Does democracy equal majority rule?

[Palefire]

A great deal of the debate around the filibuster seems to center on the rights of the majority and the minority, with each side arguing the case for themselves for the most part. Having seen the tables turned in the past (i.e. Democrats as the majority and Republicans as the minority) and both sides making arguments counter to the ones they are making today, I must ask, do you believe democracy equals majority rule?

I do not believe that it does. I believe that Democracy is government by the people. Certainly a majority rule is the simplest way to get to that, but there is nothing magical about 51% except that it would be the least amount that could possibly be accepted. That is not to say that it is the least amount that should be accepted. A higher percentage being required would only result in more people being represented and the wheels of government moving slower; both good things from where I sit. Seeing Republicans and Democrats have to sit down and hammer out agreements, regardless of who had the majority at that moment in time, would, I believe, result in many more American citizens being represented by the government; and thus would make this nation more democratic. Of course this a simplistic presentation of a complex issue and I am not addressing the subtle complexities here, just the larger concept. For those that wish to address the under lying complexities I may start another thread, but for now let’s stick to the bigger idea.

Edited to say:

This question is not intended to be only about the filibuster. It is about majority rule and Democracy. I also address the topic of in forced negotiation by higher requirement than 51% in a 2 party system in my comments below the question, and note that it might result in a more representative nation. The concept of more than a bare majority being required to move a Senate action forward is larger than just the filibuster of judges.

Edited to say:

And lets limit this to American Representative Democracy. I don't think we need people talking about hypothetical ones. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

[Palefire]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I'm not talking only about the filibuster issue. However, the current filibuster debate seems to have shined some light on this topic.

[Palefire]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

Again - I am not only speaking of the filibuster. I'm attempting to present a larger concept than just that. However, the focus on the filibuster recently seems to be allowing for people to assume I am speaking in narrower terms.

[Palefire]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

So, when democrats get control of the senate again, how do you plan on stopping them from doing whatever they want?

They already do confirm all the ultra-liberal judges they want. Look at those two joke, non-originalists Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court.

They also pass all the liberal legislation they want. As in, Brady Bill, OBRA93, etc.

All this does is level the playing field.

If you think the Democrats have put some bad judges up before - just wait until they are back in power and looking to avenge themselves and show how wrong the Republicans were for ending the filibuster. The childish cycle to vengance is well established with both the Democrats and the Republicans. I also can definately wait to see what kinds of judges the current Republicans will put up once the threat of filibuster has been removed. If the Republicans blow up the filibuster like this, that cycle is just going to get worse and more extreme. Just what this country needs; more extreme judges and more childish behavior on the Senate floor.

Now - back to the braoder topic of majority rule. There are plenty of filibuster threads on this board if that is all you wish to address.

[Palefire]

And we never filibustered judges that would otherwise be confirmed while we were in the minority, so this isn't a cycle. This is brand new obstructionism by the Democrats.

What's childish is the "living, breathing Constitution."

I'd ask what does the word "childish" have to do with the concept of a living constitution, but I'm afraid of the answer I'd get.

[Palefire]

Legal documents are not "alive." It sounds like something out of a fairy tale.

If I entire into a contract with you, can I break it because it's alive?

The constitution is not a contract, in case you have a hard time telling the different type of legal documents apart.

Many things sound silly to those that do not understand the concept being refered to. By your own reasoning Scalia must have sounded very silly when he refered to a "dead" constitution. How could a document be dead - it was never alive to begin with? But I think we are all clever enough to understand what the terms "living" and "dead" are refering to in this case.  Comments like "it sounds like it's out of a fairy tale" not with standing.

[Palefire]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

Again - I am not only speaking of the filibuster. I'm attempting to present a larger concept than just that. However, the focus on the filibuster recently seems to be allowing for people to assume I am speaking in narrower terms.

I think I answered the broader question in the first paragraph. It was clearly the intention of the founders that our government should not be a matter of two wolves sitting down with one sheep to decide what's for dinner.

Our constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Your elected representatives and all judges are sworn by their oath of office to support the constitution. The founders did that to protect your rights and mine. Beyond that they also divided government power among the 3 branches and further split the legislative branch into two. I think the founders did a pretty damn good job of it but unfortunately their result was not airtight. The constitution can only stand if there are people who will stand up for it. Unfortunately too many Americans don't understand the importance of the constitution  and would happily sell the whole thing down the river in exchange for more government handouts.

Actually, no. You gave a summary of a hypothetical Democracy in your first paragraph and then informed me I was talking about the filibuster; when, in fact, I was talking about a much broader approach to negotiated legislation. My bad. I must have wriiten the question very poorly (it's hard to work with that small a space), or something, because the concept I put forth sure isn't being addressed.

"Sell the whole thing down the river in exchange for government handouts" - where did that come from. I'm certainly not suggesting that the constitution be altered in any way. I'm just looking at Senate rules and how to better represent the American people myself, but wanted to leave room for people to have a broader take than that if they wished to.

[Palefire]

Constitution is a contract between states.

The whole point to a dead Constitution is making fun of the living Constitution.

Why do I even bother. If I say the sky is blue, you will say it's yellow. Look up what a constitution is. You will note that it doesn't say "what ever works best for the arguement that a18 is making". A constitution is a specific type of legal document as is a contract. Geeez.

Now if the whole point of a "dead" constitution is just to "make fun" of something, then perhaps the term "dead constitution" could be described as childish. And so we come full cirlcle.

[Palefire]

The Constitution is a contract between states. It is a series of amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and the states are bound only to what authority they ceded to the federal government.

Making fun of something incredibly stupid is not childish.

So you are saying that contract law applies to the administration of the constitution of the United States of America? There maybe some aspects of a constitution that are similar to a contract, but a constitution is not a contract, not even if it suits your arguement. You'll argue anything won't you. Let me just try it. A18, the sky is blue.

[Palefire]

It's not as if democracy isn't a laughable concept.

To the extent that the minority has rights, it is undemocratic.

I really must stop talking to people that say such things.

I do find it interesting that we have yet to find a Republican that has not voted no to the question and I wonder how these folks would vote on such a question if they were not the majority. Most likely they would be voting the opposite of how the Democrats would be voting if the Democrats were the majority. I can hardly wait for the next cycle of power when the Democrats are saying all the things that the Republicans are currently saying and the Republicans are saying all the things the Democrats are currently saying. Will that not be fun.

[Palefire]

Both of those statements are obviously true.

If we were not the majority, we would still agree that democracy is majority rule. I find it hilarious that some can't admit that democracy sucks.

OK, I'll bite one more time. If a18 had the power to reshape the government of this nation as he/she pleased, what form would a18 give it?

[Palefire]

Both of those statements are obviously true.

If we were not the majority, we would still agree that democracy is majority rule. I find it hilarious that some can't admit that democracy sucks.

I would also be very pleased to note that there is no "we" on this issue. You are waaaaaay beyond most Republicans. Unless some where along the line the GOP has adopted the position that "democracy sucks" and I didn't notice it.

[Palefire]

A system of checks and balances, of which democracy plays a part. However, I don't think unlimited debate should be one of the checks.

I used "we" not in connection to the statement "democracy sucks," but in connection to the statement that democracy is majority rule, something this poll of yours obviously reflects.

I think most people agree that pure democracy sucks.

So you are saying that what we have is great except for the unlimited debate?

I really don't think the 5 Republicans that have voted in this poll are a good measuring stick for the entire Republican population of this country. Do you think they are? But maybe you were only refering to those 5 when you said we? But 5 people is hardly the "majority". Don't you just hate it when a narrow group inside the majority credits the majority with sharing all their little beliefs? I also think I'll hold on to my belief that when the Republicans are not the majority they will, for the most part, join me in supporting minority rights; I've seen it the past, and expect it in the future.

And didn't you say that democracy was a laughable concept? I take it, by that, you intended to say that pure democracy sucks and that the basic concept was sound? Or did you just mean that democracy was laughable concept, like it sounded?

[Palefire]

Democracy is majority rule.

Republicanism is not.


The survival of the country rests on this distinction...if it gets too blurry (and it gets blurrier every day)...well, what we have is good while it lasts.

I don't agree that Democracy has to be majority rule - but it certainly could be defined as such. I agree with you that simple majority rule is a bad thing and the blur that is occuring in this nation is most harmful (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth - that is not my intent). So, what do think can be done about it?

[Palefire]

When you accuse him of being unclear on whether he dislikes pure democracy or democracy as loosely applied in everyday parlance, you are being fundamentally dishonest.  What he said was:

I think most people agree that pure democracy sucks.

So he was very clear in limiting his comments to only pure democracy.

Clean it up next time.

It's not as if democracy isn't a laughable concept.

Read a little more, Mr. Ford, prior to judging next time. You might find your own attacks on peoples positions are not so weak if you don't jump into the middle of a conversation and assume you know the beginning of it without bothering to look.
Oh, and Mr. Ford, do note the question marks in my last comment to a18. Seeking further clarification of somebody elses opinion is hardly stating somebody elses opinion, much less distorting it. I assume you are bright enough to be able to tell that difference and wonder why you would make such a distortion yourself.

[Palefire]

Nice work bringing the debate out of the gutter.

This is what I mean when i say clean it up.  You insult someone, them pretend you didn't insult them as you dive in for seconds.  You very clearly tried to distort A18s position by deliberately ignoring the words he used and altering/ignoring them.

Are you just not reading A18's quotes? You may not like the sarcasm I injected, that A18 so richly deservers (and yes - it was not intended to be "nice", which may have bothered you) - but at least be honest about if your going to try and crawl up my butt with Slappy Jake. You're sounding like a partisan trying to aid a fellow partisan that has said some silly things, not somebody trying to raise the level of the debate (and Slappy Jake certainly isn't trying to raise the level of the debate). Having read a number of your other posts, I don't think that is true - but that is the perception.

Raising the debate out the gutter is a fine goal Mr. Ford, good luck with that (have you looked at some of this board) - you might wish to think a little harder about how to achieve that. A little more honesty on your part could go a long way, assuming raising the level of debate is your actual goal.

Now, with you and Slappy Jake hanging out in the backside of pants I'm having a hard time walking around. You may exit them at any time, soon would be a good thing - I just ate. Lighten up, a little at least, and loosen up the old sphincter while you’re at it (and doubly so for you Slappy). I here that can improve your golf game as well.

Now maybe - just maybe - politics can become the discussion point again and my pants will be a little lighter, or did you and Slappy Jake come here for a different reason? I believe the topic was majority rule, no?