Electorates apparently don't have to honor the popular vote.

[Ponzio]

And it is true, the US founders had, if not disdain, trepidation for direct democracy, like it or not.

True that.

 

[Trell]

The article cannot be read without a paid subscription to the NYT web site, which I do not have, so it made your post more confusing.

And it is true, the US founders had, if not disdain, trepidation for direct democracy, like it or not.

I generally paste quotes this way and add ellipses (...) to indicate that I've snipped out the quotes. Perhaps I should highlight the quotes using italics font in addition to indent [edit: added] to make it even more clear that it is quotes?

Accessing an article via a Google search usually works, though you may have to clear cookies on the for the nytimes site.

Another quote to address your last comment, but quoting the entire op-ed is not fair use, though. The following is the two pragraphs presiding the first quote. To be clear, these are the opinions of the op-ed author, not necessarily mine.

You can fill in the blanks of the argument from there. The Founding Fathers built a government to stymie the “tyranny of the majority.” They contrasted their “republic” with “democracy,” which they condemned as dangerous and unstable. As John Adams wrote in an 1814 letter to the Virginia politician John Taylor: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”​

​

But there’s a problem. For the founders, “democracy” did not mean majority rule in a system of representation. The men who led the revolution and devised the Constitution were immersed in classical literature and political theory. Ancient Greece, in particular, was a cautionary tale. When James Madison critiqued “democracy” in Federalist No. 10, he meant the Athenian sort: “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” This he contrasted with a “republic” or “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.” Likewise, in a 1788 speech to the New York ratification convention, Alexander Hamilton disavowed “the ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated.” They “never possessed one good feature of government,” he said. “Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”​

 

[Trell]

[snip]
And it is true, the US founders had, if not disdain, trepidation for direct [my bold added] democracy, like it or not.

The word 'direct' is what is left out of the slogan "This is a Republic, not a Democracy", and when that word is added it seems that would be more in line what the Founding Fathers had in mind, according to the op-ed, not a rejection of democracy in all it's forms.

Should have written this in my reply to you in post #62, but here I go.

 

[panteragstk]

Trell, you're free to express your big government and left-leaning opinions, but in this case you're twisting US history to fit your political views. The Electoral College was proposed for only one reason, to form the union. Colonies with lesser populations were not going to join the union if their positions would simply be overwhelmed by the more populous colonies to choose the President. It was also quite a controversial proposal to make such a powerful position as the US President a direct election office with the founders. Personally, I've never liked the Electoral College, and I wish it would go away. And every time a Democrat wins the Presidency the Republicans call for its elimination, and vice versa. Your statements about it allowing the domination of right-wing politics and making the federal government "a closed domain for the select, privileged few" demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of US history, and also a very left-leaning agenda. You just happen to be observing US history at a time when there is significant backlash from the far right in the US (after they felt betrayed by the Obama administration). Personally, as someone who lives in the US, I see this situation getting worse, not better.

As for the NYT article you're referencing, Ocasio-Cortez is used as a lightning rod by both parties, depending on what her latest stupid statement is that supports their respective political agenda. Her twisting of the Electoral College into an instrument of racism is just another incident in a long string of comments exploiting racism as a means to expand her influence. I especially liked her recent comment that Millennials are the first generation to demonstrate against governments. What an ignorant fool she is. She and Trump are perfect for each other in that regard. In fact, I'm convinced that if not for Fox News she would serve out one term in the House in obscurity. To rally the Republican base Fox has turned her (and the other members of "The Squad") into celebrities. I'm of a mind that this manufactured celebrity will come back to bite the Republicans soon.

AOC reminds me of the saying "he who speaks the loudest, has the least to say". I'm probably screwing up the quote, but the meaning applies.

 

[markw]

The point of the slogan isn’t to describe who we are, but to claim and co-opt the founding for right-wing politics — to naturalize political inequality and make it the proper order of things. What lies behind that quip, in other words, is an impulse against democratic representation. It is part and parcel of the drive to make American government a closed domain for a select, privileged few.​

Yeah, majority/mob rule certainly worked out well for 8 million Jews and various other countries in Europe overrun by Germany in the 1930's and 40's, didn't it?

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/preventing-the-tyranny-the-majority

 

[Trell]

Yeah, majority/mob rule certainly worked out well for 8 million Jews and various other countries in Europe overrun by Germany in the 1930's and 40's, didn't it?

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/preventing-the-tyranny-the-majority

I'm sure you know that Adolf Hitler, as all fascists and Nazis do, hated democracy but he certainly used it to achieve power. In 1932 NSAP got 33% of the votes in federal elections which is the last free and fair all-German election before World War II, and subsequently used that to abolish democracy and create an utterly horrible monster of a state.

Getting total power was done in multiple steps. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) voted against the Enabling Act of 1933 that would allow the Chancellor Adolf Hitler to effectively enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag, and that after the earlier Reichstag Fire Decree by the German President that nullified many civil liberties. And the rest is history, if only that was so. The members of SPD showed real courage and knew what could, and did, happen to them if they failed. I wish that G.O.P. showed a tiny bit of that courage.

If the US Congress is unable to act when it must to protect the Constitution and rule of law, it just shows that the Constitution is just some words written on paper.

What comes to mind when I see a slogan like "This is a Republic, not a Democracy", I think you know. If it was written "This is a Republic, not a direct Democracy" I certainly could understand and agree as that would not dismiss democracy per see, as written in my earlier posts and article.

 

[markw]

I'm sure you know that Adolf Hitler, as all fascists and Nazis do, hated democracy but he certainly used it to achieve power. In 1932 NSAP got 33% of the votes in federal elections which is the last free and fair all-German election before World War II, and subsequently used that to abolish democracy and create an utterly horrible monster of a state.

Say what you will but he was elected by a majority vote,that pure democracy you seem to champion. That's all that needs be said. All your posturing seems to me that you're somehow jealous of what we have.

What country did you say yo're from again?

Sadly, as of late, it seems congress and other areas of our government has been doing all it can do to destroy the values set forth by the constitution using methods not unlike you mention and is getting bolder each day..

http://www.pacinst.com/paul.html

 

[Irvrobinson]

If the US Congress is unable to act when it must to protect the Constitution and rule of law, it just shows that the Constitution is just some words written on paper.

What, specifically, are you talking about? What rule of law haven't they protected?

What comes to mind when I see a slogan like "This is a Republic, not a Democracy", I think you know. If it was written "This is a Republic, not a direct Democracy" I certainly could understand and agree as that would not dismiss democracy per see, as written in my earlier posts and article.

It's not a slogan, it is a description of how the federal government was intended to work. Leaving out the word "direct" is a nit you're trying to pick, because you disagree with the intentions of the founders WRT the Electoral College. One concept I think is eluding you a bit is how different the US states consider themselves, and the notion that a state's relative value in the federal government is being eliminated by more populous states is repugnant to a lot of people in less populous states. As someone who has lived in five US states (so far), and counting my wife and children they add three more our family has lived in, I personally find the entire concept of states in the 21st century to be annoying and inconvenient. Nonetheless, states and states rights are fundamental to the US and our overall system government, like it or not.

And I might remind you, again, that state and local governments in the US are direct democracies, which includes (sometimes with less than optimal results) judges, district attorneys, sheriffs, comptrollers, and even auditors. And school boards. In many states people vote directly on ballot propositions, which often produces detrimental results (like majorities voting themselves a tax cut, and an increase for the voting minorities). Personally, I would not want a federal government that is much more of direct democracy.

 

[panteragstk]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/20/us-electoral-college-explained

 

[highfigh]

Well, I have to pay for medicare and that only covers 80% of my medical for most procedures. I still have to pay for supplemental insurance for the other 20%, plus deductibles are involved. Do you think the voters are aware of this or do they think they'll be getting medicaid?

Add to that that I've paid into Medicare since I started working in the 60's so it's not like we haven't been paying for it all our working lives.

If anyone doesn't know about the need for 'gap insurance', they either don't know anyone who has needed it or they haven't been paying attention. Do parents talk about this stuff with their kids? Mine did and most of the financial stuff was dialed in and settled before they passed. I know it's difficult for some to discuss, but it needs to happen.

People need to read the annual statement that comes from Social Security.

 

[highfigh]

Yes you're right but I always find it amusing that our politicians describe it as a democracy. Maybe we need to send them to a civics class.

Some seem to have been born before the Constitution was ratified. They need to be sent to a retirement home. They need a mandatory retirement age and term limits- why is Feinstein still in office at the tender age of 87? Congress has 12 members who are 80 or older.

 

[Trell]

Some seem to have been born before the Constitution was ratified. They need to be sent to a retirement home. They need a mandatory retirement age and term limits- why is Feinstein still in office at the tender age of 87? Congress has 12 members who are 80 or older.

Term limits? You mean elections?

A change from "winners takes all" elections, as some states have done, could go a long way to reduce the incumbency advantage. It probably would make it easier for new parties to rise as well. Of course, gerrymandering has to go away.

 

[highfigh]

Term limits? You mean elections?

A change from "winners takes all" elections, as some states have done, could go a long way to reduce the incumbency advantage. It probably would make it easier for new parties to rise as well. Of course, gerrymandering has to go away.

Many people in the US don't bother to try to change the politicians who are sitting in office- it's a sad part of this country and I guess they would rather be passive-aggressive and complacent about it, rather than get involved. Since I don't live in the city of Milwaukee (two blocks away but in a different community), there's not much I can do but observe or discuss things with people who do live there. Some areas are so heavily weighted toward one party that electing someone from the other party just won't happen, regardless of how badly things are going- Milwaukee County is one of those places. This city is circling the drain and the only two parties that have been in office since the last elected Republican Mayor's term ended in 1916 are the Socialists and Democrats. Honestly, the Socialists were very different from those who are alive now- less interested in control and giving things away, more interested in the people/quality of life in the city. It was also extremely easy to receive more welfare than in many places, so it became a place for people in other places who couldn't receive as much. Milwaukee is the last major US city with a Socialist Mayor, too. Since the last Socialist Mayor was in office (his term ran from 1948-1960), Democrats have been in office, but to return to the point about changing them- Milwaukee has only had four different elected Mayors since 1960, with one temporarily in office for three months, after John O. Norquist left after losing support after he had an affair with someone on his staff at city hall. The city has had a very adversarial relationship with its police chiefs over the last decades, too- after Harold Breier retired, those who were once in good standing were removed by the mayors for various reasons- he was different, since he could be called the Mayor's 'enforcer'. That was a violent time and those events were sometimes concealed from public scrutiny. I like most of the people in Milwaukee I meet- I have problems with the politicians. The homeless population isn't being helped and has exceeded the capacity of the shelters- several food banks provide decent meals for them but some have no place to stay. The city has several literacy services, job training and free clinics, too.

It's not all bad, but the crime has worsened and there's no apparent plan to handle it. Maybe the next Police chief can do something.