Subject: Um, as for implications...
Author:
Posted on: 2022-11-09 22:54:21 UTC
Your reply had nothing to do with what I was saying. You didn’t even use “republic” or make a point about what it had to do with the term “democracy”. I assume you just wanted to get in a political debate with me. I’ll take that as a compliment.
—Ls didn’t find anything to disagree with in your arguments.
Ok, so, tomorrow's Election Day. I'd like to encourage all the (eligible) US folks on here to go vote tomorrow if they haven't already - voting's a big part of the whole "democracy" thing, after all.
And I will leave a few practical notes on the whole election process:
("Rock on" horns sign, if you're wondering what that thing at the end is.)
~Neshomeh
The US is both republic and democracy, at least according to the dictionary.
So...whole "republic" thing also.
Pedantically, --Ls
It is certainly worth remembering that we're only a democracy if the popular vote actually has an impact on our elections and national policies thereby. If you want YOUR vote to matter more than spitting into the wind, be sure to support candidates who support voting rights and ease of access for all citizens.
~Neshomeh
I was more talking about semantics than actual political policies, but...ok then.
I guess you’re pro-granting felons voting rights? And...stuff?
shrugs
—Ls, not going overboard with political argue-fest-ing.
If you didn't want to think about the implications of those words in regard to US elections, you shouldn't have brought them up in a US election thread. {= P
Since you asked: Yep. Seeing as most people* don't commit violent crime, those who do are unlikely to do it again,** and "violent crime" doesn't even always mean crime that physically harmed a person,*** I lean toward empowering incarcerated people to improve upon the circumstances that pushed them toward crime** with rehabilitation, education, and agency.
* Source: There are still more people out of prison/jail than in it for any reason, right? Right?? If that's not the case, I'm done with humanity, just end me now.
** Actual source: "Why states should stop excluding violent offenses from criminal justice reforms," Prison Policy Initiative
*** Actual source: "When 'Violent Offenders' Commit Nonviolent Crimes," The Marshall Project
~Neshomeh
Your reply had nothing to do with what I was saying. You didn’t even use “republic” or make a point about what it had to do with the term “democracy”. I assume you just wanted to get in a political debate with me. I’ll take that as a compliment.
—Ls didn’t find anything to disagree with in your arguments.
I can explain what I said if it's really not clear, though?
~Neshomeh
But I kinda...see what you were trying to get at?
I’ll respond by saying that having elections with secure, reliable results is also important in a republic.
—Ls
Part of the reason we count as a republic is that we utilize indirect democracy via "a body of citizens entitled to vote" (i.e. the electoral college) as opposed to direct democracy via popular vote, right? I admit I forgot it's not actually involved in a midterm, but your emphasizing the republic aspects of US government whereby we empower others to make decisions on our behalf is what got me thinking about it.
I agree with you about secure, reliable election results being important. I'm glad that's a thing we've repeatedly proven to have, despite ongoing scaremongering to the contrary.
~Neshomeh
"Republic", specifically. Because most of the time, in most of the world, it seems to mean "not monarchy". The French First through... Fifth, I think, Republics use the same word as the People's Republic of China, to pick two of a great many examples; anti-monarchists in the UK are also called republicans.
Historically, I know the original split in US politics was between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, so I think there's something about States as distinct governments in there? But then you're talking about having Electors who are not the whole population, which is what everywhere does (at a minimum, on the basis of age). But also Linstar's reference wants democracy = direct democracy, which as far as I know no country does, so the distinction is meaningless.
And where does the Senate fit into this? The fraction of a Senator your vote represents varies wildly between US states; is that a Republic thing, because it's not directly connected to the population? Or is that something else entirely?
hS
Wikipedia explains better than I can, but honestly it's bewildering.
When it comes to "direct democracy" vs "indirect democracy," ruling out an illogical scenario like expecting small children to vote, I think it's worth distinguishing between "all citizens" and "a body of citizens" where the body could be white male landowners (as it was here in the past) or any other specially entitled group.
Re. the Senate, the Founding Fathers made some decisions based on worries about a "tyranny of the majority," which I interpret to mean non-white, non-male, non-wealthy people having too much power. That's one of them.
I'm not sure that actually clears anything up, because it's all a mess, but I tried?
~Neshomeh
I think Wikipedia explains it fairly well.
—Ls
The reason the senate looks like it does, in particular with regards to the wildly uneven representation, probably has less to do with the "tyranny of the majority" issue than it does with other factors (however, a whole lot else about the senate is. Like its existence and consideration as the "more mature" legislative body, and the fact that senators were not originally directly elected).
The reason the senate is the way it is is because before The Constitution, there was The Articles of Confederation. Under these laws, the United States had a very weak central government that was barely effective at all, and couldn't really enforce laws. The states were reluctant to give up any powers to a federal government, but then they were convinced. By, among other things, the poor people revolting, and a total inability to deal with this.
Anyways, there was a debate over the legislature of the new government. Under the Articles of Confederation, since the barely-existent federal government was a confederation of states, each state was proportionally represented. The Constitution would be creating a governing body that looked a lot closer to an actual nation, and a number of states proposed a proportional representation model. The Virginia plan called for a bicameral legislature, with the "lower" house having its members directly elected, and its "upper" house having its members chosen by state legislatures. Which was how our house and senate worked until senators became directly elected later on, but with a proportional senate. Meanwhile, smaller states tended to prefer a system where each state got the same number of representatives (for reasons that should be obvious: these smaller states still wanted to enjoy the equality of power and influence that they had had up to now). The New Jersey plan suggested a Unicameral legislature with equal representation for each state and a weaker federal government overall.
Nobody was yielding, and so there was a compromise: the Virginia plan would proceed, but with equal representation for each state in the senate. In the house, representation would be proportional. But this is also where the three-fifths compromise comes from... and why it's called that.
So that's why the Senate is wildly uneven in how many constituents it represents: a struggle for power between the states, a fear of the dominance of large states, and a bit of horrible horrible racism thrown in for good measure.
I honestly believe that young people (14 yrs minimum) are old and wise enough to vote, but maybe that's just me.
As you must learn to drive before getting the keys to a car, I reckon you should at least have basic history, civics, and economics under your belt before you're expected to make informed decisions that will affect national policy. All the core subjects, really—knowing basic math, science, and language tends to help with a general grasp of reality. {= )
If I ran the world, I'd add critical thinking to the roster, too. I had a class like that in college, and IMO it should happen (or at least start) in primary school.
~Neshomeh
Requiring a certain education level to be a member of the electorate, I mean?
Which isn't what you were actually proposing, because it would be SO open to abuse, of course - you start by closing schools in areas that vote against you for trumped-up budget or performance reasons, and then go on to require a specific form of "proof of education" not available everywhere. It's also fab for excluding immigrants of any kind, and anyone old enough that they didn't have access to the education system as a child. That access would be wildly different depending on demographic groups... oh, and it means institutional racism, or any other -ism, would reduce the number of electors in the affected group, because they would be disproportionately excluded from school.
But would it be a Republic? :D
hS
Like, if we picked a body of smart people to vote on our behalf, then yes?
I mean, theoretically a certain level of education, intelligence, or at least life experience is already something we select for in our various representatives (except for when it very obviously isn't >.> ). So if we're a republic now, we'd be a republic then, too.
... Is suggesting that providing an equal education to all citizens ought to be a priority of any democratic republic/state/nation/whatever the same as suggesting there should be education requirement to be an elector? I feel like there's an important difference in nuance there? I hope so, 'cause I do think everyone should have equal access to education, and I do think compulsory basic education is a good thing provided equal access exists...
Yet almost all that stuff you said already happens as it is. -_-;
~Neshomeh
I like that they specify compassion as a requirement alongside intelligence. It's notoriously difficult to assess intelligence objectively, but whether or not you have a history of showing compassion to others is easier to spot, and hard to cover up if you don't.
Can't say I'm not a little skeptical of any movement proposed by a guy who also started a religion that insists humans were created by aliens, though. It sounds like a pretty friendly religion on a quick skim, but, um, pass on the aliens, thanks. ^_^;
~Neshomeh
I really don’t think allowing minors to vote is a good idea.
—Ls
And I second Ballotpedia as a useful resource, cringe as the name may sound. It's maybe more useful during primaries, when the candidates are more similar, but it was especially valuable this year, when a lot of candidates on Arizona's ballot dropped out of the races too late to get their names removed from the mail printing. Talk about "throwing away a vote" on a candidate who's not even eligible any more!
— doctorlit will find it extremely difficult to keep off his phone at work tomorrow . . .
Please, for the love of god people—VOTE! There are too many freedoms riding on this election and while you individually might not be enough to tip the scales, it's convincing people en masse that their vote doesn't matter where we watch democracy crumble while saying there was nothing we could do to stop it.
Any Americans living abroad should know that the US embassies handle election mail, too.
If you're registered to vote overseas through the FPCA, your local registrar of voters should have sent you a ballot envelope template to print out. Fill it out addressed to your registrar and you shouldn't have to pay for US postage.
Put that envelope inside a bigger envelope addressed to the US embassy, and they send it back to the US in their diplomatic pouch so that it can be counted in the election. No need to pay for more than just postage to the embassy!
(Also you could fax your ballot to the registrar, but I'm allergic to fax machines. Sorry Japan. :P)