Do you support the rule of the majority?

[Jumbo Jet]

The basic principle of a Democracy is "The rule of the majority".



Our cities, states, and Federal government at one time were ruled by the majority.



With all this political correctness, disenfranchised groups, ACLU lawyers, rogue judges, and rogue city councils, it seems the majority no longer has the right to make the rules.



What do you think?

 

[lizzyhermit]

I think the majority have lost control and we now live in a full fledged REBUPLIC where "the elected representatives of the people make the decisions" (per my Funk&Wagnal)

 

[athompson]

I think that any society ends up with the government it deserves. How many people actually vote? How can the majority rule if they don't vote? How of those that do vote cast an informed vote? Or do they just vote for the "sound bites"?



We have the government that was elected. Who is to blame for that?

 

[CFAR]

No I do not support the rule of the majority! I think I should be in charge!!

 

[Gray Ghost]

Until we vote the incumbent out an put in new members of congerss, we will continue to have this mess. We have got to get new leaders and explain to them that they work for us, not to get reelected.

 

[Rams-n-Hogs]

I don't think it much matters if we vote or not, any more. Once the people "we" elect, or should I say, "whoever has the most money", (read lobbyists, big business, etc), elects, gets into office, they don't seem to work for us any more. Other than lip service.



Jim

 

[fkovalski]

The basic principle of a Democracy is "The rule of the majority".

I still think that our form of a "Representative Republic" is the the best form of government so far. However, I think Sir Winston Churchill said it best:



Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

[klenger]

Now we don't even elect our officials at the polls, we now attempt to do it in the courts (Florida 2000, CA - 2003).

 

[RustyJC]

Unfortunately, the major party candidates of both parties who show up on the ballot on election day owe their allegiance and loyalty to their party, not to their constituents. Try to get some action out of your state or federal representatives or senators some time and see if you wind up as frustrated as I do! All I get is a standard form letter that really says, "Go away, boy! Ya bother me!"



Rusty

 

[CFAR]

Be conservative and try that in CA. Sometimes they don't even bother answering.

 

[Champane Flight]

Electorial?

I believe that electorial system needs an overhaul. Majority alone should carry in major election. Electorial votes should be done away with, outdated. Primaries could still be on electorial basis if party wants this.

 

[Peter Campbell]

The californians and new york people would love that. Let the illegal immigrants vote ( after giving them drivers licences). Then stuffing the ballot box in a few dirty corrupt states like florida, illinois and california choosing our president. Our founding fathers were either very smart or could see the abuses of the day and this day. The supreme court of florida- they could just throw out all the votes for the one they did not want- It has as much logical legal basis as thier other decisions. The kennedy election (1960) when chicago had more votes for kennedy than registered voters in the city. Or california on thier way for non citizens to vote- they just handed a bunch of illegals proof of residence. Or new York where a small town named Kyrys Joel - all thier residence voted in town and also in New york city. The electoral college is insurance that the "democratic" process in these places do not negate that votes of honest people in other states. One man one vote yes- Motto for NY, Il, Ca democrats Vote Early, And Vote Often!

 

[klenger]

Don't forget Chicago where even the dead people vote.

 

[A Johnson]

How about this. Before we get to vote we have to be tested on the issue or candidate to determine if we are smart enough to vote. This would be a non biased test simply to see if we have even read the voters pamphlet.



I have several times refrained from voting, or turned in an empty/ partial ballot simply because I felt I didn't know enough about the issue or couldn't make heads or tails of it. Now if I could do the same on some of my TDR postings that may help also.



A Johnson

 

[Champane Flight]

Interesting past.

Here are some interesting items from past elections.



http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf



It has a complete history of the electorial college.

 

[Elite1]

Re: Electorial?

Originally posted by Champane Flight

I believe that electorial system needs an overhaul. Majority alone should carry in major election. Electorial votes should be done away with, outdated. Primaries could still be on electorial basis if party wants this.

Sour Grapes???:{

 

[barkerdl]

Rule of Law

What we have gentlemen, is a rule of LAW. We have a contract with the government authorizing them to act on our behalf in certain cases. It's called the Constitution. Too bad most people never read it and thus, out of ignorance or short term self-interest, we allow our government to exceed the contract authority.



Dennis

 

[Rebel_Horseman]

Ah but when a group tried to terminate the contract, the central government declared war on them, beat them into submission, raped, plundered and pillaged their lands and women, then forced them at bayonette-point to rejoin the Union. After that the defeated group is transformed from the wealthiest and most important part of the nation to the poorest most deprived section of the country. Not only that, the propaganda machine has taken their actions and skewed them such that the overwhelming majority of the citizens think the war was about something totally different just to make the invasion and conquer look righteous.



United States government is a huge contradiction like military intelligence.



Brian [><]

 

[Champane Flight]

And the strongest survive.

Shouldn't have pi**ed the North off huh?

 

[Rebel_Horseman]

If the North got upset bout it, then that doesn't say much for them now does it? They try to make slavery the issue, but it was more like they got "pi**ed" because the country's most prosperous and constant source of income was Southern agriculture and when we opted out they couldn't get their greedy hands on it, so they declared war. But I guess that's a good reason to commit genocide. And in case you don't realize it, the CSA is alive and unified today and it will continue to do so. Seems odd that if the North was so strong then they would have just walked over us. Instead we whipped the tar out of them for 4 hard years winning every major and most minor battles on our own turf. Stats show that in just about every single skirmish we were outnumbered 3 to 1 and sometimes more, and we still managed to kill more of them than they did us. I'm sure if ya'll want there are many folks that would be happy to go for round 2 today.



By the way, I seem to recall the race riots in this country didn't happen in the South. Dishonest Abe signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 or 63, yet Grant and many other Northern figures still held slaves until the late 1860's or early 70's.



Reb [><]