The Thread of Democrats

[Cunt]

You can't seem to understand...when you choose which 'majority' rules, you have a choice to make about who gets to say.

I say the majority of Trump supporters are the best judge of the value of your criticisms of Trump.

[JimC]

What you are clearly ignoring, Cunt, is that in most democracies, there are many additional mechanisms to aid local people having a real say in what happens in their districts, in contrast to some sort of monolithic, majority based uber government. Most countries have some sort of of division into states, plus elected local government, both of which exercise considerable power locally.. In rural Australia, there are often indigenous land councils with some say in activities in their areas. On top of that, there is the rule of law, where people can seek legal remedies if they are being unfairly treated,

[Cunt]

What you are clearly ignoring, Cunt, is that in most democracies, there are many additional mechanisms to aid local people having a real say in what happens in their districts, in contrast to some sort of monolithic, majority based uber government. Most countries have some sort of of division into states, plus elected local government, both of which exercise considerable power locally.. In rural Australia, there are often indigenous land councils with some say in activities in their areas. On top of that, there is the rule of law, where people can seek legal remedies if they are being unfairly treated,

So democracy gets rolled over, while beaurocrats make the real decisions.

Ask the local Tli Cho Council if they 'have a real say', or if they think Canada should 'have a real say'.

Democracy is a shit idea without modifiers. Like the Electoral College, or the way the US is set up like a republic.

Or the way you suggest here.

But it isn't democracy that makes the best decisions, by any stretch. How many times have people democratically voted for things like racism?

[Svartalf]

What you are clearly ignoring, Cunt, is that in most democracies, there are many additional mechanisms to aid local people having a real say in what happens in their districts, in contrast to some sort of monolithic, majority based uber government. Most countries have some sort of of division into states, plus elected local government, both of which exercise considerable power locally.. In rural Australia, there are often indigenous land councils with some say in activities in their areas. On top of that, there is the rule of law, where people can seek legal remedies if they are being unfairly treated,

well, I sure don't see much in the way of such mechanisms here, france is a perfect little monarchy, where the little people have damn few way of getting a say about how things are run, short of starting a revolution.

[Cunt]

It sure is a good thing that the french populace has been disarmed. That should make this end quickly.

[BarnettNewman]

This is the subject. Should the big cities ('Canada, by vote') have the right to negtiate? Or the Tli Cho?

I mean, do you think democracy should rule in this case? Or is it too crude?

To be honest, I know what my and the governments concerns would be. When it comes to indigenous concerns I think it would be good to listen to them and see what they have to say.
Additionally, if any development is on their treaty land, they get a place at the table.

[JimC]

What you are clearly ignoring, Cunt, is that in most democracies, there are many additional mechanisms to aid local people having a real say in what happens in their districts, in contrast to some sort of monolithic, majority based uber government. Most countries have some sort of of division into states, plus elected local government, both of which exercise considerable power locally.. In rural Australia, there are often indigenous land councils with some say in activities in their areas. On top of that, there is the rule of law, where people can seek legal remedies if they are being unfairly treated,

well, I sure don't see much in the way of such mechanisms here, france is a perfect little monarchy, where the little people have damn few way of getting a say about how things are run, short of starting a revolution.

The context I was mainly aiming at was the USA. Over there, states have considerable autonomy, so a farming state will have representatives that will look after their local interests (as well as representation in the US Senate far out of proportion to their population). Essentially, Cunt's argument about the need for less populous regions to have a greater effective vote in Presidential elections simply doesn't cut it.

[BarnettNewman]

Should the big cities ('Canada, by vote') have the right to negtiate? Or the Tli Cho?

I mean, do you think democracy should rule in this case? Or is it too crude?

If there is to be a loser in any decision I'll go for the tyranny of the majority over the tyranny of the minority every time.

Which majority?

The distance, uninformed mass of humanity in Toronto?

The mass of humanity in the Tli Cho who will be living with the environmental consequences?

Or the UN Council?

I don’t know what makes you think Toronto is so uninformed. That’s nit my experience. The uninformed masses are between the north and Toronto in my experience. They’re the ones with 60 foot suburban frontages, a three car garage and five cars per household. They drive everywhere, walk very little and think shopping at the mall is a hobby. If anything, Toronto proper is more aligned with rural interests and as well informed than any other jurisdiction.

[Cunt]

This is the subject. Should the big cities ('Canada, by vote') have the right to negtiate? Or the Tli Cho?

I mean, do you think democracy should rule in this case? Or is it too crude?

To be honest, I know what my and the governments concerns would be. When it comes to indigenous concerns I think it would be good to listen to them and see what they have to say.
Additionally, if any development is on their treaty land, they get a place at the table.

It's funny you say that. In some cases, Indigenous leaders (?which leaders? Elected chiefs? Hereditary chiefs?) would question your right to have a seat at the table. They also question Canada's right to be there.

Should the chiefs decide issues which will affect all of Canada? Which chiefs? The elected ones? Hereditary ones?

It isn't simple, by any means. Chanting 'democracy' doesn't clarify anything.

[BarnettNewman]

This is the subject. Should the big cities ('Canada, by vote') have the right to negtiate? Or the Tli Cho?

I mean, do you think democracy should rule in this case? Or is it too crude?

To be honest, I know what my and the governments concerns would be. When it comes to indigenous concerns I think it would be good to listen to them and see what they have to say.
Additionally, if any development is on their treaty land, they get a place at the table.

It's funny you say that. In some cases, Indigenous leaders (?which leaders? Elected chiefs? Hereditary chiefs?) would question your right to have a seat at the table. They also question Canada's right to be there.

Should the chiefs decide issues which will affect all of Canada? Which chiefs? The elected ones? Hereditary ones?

It isn't simple, by any means. Chanting 'democracy' doesn't clarify anything.

Quote me where I chanted anything about democracy.

[Forty Two]

What you are clearly ignoring, Cunt, is that in most democracies, there are many additional mechanisms to aid local people having a real say in what happens in their districts, in contrast to some sort of monolithic, majority based uber government. Most countries have some sort of of division into states, plus elected local government, both of which exercise considerable power locally.. In rural Australia, there are often indigenous land councils with some say in activities in their areas. On top of that, there is the rule of law, where people can seek legal remedies if they are being unfairly treated,

well, I sure don't see much in the way of such mechanisms here, france is a perfect little monarchy, where the little people have damn few way of getting a say about how things are run, short of starting a revolution.

The context I was mainly aiming at was the USA. Over there, states have considerable autonomy, so a farming state will have representatives that will look after their local interests (as well as representation in the US Senate far out of proportion to their population). Essentially, Cunt's argument about the need for less populous regions to have a greater effective vote in Presidential elections simply doesn't cut it.

It does, though. He's right on that point. That doesn't mean there aren't arguments against the EC, but he's not wrong.

Also, the practical effect of the EC is to have Presidential politics be more nationwide than it would be without it. A candidate can cobble together a good run at the Presidency by campaigning and taking into accounts the interests of smaller states. Without the EC, there would be far less reason for a President ever to visit Wyoming or Iowa or New Hampshire. Wyoming has like 250,000 registered voters. Getting those votes would become even less important than it is now. Now, you can get 3 votes from Wyoming. With a pure popular vote nationwide, you'd have Wyoming with 0.12% of all registered voters. Now, it has 0.6% of the EC votes, about 5 times more.

It shifts some reason for the Chief Executive to give a fuck what goes on in a small state. He might need that small state and a few others to cobble together a win or a chance at winning.

It means the President is more likely to pay attention to the whole country, and not just the population centers.

The equivalent of the Prime Minister in our system is not the President, but the Speaker of the House, who is the leader of the majority in the House of Representatives. That person is elected by direct vote of the members of the House, same as a PM. That's why you have Pelosi doing the talking now for the majority in the House.

One of the final compromises of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the Electoral College. For most of the convention, the debate was chiefly between those who advocated state legislatures choosing the president and those who wanted Congress to do the job.

Eventually, Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson suggested that the people elect the president. That idea prompted a deal striking a balance between population and the states. Each state, regardless of population, would get two senators and two electors in the Electoral College, with additional electoral votes based on population reflecting seats in the U.S. House.

The Founders expressly intended to give the states a say in electing the president. That is precisely why 100 of the 538 members of the Electoral College are apportioned to states equally.

Knitting together the original 13 states demanded respect of state sovereignty. Otherwise, the three large states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia would dominate the 10 small states and our great experiment might well have failed.

In 2016,

Without the Electoral College, California would have single-handedly swung the election. Trump’s electoral victory was broad: 30 states to Clinton’s 20 states and D.C.

Idaho has four electors. Taken together, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota have 21 electoral votes. Were the popular vote to decide the matter, these states would truly be irrelevant “flyovers” ignored by candidates spending virtually all their time on vote-rich California, Florida, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio.

I heard a great analogy about the Electoral College. Football games are not won by how many yards you run or how many first downs you make but how many touchdowns you score. As you can imagine, a team’s strategy for winning the game would be different if the rules changed to count the yards and first downs instead of the touchdowns. Similarly, the strategy would change for campaigns if the result was based on the popular vote and not the Electoral College.

The Electoral College ensures candidates listen to both Idaho farmers and Hollywood moguls. It is part of a constitutional fabric protecting minority rights. These include a bicameral Congress, the Bill of Rights and a constitutional amendment process requiring ratification by three-quarters of the states. This outcome affirms the genius of the Framers, who established a system of federalism that makes America a great and diverse republic.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/ ... 97158.html

This is not to say that your parliamentary systems are "worse" than our system. They are different systems. Both systems are not pure or "perfect" democracies. Both have balance injected into the systems to divide federal and state powers, and separate powers among areas of government to provide tension so that varying interests are represented.

The outrage exhibited against the US system, to me, seems so far disproportionate to the issue. Maybe you disagree with it, fine. But, it's not some sort of tyranny. It's not the sky falling. But, for some reason, almost every issue about the US that is discussed nowadays has to be portrayed as an apocalypse.

[Cunt]

This is the subject. Should the big cities ('Canada, by vote') have the right to negtiate? Or the Tli Cho?

I mean, do you think democracy should rule in this case? Or is it too crude?

To be honest, I know what my and the governments concerns would be. When it comes to indigenous concerns I think it would be good to listen to them and see what they have to say.
Additionally, if any development is on their treaty land, they get a place at the table.

It's funny you say that. In some cases, Indigenous leaders (?which leaders? Elected chiefs? Hereditary chiefs?) would question your right to have a seat at the table. They also question Canada's right to be there.

Should the chiefs decide issues which will affect all of Canada? Which chiefs? The elected ones? Hereditary ones?

It isn't simple, by any means. Chanting 'democracy' doesn't clarify anything.

Quote me where I chanted anything about democracy.

Quote me where I claimed you chanted anything about democracy.

Or, take a step back, and realize that I am referring to what MANY chant when they think they are thinking.

Fuck, if you think about my questions, you have to acknowledge that there is more to it than having some people vote.

[BarnettNewman]

This is the subject. Should the big cities ('Canada, by vote') have the right to negtiate? Or the Tli Cho?

I mean, do you think democracy should rule in this case? Or is it too crude?

To be honest, I know what my and the governments concerns would be. When it comes to indigenous concerns I think it would be good to listen to them and see what they have to say.
Additionally, if any development is on their treaty land, they get a place at the table.

It's funny you say that. In some cases, Indigenous leaders (?which leaders? Elected chiefs? Hereditary chiefs?) would question your right to have a seat at the table. They also question Canada's right to be there.

Should the chiefs decide issues which will affect all of Canada? Which chiefs? The elected ones? Hereditary ones?

It isn't simple, by any means. Chanting 'democracy' doesn't clarify anything.

Quote me where I chanted anything about democracy.

Quote me where I claimed you chanted anything about democracy.

Or, take a step back, and realize that I am referring to what MANY chant when they think they are thinking.

Fuck, if you think about my questions, you have to acknowledge that there is more to it than having some people vote.

You’re either thick or not interested in honest discourse. If you respond to something I posted it usually means you are responding to something I posted. Otherwise save it for a separate post.

[Cunt]

I notice you answered the false claim I made when I lumped you in with those chanting 'democracy', but you nimbly sidestepped the complicated questions I posed.

It's great that you are telling me how to post. I'll put that advice where it belongs. Thanks SO much for avoiding my point by picking a nit. I have learned a lot about you just now.

[JimC]

All the waffle in the world cannot change the fact that the presidential electoral system in the US enshrines an injustice, that some people's votes are significantly more effective than others.