Does democracy equal majority rule?

[Palefire]

A great deal of the debate around the filibuster seems to center on the rights of the majority and the minority, with each side arguing the case for themselves for the most part. Having seen the tables turned in the past (i.e. Democrats as the majority and Republicans as the minority) and both sides making arguments counter to the ones they are making today, I must ask, do you believe democracy equals majority rule?

I do not believe that it does. I believe that Democracy is government by the people. Certainly a majority rule is the simplest way to get to that, but there is nothing magical about 51% except that it would be the least amount that could possibly be accepted. That is not to say that it is the least amount that should be accepted. A higher percentage being required would only result in more people being represented and the wheels of government moving slower; both good things from where I sit. Seeing Republicans and Democrats have to sit down and hammer out agreements, regardless of who had the majority at that moment in time, would, I believe, result in many more American citizens being represented by the government; and thus would make this nation more democratic. Of course this a simplistic presentation of a complex issue and I am not addressing the subtle complexities here, just the larger concept. For those that wish to address the under lying complexities I may start another thread, but for now let’s stick to the bigger idea.

Edited to say:

This question is not intended to be only about the filibuster. It is about majority rule and Democracy. I also address the topic of in forced negotiation by higher requirement than 51% in a 2 party system in my comments below the question, and note that it might result in a more representative nation. The concept of more than a bare majority being required to move a Senate action forward is larger than just the filibuster of judges.

Edited to say:

And lets limit this to American Representative Democracy. I don't think we need people talking about hypothetical ones. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

[minionofmidas]

No. It's more than that.It's a component, obviously, but it's waay more than that. It's about how the majority has been created, for example. It's about unalienable rights of those not in the majority. Etc. Etc.

Except you're talking about the filbuster issue...I don't really care about the filibuster issue.

[Palefire]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I'm not talking only about the filibuster issue. However, the current filibuster debate seems to have shined some light on this topic.

[John Dibble]

Literal, complete democracy is - i.e. the people vote on every issue. However, we live in a republic, which is a type of democracy in which people elect representatives(who are supposed to be more informed on issues, among other attributes, than regular people - that's the hope at least) rather than voting directly on everything.

[Gabu]

Literal, complete democracy is - i.e. the people vote on every issue. However, we live in a republic, which is a type of democracy in which people elect representatives(who are supposed to be more informed on issues, among other attributes, than regular people - that's the hope at least) rather than voting directly on everything.

Yes, and in which there are certain things that the government is simply not allowed to do.

[A18]

Why does this question matter? It's not as if democracy isn't a laughable concept.

[David S]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

[A18]

Not to mention this is just a court packing scheme used to keep originalists off the bench so that Republican presidents inevitably have to pick activists like Kennedy, who are of course liberal and help in their efforts to legislate from the bench.

By the way, a republic is not where the rights of the minority are respected. Securing everyone's rights can not be achieved. For example, the majority has virtually no 'right' within itself to do anything - not tax, spend, or anything else. However, there are some just things for which the majority may take and spend money, when a fitting process is exhausted.

However, that process, when exhausted, still has no right to do anything else -- it can only act in the name of justice, just an individual could, though justice itself demands that no one play God, and so a republic is formed.

People's rights are constantly violated today. They will be so long as we have government that steals money for the selfish interests of the majority, and their wishes, rather than for justice.

Perceived justice, of course, is not justice. And so the argument has to be not majority rule, but just rule. There is no objective definition of justice, but in a republic, we are individuals, so we at least argue about it instead of claiming everything is owned by the majority, an absolutely asinine concept.

[Bono]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

So, when democrats get control of the senate again, how do you plan on stopping them from doing whatever they want?

[Palefire]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

Again - I am not only speaking of the filibuster. I'm attempting to present a larger concept than just that. However, the focus on the filibuster recently seems to be allowing for people to assume I am speaking in narrower terms.

[A18]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

So, when democrats get control of the senate again, how do you plan on stopping them from doing whatever they want?

They already do confirm all the ultra-liberal judges they want. Look at those two joke, non-originalists Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court.

They also pass all the liberal legislation they want. As in, Brady Bill, OBRA93, etc.

All this does is level the playing field.

[Palefire]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

So, when democrats get control of the senate again, how do you plan on stopping them from doing whatever they want?

They already do confirm all the ultra-liberal judges they want. Look at those two joke, non-originalists Clinton appointed to the Supreme Court.

They also pass all the liberal legislation they want. As in, Brady Bill, OBRA93, etc.

All this does is level the playing field.

If you think the Democrats have put some bad judges up before - just wait until they are back in power and looking to avenge themselves and show how wrong the Republicans were for ending the filibuster. The childish cycle to vengance is well established with both the Democrats and the Republicans. I also can definately wait to see what kinds of judges the current Republicans will put up once the threat of filibuster has been removed. If the Republicans blow up the filibuster like this, that cycle is just going to get worse and more extreme. Just what this country needs; more extreme judges and more childish behavior on the Senate floor.

Now - back to the braoder topic of majority rule. There are plenty of filibuster threads on this board if that is all you wish to address.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anecdote Bernard Crick likes using:

"A trade union conferances in the 1930's was told by Ernest Bevin that it was not democratic for a minority to continue to question the the decisions of the majority after a vote had been taken, and he recieved the equally sincere and confusing reply from an offending brother that democracy meant that he could say what he liked, how he liked, and when he liked, even against a majority of the Transport and General Workers Union - which was saying a lot in those days."

[A18]

If you think the Democrats have put some bad judges up before - just wait until they are back in power and looking to avenge themselves and show how wrong the Republicans were for ending the filibuster.

Well, first of all, it isn't a "wrong." The filibuster has never been used like this. Second, I seriously don't lose to much sleep over the idea of Democrats getting back into power.

All judges the Democrats nominate are non-originalists. There's no difference, and it doesn't matter at all.

We would obviously impeach them if they did something really stupid, and if the Dems didn't join us, they'd sink in the polls.

[The Duke]

Literal, complete democracy is - i.e. the people vote on every issue. However, we live in a republic, which is a type of democracy in which people elect representatives(who are supposed to be more informed on issues, among other attributes, than regular people - that's the hope at least) rather than voting directly on everything.

[A18]

And we never filibustered judges that would otherwise be confirmed while we were in the minority, so this isn't a cycle. This is brand new obstructionism by the Democrats.

What's childish is the "living, breathing Constitution."

[Palefire]

And we never filibustered judges that would otherwise be confirmed while we were in the minority, so this isn't a cycle. This is brand new obstructionism by the Democrats.

What's childish is the "living, breathing Constitution."

I'd ask what does the word "childish" have to do with the concept of a living constitution, but I'm afraid of the answer I'd get.

[A18]

Legal documents are not "alive." It sounds like something out of a fairy tale.

If I entire into a contract with you, can I break it because it's alive?

[David S]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

Again - I am not only speaking of the filibuster. I'm attempting to present a larger concept than just that. However, the focus on the filibuster recently seems to be allowing for people to assume I am speaking in narrower terms.

I think I answered the broader question in the first paragraph. It was clearly the intention of the founders that our government should not be a matter of two wolves sitting down with one sheep to decide what's for dinner.

Our constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Your elected representatives and all judges are sworn by their oath of office to support the constitution. The founders did that to protect your rights and mine. Beyond that they also divided government power among the 3 branches and further split the legislative branch into two. I think the founders did a pretty damn good job of it but unfortunately their result was not airtight. The constitution can only stand if there are people who will stand up for it. Unfortunately too many Americans don't understand the importance of the constitution  and would happily sell the whole thing down the river in exchange for more government handouts.

[Palefire]

Legal documents are not "alive." It sounds like something out of a fairy tale.

If I entire into a contract with you, can I break it because it's alive?

The constitution is not a contract, in case you have a hard time telling the different type of legal documents apart.

Many things sound silly to those that do not understand the concept being refered to. By your own reasoning Scalia must have sounded very silly when he refered to a "dead" constitution. How could a document be dead - it was never alive to begin with? But I think we are all clever enough to understand what the terms "living" and "dead" are refering to in this case.  Comments like "it sounds like it's out of a fairy tale" not with standing.

[A18]

Constitution is a contract between states.

The whole point to a dead Constitution is making fun of the living Constitution.

[Palefire]

First of all America is a Republic not a Democracy, at least not in the pure sense of the word. In a pure Democracy 51% could vote to take the rights of the other 49%. In a Republic we accept majority rule but at the same time the majority must respect the rights of the minority.

However what you are referring to has to do with the Senate rules for fillibuster. That is not the same thing. There is no constitutional provision either for or against the fillibuster. The fillibuster is an idiotic procedure whereby one Senator talks and talks and talks about some arcane subject until everyone else falls asleep. Its a stalling tactic used to prevent real discussion until everyone gives up and moves on to another subject. It should probably be done away with.

Again - I am not only speaking of the filibuster. I'm attempting to present a larger concept than just that. However, the focus on the filibuster recently seems to be allowing for people to assume I am speaking in narrower terms.

I think I answered the broader question in the first paragraph. It was clearly the intention of the founders that our government should not be a matter of two wolves sitting down with one sheep to decide what's for dinner.

Our constitution was designed to protect the rights of the people and limit the power of the government. Your elected representatives and all judges are sworn by their oath of office to support the constitution. The founders did that to protect your rights and mine. Beyond that they also divided government power among the 3 branches and further split the legislative branch into two. I think the founders did a pretty damn good job of it but unfortunately their result was not airtight. The constitution can only stand if there are people who will stand up for it. Unfortunately too many Americans don't understand the importance of the constitution  and would happily sell the whole thing down the river in exchange for more government handouts.

Actually, no. You gave a summary of a hypothetical Democracy in your first paragraph and then informed me I was talking about the filibuster; when, in fact, I was talking about a much broader approach to negotiated legislation. My bad. I must have wriiten the question very poorly (it's hard to work with that small a space), or something, because the concept I put forth sure isn't being addressed.

"Sell the whole thing down the river in exchange for government handouts" - where did that come from. I'm certainly not suggesting that the constitution be altered in any way. I'm just looking at Senate rules and how to better represent the American people myself, but wanted to leave room for people to have a broader take than that if they wished to.

[J. J.]

In terms of the third definition, yes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

In terms of our system of government, no.

[Palefire]

Constitution is a contract between states.

The whole point to a dead Constitution is making fun of the living Constitution.

Why do I even bother. If I say the sky is blue, you will say it's yellow. Look up what a constitution is. You will note that it doesn't say "what ever works best for the arguement that a18 is making". A constitution is a specific type of legal document as is a contract. Geeez.

Now if the whole point of a "dead" constitution is just to "make fun" of something, then perhaps the term "dead constitution" could be described as childish. And so we come full cirlcle.

[A18]

The Constitution is a contract between states. It is a series of amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and the states are bound only to what authority they ceded to the federal government.

Making fun of something incredibly stupid is not childish.