New book "Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point"

I don’t have a problem with that.

I have as issue with eliminating or seriously changing 2 very important constitutional amendments.

 

That is just false. There is no reason to vote in about 40 states now, including just about every "rural" state. If I am a voter in Utah, why should I vote now? The Presidential and Senate votes are pretty much pre-determined and gerrymandering makes the House vote similarly pre-determined (the state's most Democratic county was sliced into 4 different districts, making sure that there were no competitive races).

Or, I'll give you an example from my life. I have not participated in a single competitive federal race for 15 years since I moved to Maryland, where Senate races were not really contested, the House was gerrymandered, and the Presidential race was not really contested. Then, I moved to Louisiana and saw the same thing in reverse. Now, I am back in Maryland and will see the same thing again. By your logic, shouldn't I have seen an election in which my vote mattered? And yet, I didn't. Why not?

In fact, I will go one step further: not a single person in either of the states I have called home since I left Florida have experienced a single competitive federal race since I moved.

In a majoritarian system, each individual's vote would count the same. So getting an extra voter to vote for you in Utah or Wyoming is worth just the same as getting an extra voter in NYC or LA. As it stands, you have made both of those voters not matter just to make sure the voters in NYC or LA don't matter. Why are you so afraid of them mattering?

 

Because that’s the seedbed of totalitarianism …

In this treatise, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that it reduced to one simple and very dangerous idea: equality of political power as embodied in democracy. He marshals the strongest possible case that democratic equality is the very basis not of liberty, as is commonly believed, but the total state.


.

 

There is no deep reason behind it. It was a matter of political compromise to get something passed which was an improvement over the Articles of Confederation, which it was. But let's not pretend that it was some kind of considered political genius for the appropriate structure.

 

I think every state should have appropriate representation as the electoral college requires.

 

I agree with Homer that power in a democracy should not be equal. It should be 99% my opinion and 1% the rest of you. Seemingly he approves.

I do agree with the snippet in the OP that says a large segment of politicians are performance artists attempting to keep a job and uninterested in governing. People just need to wise up.

 

That’s fairly obvious and I don’t really mean that as a slight. Most Americans don’t really understand the history behind the Constitution.

It appears that you side with writers that wanted to perpetuate their own elitist station, which makes sense since you want to perpetuate what you perceive as your rightful station.

If you’re interested, I would suggest that you research the “perfect patriot” myth.

 

Gerrymandering issues need to be corrected at the state level.

The 2 anendments are federal and affect every state. I don’t want either changed. My opinion, no more, no less.

 

The Founders were elitists. Nowadays, every voter is a wannabe elitist.

 

I've got a suggestion that can solve a substantial part of the problem. Let's make amendments sacrosanct. Let's apply the 15th Amendment as it's written, as if it actually matters. And let's act like the 14th Amendment also means what it says and actually matters. If those two were done, we could get a lot of the way there without considering whether to change other amendments. But we have never come close to taking either Amendment seriously. Just way too much equality and damage to the caste system

 

No slight on my end. I’ll admit I’m not a constitutional scholar, or even close.

I’ve learned more here than while in school were I slept every day. I wasn’t a good student.

I don’t want either changed.

 

They will never be corrected at the state level. See Florida voters' attempt, which is now just ignored despite passing as a Constitutional Amendment. Once a party gains complete control of the state, they never have incentive to "correct" the issue.

Regardless, a federal solution would be to have literally any representation from a majoritarian body. The Senate is a body to protect the rights of states. We don't need the House, Presidency, and Supreme Court acting in the same role. But that is how we have set up the system in practice, which was not the intent.

Why do you think such a low percentage of people think the government cares about people like them? Here is a hint: unless you are an occasional voter in a swing state, you don't matter to any institution in the federal government. Not even a little. So why would they care what you think?

 

Yes, voting is a waste of time. And that’s just one reason not to vote.

 

To your last sentence. I don’t know if they care what I think. Who exactly are they.

 

Your federal government. So you don't think the federal government should represent you or care about your thoughts at all?

 

To show the issue here, look at the thread here from a few days ago about tomatoes. The fight was framed as between Florida and Arizona as to what our tariff should be involving tomatoes. As if New Mexico, California, and Texas would not have consumers hurt by these tariffs as well (and California has quite a few producers as well). But it is framed as Arizona vs. Florida. Why? Because those two states are the only two that matter to the federal government.

 

I didn’t say that. In what particular way?

 

In any way. As a voter who never participates in a competitive race, the federal government never has any incentive to care what I think. Welcome to the relationship of most voters to the federal government. That is not sustainable.

 

Ok

 

Huh? Only 6-7 control it now. Is that fair?