Skip to main content

View Diary: The House GOP expected wave. So far, none in sight (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What's wrong with more people getting their way? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevenaxelrod, Theodore J Pickle

    Yeah, Cook county overwhelms Illinois politics... but that's because they have the most people who will be affected by Illinois politics!

    Please formulate an argument for me why it's okay for, say, rural people to get what's effectively 2-40 extra voters per person but it's not okay to award bald people or people born in April or war veterans extra voters.

    •  Your question tells me there is no point to this (0+ / 0-)


      But, some time when you are in a contemplative mood, you might ask yourself why the founders saw fit to provide the first Ten amendments to the Constitution, which could be characterized as protecting individuals against the will of the majority.

      For that matter, why is the Supreme Court constructed the way it is (and justices appointed and paid the way they are)?  It is fairly described as the anti-Democratic branch of government, and it is intentionally so.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 02:52:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  people were much more uneducated back then (0+ / 0-)

        You couldn't vote for a Senator then. Things have changed 4 the better. Some day the "arc of justice" will find its resting place.
        That means true rationality will win out.

        •  Less educated? (0+ / 0-)

          No, that's not it.

          Your response makes me wonder how much less educated people could have been.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:17:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Im talking the first one hundrdd fifty plus (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bring the Lions

            Years of the country. We are far more educated now than from 1787 through 1937. Are you really going to argue that? We had legalized
            slavery and/ or women couldn't vote for the vast majority if that time frame. Are you really going to go "there".

            •  Contemplating the difference between more and (0+ / 0-)


              I'm certainly willing to go "there".

              Your response makes clear that you haven't studied the history of the United States sufficiently to understand the topic, yet are willing to throw out some ideas.

              Nothing wrong with throwing out ideas, but the people who came up with the system really did have their reasons.

              The people in smaller states were rightfully concerned and smart enough to hammer out a compromise.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:44:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A substantial percentage of people (0+ / 0-)

                in that time frame couldn't literally read or write. What you are talking about was the establishment of a governing system for the
                elite of its time. Any "system" of governance that tolerated legalized
                slavery or subjugation of half the population through almost
                the mid 20th century was deficient at best.

                •  A substantial percentage of people today can not (0+ / 0-)

                  read or write.

                  In the 18th century, public schools were already common in New England, and basic education --- literacy, basic arithmetic, and the like, were widespread.

                  As to slavery, it is fair to criticize the decision to include slave states within the union.  The founders were concerned about the nation's ability to survive as an independent entity without them.  If fairness, the British did invade and even burned the White House in the War of 1812.

                  Definitely a deal made with the devil, and a mistake corrected in the Civil War.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:06:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  That is one of the more ludicrously-besides-the- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Theodore J Pickle

        point arguments I've seen around here in a long time.

        The rule of 2 senators per state doesn't provide general protection for any arbitrary minority constituency, it provides particular protection for the very specific minority constituency of "citizens of large, rural states". It is a ghastly fuckup, one that originated in a time and place where nobody really envisioned the current dynamic range of state populations and large number of barely-populated western states.

        Nowhere in the 10 amendments will you find anything singling out any particular minority constituency for protection -- not even in the first amendment protection of religion, which equally protects the rights of a majority religion from the tyranny of a minority religion that happens to have disproportionate power due to being concentrated in the socioeconomic elite.

        Some sort of compromise is desperately needed (e.g., states get a 3rd senator at 10,000,000 pop and a 4th at 20,000,000) but will never happen, since the Senators from the less-populated states will NEVER vote for an amendment that will lessen their power.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site