What Would A Long-Term Strategy For Democracy Look Like?

[ulTRAX]

It's pretty obvious that the mainstream Democratic Party has little use for democracy. Sure they'll bitch and moan about 2000... but then Clinton won with about 40% of the vote... so maybe that's why, with rare exceptions, they stay quiet.

As a person committed to democracy.... believing that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed... I wonder what our federal system look like if it were reformed? State suffrage would have to be abolished. That mean anti-democratic abomination called the EC would be replaced with a popular vote. The US Senate might become a national parliament based on party elections with proportional representation. To deal with spoilers a runoff system would be needed. Ex-convicts would have their vote restored. Gerrymandering would be outlawed.

But most of these reforms entail amending the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is virtually reform-proof. The Framers foolishly based the final ratification process on states... not a percentage of the US population. In theory a mere 4% of the US population in the 12 smallest states can block any reform. This formula gives a dwindling percentage on the population in small states a growing ability to block reform. This is insane.

I suspect that try as we might to institute democratic reforms... the bar for amendments is just too high. I believe a top priority should be to concentrate on lowering the bar. Perhaps that states with 60% of the US population are sufficient for ratification. Perhaps amendments should be put to a popular vote every 2-4 years along Congressional races. If 60-66% whatever percent of the voters vote for an amendment...

Once the bar is lowered... the other reforms stand more of a chance. Right now they stand none.

[H2O Man]

1. Clinton won twice....

...and there would be very little for democrats to complain about there, right? What would a democrat find to protest there? And, uh, the framers of the Constitution did a pretty good job. The Constitution isn't the problem. As far as improving democracy in this country .... perhaps start at the foundation. Attend meetings of town, village, city, and county boards. Run for office. Debate issues. Democracy is a process. Breathe life into it. Don't allow multinationals to strangle it.

[ulTRAX]

3. Not sure what you're getting at.

H2O Man wrote:

"Clinton won twice.. ...and there would be very little for democrats to complain about there, right? What would a democrat find to protest there? "

It depends if you're a partisan interested in winning at all costs... even in a rigged system... or someone committed to democracy and will settle for true competition in a fair system. Which are you?

"And, uh, the framers of the Constitution did a pretty good job. The Constitution isn't the problem."

The Constitution gets more respect than it deserves. It has created such a dysfunctional yet reform-proof political system. Election 2000 proved the world's only super-power is not even under the control of it's own people. What we need to do today is stop the misguided Founder worship. We have to put the needs of the living over that of the dead. It's OUR country now.

"As far as improving democracy in this country .... perhaps start at the foundation. Attend meetings of town, village, city, and county boards. Run for office. Debate issues. Democracy is a process. Breathe life into it."

The USSC has already ruled that anti-democratic vote weighing schemes are illegal on all levels of government other than the federal level.

What you fail to understand is that if our federal government is anti-democratic.... what happens at town hall doesn't mean shit.

[H2O Man]

5. Actually....

...it is you that fails to understand .... even simple things. Of course, maybe you are a heck of a lot smarter than the framers of the constitution ... and everyone else! Hot dang! Just keep letting people know! But one serious note: the 2000 election was NOT a result of the Constitution being "dysfunctional" -- it was because the elected leaders of Florida and 5 US Supreme Court justices were criminal. But you go ahead and carry on your inspired quest!

[ulTRAX]

8. Place The Blame For 2000 Where it Belongs

H2O Man wrote:

"...it is you that fails to understand .... even simple things. Of course, maybe you are a heck of a lot smarter than the framers of the constitution ... and everyone else!"

I think you suffer from a terminal case of Founder Worship. It explains why you place worship for historical figures over the desirable political principles that were compromised away in 1787... principles as basic to democracy as morally legitimate government as defined in the Declaration of Independence. Much of the history for social justice in this nation has been the REJECTION of aspects of the Constitution. What were slaves and abolitionists supposed to do... say slavery was justified because the Framers were smarter than anyone else? How about women who were deprived the vote? Why should we place the will of the dead over our interests? That is unless you loathe both the living as well as the concept of democracy. It certainly seems so.

My own view is this is OUR nation now. The Founders are dead. The Framers did what they had to to form a nation given the ppolitics of the era. But those are not OUR politics today. The bar too reform was always too high and getting higher. The nation was always anti-democratic and getting more so. Our nation is out of step with the other advanced democracies that actually DO try to have elections reflect the consent of the governed. We MUST begin some serious debates about the Constitution's shortcomings and what our generation can do to pick up the torch of past social reformers to finally create a federal government that meets that test of moral legitimacy: that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed.

"Just keep letting people know! But one serious note: the 2000 election was NOT a result of the Constitution being "dysfunctional" -- it was because the elected leaders of Florida and 5 US Supreme Court justices were criminal."

Nice try.... OK... so say Bush won a clear victory of 20,000 votes in Florida... but still lost the popular vote by 530,000 instead of 550,000. All the nasty business in Florida would have never happened... and there would have been no USSC involvement.

Are you prepared to say then that Bush who lost by over a ½ million votes was still the morally legitimate winner, deserved to be President, and had every right to impose a dangerous minority agenda on the nation that rejected him? I say no. But then perhaps I'm not as smart as you.

[FloridaPat]

2. We need a real news media outlet and not propaganda outlet.

Then we have to get the people involved. I don't now what it is with the average American. They believe anything that's said. Don't think at all.

[ulTRAX]

4. OK... but....

FloridaPat wrote:

"We need a real news media outlet and not propaganda outlet.

OK... and what will that do if you get a Progressive majority and they can't institute reforms because the amendment process is too hard?

"Then we have to get the people involved. I don't now what it is with the average American. They believe anything that's said. Don't think at all."

Involved in what? What fundamental political truths can we awaken the American People to? That we have morally illegitimate government because it fails the test set in the Declaration of Independence: government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? That we may have a system of one person one vote... but some votes weigh more than others? That all Americans pay equal federal tax rates but do not get equal representation?

[pacifictiger]

6. the problem lies with

around 80% of the voters that for one reason or another are not motivated to do anything more than show up once every 2 years to vote - the comfort zone can be a very non-motivating influence. They are too busy: watching tv, going to a movie, going shopping, putting a roof over their head and food on the table, looking out for #1, complaining, goofing off, doing drugs, playing/watching sports, creating mischief, or sadly just plain too incapacitated to be physically able. Teaching individuals the value of taking responsibility for how their direct, and later broader, communities work must start as part of the education process from an early age so that the next generation will hopefully be more informed and more mindful of the consequences of not doing so than this current one.

[Nay]

7. Sure, I'm all for better education to create better citizens. But

until we start pumping out those model citizens, let's fine every voting age person fifty bucks every time he/she doesn't vote. It's funny how everybody gets all upright and citizenlike when you start fining the shit out of them for not voting.

[gate of the sun]

10. Yeah lets lose more of our rights

and be forced to vote. You can't have freedom and a mandatory vote at the same time. Maybe the facts are that the citizens of this country don't give a shit about what's happening in this country as long as they can buy a new car once in awhile and have a house and some groceries and some nikes. That's what I think and their apathetic ass's are going to pay for that apathy in the future when they finally realize they have been taken over by corporate issues and they have no more freedom. Sorry I am ranting but the educational system has done it's job and people just depend that they will continue to be able to consume and live freely without bothering to see what's really going on.

[ulTRAX]

11. why place all the blame on citizens?

I might agree if our system was designed to reflect and be responsive to the consent of the governed... but it's not. I believe the real problem is our anti-democratic and reform-proof Constitution, and the antiquated winner take all electoral system.

[ulTRAX]

9. apathy is a natural byproduct of a non-responsive political system

When I say our system is dysfunctional it's not just because it's anti-democratic allowing outrages like Election 2000 to happen... or that it gives 50% of the Senate seats to 15% of the US population. It's because it has as a built in features which make it unresponsive to the public. A first past the post ( aka winner-take-all; single-member district plurality) system has some natural consequences.

First it disenfranchises of all those who vote for election losers. Compare that to proportional representation which allows those who vote for minority parties to be represented. When minority parties have no chance voters are always faced with the dilemma of voting the lesser of the evils or voting their conscience.

If encouraging voter apathy was a goal, a better system couldn't have been designed than ours.