else (ie those who were not allowed to vote).

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As for the rest of your post, you do them a disservice, sir!!!

You're quite right. I shouldn't have taken the bait.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

My understanding of all past 'democracies', all the way back to the Magna Carta and beyond to SPQR, was that the voters only represented their own self interest, they did not represent anybody else (ie those who were not allowed to vote).

Past democracies? We don't have to go back in time that long..

Women in the US gain suffrage just in 1920.

For majority of the existence of the United States, they were not admitted and treated as second-class citizens.

"Black people were theoretically equal before the law, including theoretical suffrage for Black women from 1920. Black men were given voting rights in 1870, while black women were effectively banned until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage

It is interesting to see a picture showing which states voted in favor and which against:

 

[studiot]

58 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Past democracies? We don't have to go back in time that long..

Women in the US gain suffrage just in 1920.

For majority of the existence of the United States, they were not admitted and treated as second-class citizens.

I'm sorry to tell you that you have completely missed my point.

Self interest is exactly that.

A simple example the Member (of Parliament) for say Oxford was a local Landowner. He represented his large landholdings, ie himself, although officially he 'represented' all those who live on and around his land.

 

[Sensei]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry to tell you that you have completely missed my point.

Self interest is exactly that.

A simple example the Member (of Parliament) for say Oxford was a local Landowner. He represented his large landholdings, ie himself, although officially he 'represented' all those who live on and around his land.

Isn't the red color on my map exactly an example of what you are talking about?

They wanted to maintain the status quo, that is, not to allow women to vote.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Sensei

[studiot]

No, read it again more carefully.

 

The land (and later industrial) Barons represented noone but themselves individually.

[Sensei]

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

No, read it again more carefully.

..and you think more abstractly..

 

  

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

Self interest is exactly that.

Husbands voted against their own wives, daughters and mothers. An example of self-interest.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Sensei

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..and you think more abstractly..

 

  

Husbands voted against their own wives, daughters and mothers. An example of self-interest.

 

I understand the situations you  are referring to but they are not what I mean.

It's very difficult to explain if you just keep simply telling me I'm wrong, when you are not even understanding what I am saying.

Baronial landowners didn't vote for or against "Husbands voted against their own wives, daughters and mothers."

Such matters didn't even come into their consideration.

[Sensei]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Baronial landowners didn't vote for or against "Husbands voted against their own wives, daughters and mothers."

Such matters didn't even come into their consideration.

Baronial landowners did not allow princesses to be reigning queen after the death of a king who had no male descendants. Leaving a male descendant to the currently reigning king was always in their minds. Centuries passed when the first ruling queen appeared and was accepted by male barons without mutiny.

 

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

It's very difficult to explain if you just keep simply telling me I'm wrong, when you are not even understanding what I am saying.

I understood you quite well from the first post. I was simply continuing the discussion and expanding on it..

Edited September 12, 2023 by Sensei

[studiot]

57 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I understood you quite well from the first post. I was simply continuing the discussion and expanding on it..

Well it would be helpful if you has indicated that your expansion comments were not in opposition to what I meant but additional to it.

I was responding to your assertion ( which I agreed with) that for practical operational reasons individuals were (and still are) called or elected to represent a whole bunch of people, usually geographically defined.

I am simply pointing out that historically many (most?) of these individuals actually only represented their own personal interests and noboby else's.

[Sensei]

23 hours ago, studiot said:

My understanding of all past 'democracies', all the way back to the Magna Carta and beyond to SPQR, was that the voters only represented their own self interest, they did not represent anybody else (ie those who were not allowed to vote).

Have you heard of Tiberius Gracchus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

"Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (c. 163 – 133 BC) was a Roman politician best known for his agrarian reform law entailing the transfer of land from the Roman state and wealthy landowners to poorer citizens."

 

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Have you heard of Tiberius Gracchus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

"Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (c. 163 – 133 BC) was a Roman politician best known for his agrarian reform law entailing the transfer of land from the Roman state and wealthy landowners to poorer citizens."

 

Yes there were 'dogooders' in every time and era.

 

I think more land was distributed to ex soldiers than anyone else though, following the Punic Wars, especially the second one.

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus

Scipio supported land distribution for his veterans in a tradition harking back to the earliest days of the Republic, yet his actions were seen as somewhat radical by conservatives. In being a successful general who demanded lands for his soldiers, Scipio may have led the way for later generals such as Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar. Unlike Marius or Caesar, however, he did not seek to use his charisma and reputation to weaken the Republic. The true measure of Scipio's character in this regard can perhaps be seen by his behaviour shortly after returning in triumph from Africa to a grateful Rome. Scipio refused to accept demands for him to become perpetual consul and dictator. For his self-restraint in putting the good of the republic ahead of his own gain, Scipio was praised by Livy for showing uncommon greatness of mind—an example conspicuously not emulated by Marius, Sulla or Caesar.^[