Democracy must be stomped out beneath our jackboots, along with its advocates.
CRUSH MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS TO DUST AND DUMP THE ROT INTO A POLLUTED LAKE TO PURIFY IT.
I knew Top 4 was running in Colorado but I did not know about Idaho.
Top Two Primary made the ballot in South Dakota.
We are going to be in a big fight this November.
TOP 2 PRIMARY IN CA
>>> MORE NONVOTES IN ALL DISTS N-O-T HAVING 1 D AND 1 R
MORE NONVOTES BY VOTERS NEVER VOTING FOR ANY D OR R HACK
—
NOOOO HACK RIGGED PRIMARIES
PR
Primaries are very fair in Puerto Rico!
0.0000666 IQ MATH TROLL MORONS LOVE MINORITY RULE COMMIE/FASCIST EXTREMISTS VIA
PLURALITY WINNERS IN EXTREMIST PRIMARIES
PLURALITY WINNERS IN RIGGED MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS
—–
PR
The fairest!
@Oregon Bob
Depends on exactly what is meant by democracy. The founding fathers hated unchecked tyranny of the majority. But a republic is a type of representative democracy. Add a constitution on top to limit the powers of the people’s representatives so they (ideally) don’t abuse the people, and you have a constitutional republic; but the representatives are still elected democratically.
But direct democracy, especially one with constitutional checks and balances, is better than any form of representative democracy, even a constitutional republic. And if the founding fathers saw what we have wrought, I’m sure they would agree.
What we have wrought is because we’ve moved closer and closer to direct democracy. Direct democracy would be lynch mobs, Bolshevism, and tyranny.
Quite the opposite. We have only moved further and further from (direct) democracy, by creating a ruling class of elites and giving them ever more power and repealing the constitutional checks and balances. If we had moved closer to direct democracy, it would have become easier to get ballot initiatives on the ballot and to file petitions, but it has become harder. We have moved towards bolshevism and tyranny exactly because we have moved further and further away from (direct) democracy.
There were no ballot initiatives until the late 19th century. More states added them in the 20th. The franchise has been repeatedly expanded, politics increasingly nationalized, the Senate has moved from legislative to popular election.
Presidential electors were chosen by legislators in most cases initially, but subsequently moved to popular election. Now there is a pernicious move towards national popular vote for President.
Government has moved towards ever more control of all sorts of matters, because “democracy” is manipulated by demagogues to intrude into business, family, and religious life – even sports and entertainment.
We’ve moved towards ever more direct democracy, and thus closer to Bolshevism and tyranny. Not surprisingly, since Bolshevik literally means majoritarian.
The purest democracy is a lynch mob, with no checks and balances at all. What exactly would check or balance a pure direct democracy? And how?
@Nuña & Xander
I think you would both agree that the executive branch of government is too large? Whether wealthy people market to legislators or to the public is not so important.
@Xander
There didn’t need to be ballot initiatives and petitions as we know them now, because people could actually petition their congressional representatives directly and be heard. Normal people, not just elites and professional lobbyists.
The pernicious move towards the national popular vote is not a move towards direct democracy though. Quite the opposite, in that it gives more populous states more influence over national elections, which is a centralizing of control, a wresting it away from localities and individuals.
Having the number of electors scale (approximately) with state population was already a huge mistake. If you are going to have a representative democracy, rather than letting the demos actually kratein, then at least make it scale with arable land or cultivated surface, or with gross domestic product, or with exports, or with purchasing power parity, or inversely with crime, etc. Just anything more sensible than population, which gives states a perverse incentive to try and grow their voting population.
Government has moved towards ever more control of all sorts of matters, because it is representative rather than direct.
We’ve moved ever more away from direct democracy, from the agency of the individual, and thus closer to bolshevism and tyranny.
“Bolshintsvo” means “majority” because the bolshevists formed the larger wing of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, and the the menshevists, from “menshinstvo” meaning “minority”, formed the smaller wing. It has nothing to do with “majoritarianism” or “maximalism”.
A lynch mob would indeed be far more democratic than a tyrannical government pretending to represent the people while doing nothing of the sort, as in bolshevism. But you know what else would be more democratic: rule through referenda, direct democracy.
Just because a democracy is direct instead of representative, doesn’t mean it can’t be subjected to certain constitutional limits. For example, there could ab initio rules about what can and cannot be put to a referendum. And there should certainly be checks and balances in place to restrict the actions of agencies and public officials/civil servants/bureaucrats/whatever you want to call them – if they need to exist at all, that is.
@Adam Cerini
Absolutely. And not just the executive branch, each branch of government is become too large.
It’s a bad idea. Democracy is, in fact, a bad idea. The Founding Fathers hated it.
Read this link:
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/citizenship-tm2000-25.pdf
Democracy must be stomped out beneath our jackboots, along with its advocates.
CRUSH MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS TO DUST AND DUMP THE ROT INTO A POLLUTED LAKE TO PURIFY IT.
I knew Top 4 was running in Colorado but I did not know about Idaho.
Top Two Primary made the ballot in South Dakota.
We are going to be in a big fight this November.
TOP 2 PRIMARY IN CA
>>> MORE NONVOTES IN ALL DISTS N-O-T HAVING 1 D AND 1 R
MORE NONVOTES BY VOTERS NEVER VOTING FOR ANY D OR R HACK
—
NOOOO HACK RIGGED PRIMARIES
PR
Primaries are very fair in Puerto Rico!
0.0000666 IQ MATH TROLL MORONS LOVE MINORITY RULE COMMIE/FASCIST EXTREMISTS VIA
PLURALITY WINNERS IN EXTREMIST PRIMARIES
PLURALITY WINNERS IN RIGGED MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS
—–
PR
The fairest!
@Oregon Bob
Depends on exactly what is meant by democracy. The founding fathers hated unchecked tyranny of the majority. But a republic is a type of representative democracy. Add a constitution on top to limit the powers of the people’s representatives so they (ideally) don’t abuse the people, and you have a constitutional republic; but the representatives are still elected democratically.
But direct democracy, especially one with constitutional checks and balances, is better than any form of representative democracy, even a constitutional republic. And if the founding fathers saw what we have wrought, I’m sure they would agree.
What we have wrought is because we’ve moved closer and closer to direct democracy. Direct democracy would be lynch mobs, Bolshevism, and tyranny.
Quite the opposite. We have only moved further and further from (direct) democracy, by creating a ruling class of elites and giving them ever more power and repealing the constitutional checks and balances. If we had moved closer to direct democracy, it would have become easier to get ballot initiatives on the ballot and to file petitions, but it has become harder. We have moved towards bolshevism and tyranny exactly because we have moved further and further away from (direct) democracy.
There were no ballot initiatives until the late 19th century. More states added them in the 20th. The franchise has been repeatedly expanded, politics increasingly nationalized, the Senate has moved from legislative to popular election.
Presidential electors were chosen by legislators in most cases initially, but subsequently moved to popular election. Now there is a pernicious move towards national popular vote for President.
Government has moved towards ever more control of all sorts of matters, because “democracy” is manipulated by demagogues to intrude into business, family, and religious life – even sports and entertainment.
We’ve moved towards ever more direct democracy, and thus closer to Bolshevism and tyranny. Not surprisingly, since Bolshevik literally means majoritarian.
The purest democracy is a lynch mob, with no checks and balances at all. What exactly would check or balance a pure direct democracy? And how?
@Nuña & Xander
I think you would both agree that the executive branch of government is too large? Whether wealthy people market to legislators or to the public is not so important.
@Xander
There didn’t need to be ballot initiatives and petitions as we know them now, because people could actually petition their congressional representatives directly and be heard. Normal people, not just elites and professional lobbyists.
The pernicious move towards the national popular vote is not a move towards direct democracy though. Quite the opposite, in that it gives more populous states more influence over national elections, which is a centralizing of control, a wresting it away from localities and individuals.
Having the number of electors scale (approximately) with state population was already a huge mistake. If you are going to have a representative democracy, rather than letting the demos actually kratein, then at least make it scale with arable land or cultivated surface, or with gross domestic product, or with exports, or with purchasing power parity, or inversely with crime, etc. Just anything more sensible than population, which gives states a perverse incentive to try and grow their voting population.
Government has moved towards ever more control of all sorts of matters, because it is representative rather than direct.
We’ve moved ever more away from direct democracy, from the agency of the individual, and thus closer to bolshevism and tyranny.
“Bolshintsvo” means “majority” because the bolshevists formed the larger wing of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, and the the menshevists, from “menshinstvo” meaning “minority”, formed the smaller wing. It has nothing to do with “majoritarianism” or “maximalism”.
A lynch mob would indeed be far more democratic than a tyrannical government pretending to represent the people while doing nothing of the sort, as in bolshevism. But you know what else would be more democratic: rule through referenda, direct democracy.
Just because a democracy is direct instead of representative, doesn’t mean it can’t be subjected to certain constitutional limits. For example, there could ab initio rules about what can and cannot be put to a referendum. And there should certainly be checks and balances in place to restrict the actions of agencies and public officials/civil servants/bureaucrats/whatever you want to call them – if they need to exist at all, that is.
@Adam Cerini
Absolutely. And not just the executive branch, each branch of government is become too large.