cvfd1399 0
Recommended Posts
jcd11235 0
cvfd1399I figured enough people supported gay rights these days a national vote would just pass it and get it out of the way, obviously people here think that's wrong to do.
Would you be so kind as to point out the article and clause of the Constitution that provides the people with the power to legislate via a direct vote on an issue? (Hint: there is none.)
People here think it's wrong to do because the Framers withheld such power from the people. Any law passed in such a manner would be unconstitutional. It certainly wouldn't speed up the resolution of the issue.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
cvfd1399 0
I know that there isn't, im just thinking that if there was a majority wish in the nation that something like this would exist. Are you arguing against making gay rights legal faster is a bad thing?
Are you also saying that if majority of the country wished for something to be a certain way that some bribed up politicians or some old ass judges should be able to prevent the will of the majority of america?
I bet you are one of the kinds of people that when an office votes on what to order for lunch and you don't get your wish you cry about it.
Are you also saying that if majority of the country wished for something to be a certain way that some bribed up politicians or some old ass judges should be able to prevent the will of the majority of america?
I bet you are one of the kinds of people that when an office votes on what to order for lunch and you don't get your wish you cry about it.
jcd11235 0
cvfd1399I know that there isn't, im just thinking that if there was a majority wish in the nation that something like this would exist. Are you arguing against making gay rights legal faster is a bad thing?
No, but your suggested method is a bad thing.
cvfd1399Are you also saying that if majority of the country wished for something to be a certain way that some bribed up politicians or some old ass judges should be able to prevent the will of the majority of america?
I strongly oppose the idea that the US should be a direct democracy. I don't want the country to be run by the whims of the people. The people have proven themselves, time and again, to be quite capable of exercising very bad judgement. (One only needs to look at the number of states that legislated, via direct votes of the people, bans on same sex marriages to see examples of this.) Our representative republic, though far from perfect, mitigates this problem somewhat.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kallend 2,175
cvfd1399whos rights am I trying to yank? I agree with gay marriage and abortion it should be a persons choice, lets pass it and move on.....QuoteWanting to yank someone's constitutional rights
A bunch of federal judges and circuits have ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. The Supremes have overturned some parts of the DOMA as unconstitutional. A simple vote of the people cannot make something unconstitutional into law.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
cvfd1399 0
Yea the system is real good when you have 6 states that decide who is president, and get 4 presidents who were elected despite majority of Americans wanting the other candidate.
...and this happens
...and this happens
. Wiki swing states article.QuoteSince a national campaign is interested in electoral votes, rather than the national popular vote, it tends to ignore states that it believes it will win easily; since it will win these without significant campaigning, any effort put into them is essentially wasted. A similar logic dictates that the campaign avoid putting any effort into states that it knows it will lose.
jcd11235 0
cvfd1399Yea the system is real good when you have 6 states that decide who is president, and get 4 presidents who were elected despite majority of Americans wanting the other candidate.
...and this happens
It would continue to happen in a direct democracy. Many election results would be determined by a minority in the middle, rather than those voters who have strong convictions on either side of an issue.
Politicians will always focus their campaigns on those who can be, and need to be, persuaded to vote for them instead of against them.
It's interesting, though, how you aren't opposed state level elections to decide LGBT rights, but are opposed to them for selecting a president.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Are you also saying that if majority of the country wished for something to be a
>certain way that some bribed up politicians or some old ass judges should be able
>to prevent the will of the majority of america?
Not just yes but HELL YES.
Let's say there was another spate of school shootings, and 51% of Americans decicde they want to ban guns. Would you support the ban?
Or perhaps there is a wave of crime from predominantly black areas, and there is a wave of anti-black sentiment that reaches just over 50%. Should we then allow laws that strip blacks of their rights to protect all the whites?
The Constitution and our legal system is there for a reason.
>certain way that some bribed up politicians or some old ass judges should be able
>to prevent the will of the majority of america?
Not just yes but HELL YES.
Let's say there was another spate of school shootings, and 51% of Americans decicde they want to ban guns. Would you support the ban?
Or perhaps there is a wave of crime from predominantly black areas, and there is a wave of anti-black sentiment that reaches just over 50%. Should we then allow laws that strip blacks of their rights to protect all the whites?
The Constitution and our legal system is there for a reason.
Andy9o8 3
cvfd1399I know that there isn't, im just thinking that if there was a majority wish in the nation that something like this would exist. Are you arguing against making gay rights legal faster is a bad thing?
Are you also saying that if majority of the country wished for something to be a certain way that some bribed up politicians or some old ass judges should be able to prevent the will of the majority of america?
I bet you are one of the kinds of people that when an office votes on what to order for lunch and you don't get your wish you cry about it.
Let's get past your vilifying him personally, and get back to the subject of checks and balances on majority rule.
The problem is that your proposal sets up what's commonly known as "Tyranny of the Majority".
James Madison, one of the principal drafters of the Constitution, as well as its Bill of Rights, observed that factions posed a special problem for democratic societies because a faction composed of the majority of the people could easily oppress the minority.
On this point, he wrote: “Place three individuals in a situation wherein the interest of each depends on the voice of the others, and give to two of them an interest opposed to the rights of the third. Will the latter be secure? The prudence of every man would shun the danger. The rules & forms of justice suppose & guard against it. Will two thousand in a like situation be less likely to encroach on the rights of one thousand?”
(Source: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/founders/james-madison/)
Essentially, pure majority rule allows "Tyranny of the Majority". You like Wikipedia. So do I, sometimes, for its convenient synopses, though sometimes at the expense of quality. Take a minute and read the Wiki article on Tyranny of the Majority. Then you should understand our concerns with your majority-rule proposal:
Article: Tyranny of the Majority
cvfd1399 0
Ok so using bill's example of gun rights vote after a shooting. If 51% of the people voted against a gun ban and it lost in the "majority/tyrany" situation then the 49% would get shafted as you say.
But how is it fair in our current system if majority of the people do not want a gun ban, but the Supreme Court makes it legal anyway ok?
How is a direct majority vote not invoke a majority/tyranny in a local or state election but it does on a federal level? When my mayor gets elected by a 51-49 margin how is that not the same as a gun ban getting 51-49 on a national level?
But how is it fair in our current system if majority of the people do not want a gun ban, but the Supreme Court makes it legal anyway ok?
How is a direct majority vote not invoke a majority/tyranny in a local or state election but it does on a federal level? When my mayor gets elected by a 51-49 margin how is that not the same as a gun ban getting 51-49 on a national level?
wmw999 2,600
Regardless of anything, the percentage of voters who actually vote is so vanishingly small that it's ludicrous to say a national vote would reflect the will of the people.
Then, when society moved on, another national vote would be required. Otherwise, women wouldn't be voting yet.
Wendy P.
Then, when society moved on, another national vote would be required. Otherwise, women wouldn't be voting yet.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
cgriff 0
cvfd1399How is a direct majority vote not invoke a majority/tyranny in a local or state election but it does on a federal level? When my mayor gets elected by a 51-49 margin how is that not the same as a gun ban getting 51-49 on a national level?
That one's quite simple. One is voting on a particular candidate. The other is voting on rights. Rights are not subject to a vote. Political candidates are.
jcd11235 0
cvfd1399But how is it fair in our current system if majority of the people [oppose Issue A], but the Supreme Court makes it legal anyway ok?
The SCOTUS doesn't make anything legal or illegal. They interpret laws and determine their constitutionality. The majority of people have (and undoubtedly will again in the future) support unconstitutional measures. Those measures are still unconstitutional, regardless of public opinion.
cvfd1399How is a direct majority vote not invoke a majority/tyranny in a local or state election but it does on a federal level?
It often invokes just that at the state and local level. Consider state bans on same sex marriage. Such votes don't exist at the national level, so they don't invoke tyranny of the majority.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
cvfd1399 0
We know that's not how it works, and it's unconstitutional, we are talking about how/why it would or would not work.
If you can vote for one person or another, then you can easily set up the voting to allow a yes or no vote for gay marriage, gay healthcare rights, etc.
If you can vote for one person or another, then you can easily set up the voting to allow a yes or no vote for gay marriage, gay healthcare rights, etc.
jakee 1,610
cgriff***How is a direct majority vote not invoke a majority/tyranny in a local or state election but it does on a federal level? When my mayor gets elected by a 51-49 margin how is that not the same as a gun ban getting 51-49 on a national level?
That one's quite simple. One is voting on a particular candidate. The other is voting on rights. Rights are not subject to a vote. Political candidates are.
Correct on the specific example. Electing a politician is not the same as voting on a a law.
Not completely correct in wider principle. In the USA referendums on statutes can be conducted at state level in conjuction with state wide elections. See for example, California proposition 8. There is no Federal mechanism for such a referendum.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
cvfd1399 0
QuoteIt often invokes just that at the state and local level. Consider state bans on same sex marriage. Such votes don't exist at the national level, so they don't invoke tyranny of the majority.
What! So how is it ok for tyrant of the majority to be invoked on people who lose a local mayors race, or state governors race, but holy shot let's not do it on the national level?
jcd11235 0
cvfd1399If you can vote for one person or another, then you can easily set up the voting to allow a yes or no vote for gay marriage, gay healthcare rights, etc.
It's possible, but much more difficult than in a direct democracy. Still, it happens sometimes. And sometimes the SCOTUS finds such legislation unconstitutional.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
cvfd1399So how is it ok for tyrant of the majority to be invoked on people who lose a local mayors race, or state governors race, but holy shot let's not do it on the national level?
You're confusing elections of political candidates with elections on issues.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
That's all I'm trying to say, I figured enough people supported gay rights these days a national vote would just pass it and get it out of the way, obviously people here think that's wrong to do.
However you fairly do it, just get it over with, and move on to the other things we need to be doing.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites