Adding a little to this:
It seems that Rs are more likely to complain about direct democracy than Ds. For the cases cited in the article, I think all deserve a spot on a ballot.
2 Likes
I think the larger point is that democratic results do not automatically justify themselves by virtue of majority vote.
This allows democratic outcomes, and even entire kinds of democratic systems, to be criticized and improved.
Republicans like to focus on this presumably because they currently have more power than they would if we moved closer to simple majority rule.
What they don’t like to talk about is that this exact same reasoning can, and was, also used to justify things like jim crow laws.
Yep, majority rule does not automatically produce the “right” decisions.
I assume the thinkers of the enlightenment thought that education and free, open, and rational discussions would produce “better” decisions. I think that has worked in practice for science and technology.
One benefit of majority rule should be a reduction in armed rebellion. If there is a vote, and I’m on the losing side, I am unlikely to think a rebellion can be successful. The vote just demonstrated that the other side has the advantage of numbers.
(That assumes I believe the vote was an accurate representation of actual preferences. If I believe the vote counting was “corrupt” in some way, then that benefit is lost. One of the dangers of Trump’s lies about 2020 is that his followers may believe they represent the “real” majority.)
1 Like
The bolded assertion assumes that everybody votes and there are only two choices available. Suppose only 2/3 of eligible voters actually voted. And suppose that the resulting vote is 51/49. Why would the “losing side” believe that the other side “has the numbers”?
(I see that your parenthetical states a particular assumption; but the above scenario can provide some discussion points around just how reasonable such an assumption might be. IMO, not very unless the % of eligible voters is rather very high.)
I think there is much more to it than this.
The majority rule is usually imagined to be more than an expression of power. It is also legitimate, and expresses a kind of providence that can be found in the common will.
Trump and his followers aren’t saying the supposedly hijacked voting means they really have the numbers and can successfully rebel. Instead they are saying, essentially, that this means the election results do not reflect the common will, and therefore are not providential (sometimes literally) or legitimate.
2 Likes
I agree. The “legitimacy” issue is every bit as important as the pure numbers.
2 Likes
That’s correct. I might feel my side lost just because my voters didn’t vote, while the other side got all their voters to the polls.
Why didn’t my side vote? “Just don’t care that much” means they aren’t likely to join my revolution. (Although, maybe I can find a way to radicalize them.)
“Actively suppressed by the other side” means they might be anxious to join. But, again, that’s just a way of saying I think the vote is corrupt.
1 Like
Sorry, I thought I had typed out my full thought (and quoted the complete material from your post).
I wasn’t questioning the results of what we do see (and I agree with your post here). I was questioning an assertion you made about “one benefit of majority vote” in the prior post. I do not believe your stated assertion is really a practical consideration for the reasons I outlined by a “typical” results of many elections. (Note that I edited my prior post.)
I would also add to my situation the number of people who are not eligible to vote as additional support that “popular vote” will not prevent “armed rebellion.” (For further reference, note that the American Rebellion was the result of “taxation w/o representation”.)
He never said a guarantee against, just a reduction in. I think that’s still a valid claim, even with your additional concerns.
1 Like
As with any system, the Devil is in the details. But our representative democracy has strayed a fair bit from Direct democracy. One thing that would probably help is doubling the # number of house members. I think I was looking up the number of people per representative and the US is cray something like 1 rep per 750k people which was more than double anywhere else in the Democratic world and 6 to 15 times more than most.
Probably removing the concentration of power from unelected life time judges by expanded the court from 9 to 21 by adding 2 justices each of the next 6 presidential election cycles.
1 Like
Relevant Wikipedia link du jour:
The table on that page can be sorted by ratio of population to total seats, or population to lower house seats.
2 Likes
Those ratios do not leave us in very good company, imo.
1 Like
How does it compare once you throw in state level representatives and federal vs state laws? A high ratio may not be an issue if the majority of the laws in our daily life are written at the state level. We obviously have large federal programs like Medicare that impact millions of lives in a meaningful way, but actual laws and penalties are more states level.
I’m not sure why Republicans find some sort of joy in pointing out that the US is not a pure direct democracy. So are a republic, we have a constitution with some poorly articulated rights that we argue about all the time, and we elect representatives to write our laws. We still have the expectation that those representatives win because they get the most votes, just like every other country, and that laws are generally bounded by the constitution and the desires of the majority.
Rules created by a minority do happen and somewhat regularly. I think we all get that as well. I’m not sure what that really wins when you point it out.
Why would that help? It seems we’d have twice as many members and each member would have half the clout.
Would this make it easier to pass mj legalization? (picking one issue where the law seems to be out of step with opinion polls)
1 Like
Several years ago I proposed increasing the House and Senate by 50%. Every state has one Senator in every class. Then, both to preserve balance in the Electoral College and give each Representative a smaller district, also increase the House.
150 Senators
650 Representatives*
804 Electoral Votes
*This isn’t precisely 50% bigger, but it makes for an even 800 Congress Critters, which I find oddly appealing. Maybe make it 653 or 655 so there’s no possibility of an Electoral College tie through.
1 Like
I dunno about that. I’d rather see 18 year terms for justices.
2 Likes
I agree. I don’t see the point in expanding the size of the court.
I would like to see 18 year, staggered terms beginning in odd numbered years so each president is guaranteed 2 nominations.
3 Likes
Each one being less powerful is probably a good thing.