Should America be Run by a Political Minority or a Political Majority?

[Jollybear]

What stops the smart minority from putting their own interests above those of the masses? There is no universal political interest within class society.

This is the same reasoning Plato used to come up with his notion of the Philosopher King, his political philosophy which caused Karl Popper to brand him "the first totalitarian".

What stops it? Could be a combination of things.

1, majority not educated on libertarianism.
2, majority not believing in libertarianism.
3, majority using force to stop libertarianism from ruling.

Totalitarianism is not a bad thing if the one ruling is brilliant. If there not brilliant and compassionate, then totalitarianism is bad.

 

[Jollybear]

It is quite hard to get rid of a "totalitarian". Is it not innately risky to select this kind of government?

Perhaps it is risky, yes, but, if the "smart" party is not rulling because of "checks and balances" then this is just as bad.

Whats the answer then? Everyone become smart, lol.

How do we get everyone smart? Thats the million dollar question.

 

[Mister Emu]

Are you in favor of the principle of majority rule, or are you opposed to it?

The more local the rule, the more in favor I am of majority rule. The more broad the rule, the more opposed I am to it. In all cases I am opposed to the majority having absolute rule.

Should a political party that represents a minority of the people, rather than a majority of the people, run the country?

In any healthy society a single party or faction is unlikely to represent a majority of the population. In America for instance, elected officials often take office with less than half the vote received and only half the population votes. That is around a quarter support.

A party that represents a minority seems a necessity.

What if the party came to power through underhanded tactics?

Politicians being underhanded? Well, I never!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The libertarian party should rule the country. The smarter party or group, whether that be minority or majority, is the one that should rule. That would be libertarian.

Good one.

"All cats are Libertarians. Completely dependent on others, but fully convinced of their own independence."

 

[Jollybear]

Good one.

"All cats are Libertarians. Completely dependent on others, but fully convinced of their own independence."

Lol, thats not a correct understanding of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is about government protecting liberty. Its not liberty from government. And it dont mean you dont trade and do business. Theres still that interdependence within businesses.

Now those who wish to be self sufficient, if they have ENOUGH knowledge to do that, then libertarianism is quite friendly to there cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Libertarianism is about government protecting liberty.

No, it really isn't.

 

[sun rise]

Are you in favor of the principle of majority rule, or are you opposed to it? Pretty simple question, don't you think?

The problem with the discussion here so far is that it's limited to the American system, a Presidential one, and further one where there are only two parties that control everything. There are other systems such as in the UK, Parliamentary systems where there can be minority ruling coalitions.

There are those who argue that Parliamentary minority governments are better such as Why Minority Governments Are Better | The Tyee

Part of that argument is that, ignoring attempts to rig elections such as the right is doing with gerrymandering and vote denial, all governments are minority in the sense that they are a majority of those that vote and thus a minority in terms of all potential voters.

So personally I would change the frame-of-reference of the OP to be about what kind of government is best and to ask if the best approach is tinkering with the current system to fix gerrymandering and voter suppression.

 

[Jollybear]

No, it really isn't.

It isnt? How isnt it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with the discussion here so far is that it's limited to the American system, a Presidential one, and further one where there are only two parties that control everything. There are other systems such as in the UK, Parliamentary systems where there can be minority ruling coalitions.

There could be coalitions in the US, too, if they had more than 2 parties that could get elected to seats in the House and Senate. There's already a bit of this in the American system: there are occasionally "independent" members who will typically vote with one party or the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It isnt? How isnt it?

The libertarian approach ignores the fact that maximal liberty is achieved when we have reasonable limits on the ability of individuals and groups to infringe on the freedoms of others. Libertarians would remove many of these protections, and by doing so, deprive many of liberty.

 

[Jollybear]

The libertarian approach ignores the fact that maximal liberty is achieved when we have reasonable limits on the ability of individuals and groups to infringe on the freedoms of others. Libertarians would remove many of these protections, and by doing so, deprive many of liberty.

Give me an example?

 

[Mister Emu]

The problem with the discussion here so far is that it's limited to the American system, a Presidential one, and further one where there are only two parties that control everything. There are other systems such as in the UK, Parliamentary systems where there can be minority ruling coalitions.

I think that already happens in the U.S. The major parties are really more coalitions that have decided not to undercut each other in elections than single parties. Take Joe Donnelly, or Manchin, are they really the same as Maxine Waters or Kamala Harris? Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Give me an example?

Universal health care.

 

[Jollybear]

Universal health care.

Correct me if im misunderstanding you.

Are you defining liberty or freedom as in free stuff? Like as in free health care?

Im defining freedom as in freedom of actions. Not free stuff.

Even free health care is not free, its paid somehow, insurence or tax.

Under libertarian government you would not be FORCED to have health insurrence or forced to pay a health care tax. Health care would be a free enterprise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correct me if im misunderstanding you.

Are you defining liberty or freedom as in free stuff? Like as in free health care?

Im defining freedom as in freedom of actions. Not free stuff.

Even free health care is not free, its paid somehow, insurence or tax.

Under libertarian government you would not be FORCED to have health insurrence or forced to pay a health care tax. Health care would be a free enterprise.

I'm talking about freedom as in physical freedom or freedom of employment.

Health care provides freedom at the most basic level: you're no less free than you are when you're dead. Health conditions also impose literal restrictions on freedom: someone who's stuck in a chair in a dialysis clinic for 4 hours a day is just as deprived of liberty as if they were imprisoned for 4 hours a day; preventative care that stops people from getting to that point represents an increase in freedom. Untreated asthma can make it so that a person simply can't do many activities they want to do... and could do if they had proper treatment. Someone who has gone blind or lost a foot to uncontrolled diabetes is less free than someone who didn't.

And there's also the issue of economic freedom: when insurance is tied to employment, if a worker or their family member has a pre-existing condition, they're forced to stay in that job to maintain their insurance.

What does "freedom of actions" mean to you? Does it include physical mobility? The ability to seek new employment?

Freedom of action depends on people being as healthy as possible and being free of situations where health care can be used to coerce them... IOW, freedom is served by universal health care. Deny people this and you deny people freedom in every way that matters.

 

[fantome profane]

Give me an example?

How about this for example.

You own a small family farm. It has been in your family for generations and you are doing fairly well.

Until one day your livestock starts dying and you can’t figure out why.

After and investigation it turns out a local mining co is poisoning the water table from which your well draws water. You, your family and your livestock have been poisoned by drinking that water.

Should the mining company have the right to do business this way? Or should the government inhibit their liberty to protect yours?

 

[BSM1]

I'm talking about freedom as in physical freedom or freedom of employment.

Health care provides freedom at the most basic level: you're no less free than you are when you're dead. Health conditions also impose literal restrictions on freedom: someone who's stuck in a chair in a dialysis clinic for 4 hours a day is just as deprived of liberty as if they were imprisoned for 4 hours a day; preventative care that stops people from getting to that point represents an increase in freedom. Untreated asthma can make it so that a person simply can't do many activities they want to do... and could do if they had proper treatment. Someone who has gone blind or lost a foot to uncontrolled diabetes is less free than someone who didn't.

And there's also the issue of economic freedom: when insurance is tied to employment, if a worker or their family member has a pre-existing condition, they're forced to stay in that job to maintain their insurance.

What does "freedom of actions" mean to you? Does it include physical mobility? The ability to seek new employment?

Freedom of action depends on people being as healthy as possible and being free of situations where health care can be used to coerce them... IOW, freedom is served by universal health care. Deny people this and you deny people freedom in every way that matters.

How about eating? Eating really provides freedom at the most basic level. You don't eat then not much else matters. Maybe we should storm the grocery stores.

 

[Nous]

Rigging the vote: how the American right is on the way to permanent minority rule | Ian Samuel

Are you in favor of the principle of majority rule, or are you opposed to it?

Should a political party that represents a minority of the people, rather than a majority of the people, run the country?

What if the party came to power through underhanded tactics?

The article states:

Exacerbating voter suppression is the ongoing partisan gerrymandering effort – the redrawing of electoral maps to favor one party over another. After the 2010 census, the Wisconsin legislature (controlled by Republicans) drew a map for the state’s legislative districts explicitly designed to ensure they would retain control of the legislature even if they received a minority of votes. It worked: in 2012, despite receiving only 48.6% of the vote, they won 60 of 99 seats. Democrats won an outright majority of votes cast but secured just 39 seats.​

In fact, not mentioned in the article is that earlier this year the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts struck down a case of partisan gerrymandering in that state. The decision and its rationale are actually quickly understandable. See: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-1-2018majorityopinion.pdf?cb=1 The district drawing in this case seems to me to have been a very clear case of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.

However, the Wisconsin case is different in that the legislature did not (as far as I know) employ those unconstitutional methods of manipulating districts. The fact is that unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering is a very difficult thing to determine, and the big Court has not been able to articulate a judicially discoverable standard for making such a determination. But in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) the Court found unpersuasive the arguments based on a disproportion between the number of votes cast for parties and the number of seats won by parties in a state. Because (inter alia) districts are not perfectly equal in their populations, 50% of votes cast for a party in a state cannot logically require that 50% of seats for that party should be won. Moreover, such statewide proportions between votes cast and seats won does not give any clue as to which districts were unconstitutionally packed or cracked by the legislature or district-drawing committee.

The fact is Democrats tend to inefficiently pack themselves into urban centers where lots of votes for Democratic candidates are often wasted. In a very informative study published in 2013, the authors, Chen and Rodden, used “automated districting simulations based on precinct-level 2000 presidential election results in several states”--Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, where “the Democrats have had far more statewide success in winning presidential, U.S. Senate, and gubernatorial races than in winning control of state legislatures.” The authors found “a strong relationship between the geographic concentration of Democratic voters and electoral bias favoring Republicans,” and that “the highest levels of electoral bias against Democrats occur in states where Democratic voters are most concentrated in urban areas.” Using two simulated districting procedures for Florida, they were unable to produce a single districting plan that was neutral or pro-Democratic in electoral bias. In an analysis of other states, they found that “average bias in favor of Republicans is substantial.” See: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ac9d/47478af14d31b38d3174c8ec4d874bc373cc.pdf

One further wrinkle on the matter of partisan gerrymandering is that it was Kennedy, in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), who singlehandedly salvaged challenges of such gerrymandering from being held to be a non-justiciable political question. Whether or not Kavanaugh will agree with Kennedy on this is a big question mark.

 

[wellwisher]

If Democrats choose to live in urban areas and Republicans choose to live in rural area, doesn't forced busing of voting district lines, go against this choice?

The analogy is you move to particular neighborhood because they have good schools. The other person moves to the city where there is more theaters, restaurants and night life. The city dweller then complains the schools are not as good. He wants forced busing so his children have the best of both worlds and the other person is deprived of their main choice.

The minorities, who tend to favor the Democrat party, often move to urban areas. This then allows the Democrats to win elections. The Democrats then mess-up the city, which causes the minorities to remain a permanent underclass, where service become second rate.

Then the Democrat convert the urban areas where management is better and services are better. They say it is not fair, while never mentioning they are the problem, due to mismanagement. For example, Democrat controlled Baltimore has the among the highest per pupil expenditure for their schools, yet it is near the bottom in term of academic results. Where does the money go? Gerrymandering is often a response and/or reaction to potential viral infestation, as Democrats seek to supplement their classic mismanagement style.

 

[Nous]

The minorities, who tend to favor the Democrat party, often move to urban areas. This then allows the Democrats to win elections.

What? Where did you get the idea that Democrats are wrongly winning elections?

The Democrats then mess-up the city, which causes the minorities to remain a permanent underclass

What are Democrats doing to "mess up the city, which causes minorities to remain a permanent underclass"?