Is this undemocratic? — Down The Rabbit Hole
No. A law is good until and unless successfully challenged in the courts. If the people want a law contra the constitution, they can start the process to amend the constitution. Not easy but doable, as prohibition and the subsequent repeal of prohibition demonstrate.there is a written constitution, that takes precedence over the laws that can be created by the people's representatives — Down The Rabbit Hole
Of course. But what country were you supposing is a democracy?Is this undemocratic? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Democracy is government by the governed. There are lots of different ways this can be configured and still fall within the meaning of the word. — T Clark
No. The Constitution is the people's will. It may constrain and restrict some people. But the people can change it, although not easily.Clearly the people's will is restricted by a constitution. — Down The Rabbit Hole
No. The Constitution is the people's will. It may constrain and restrict some people. But the people can change it, although not easily. — tim wood
Of course. But what country were you supposing is a democracy? — tim wood
No. A law is good until and unless successfully challenged in the courts. If the people want a law contra the constitution, they can start the process to amend the constitution. Not easy but doable, as prohibition and the subsequent repeal of prohibition demonstrate. — tim wood
Direct democracy would be as pure as you could get, — Down The Rabbit Hole
Interesting. So would people be expected to follow the law even if it violated constitutional rights? And would they be protected from being liable for damages as a result? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Direct democracy would be a disaster. In New England we have a tradition of Town Meetings, which act as the legislature for towns. They meet once or twice a year. It's a very clunky system, although it works ok on a small scale. Are you suggesting that people would vote on federal and state legislation from their homes? Or are you only talking about the presidential elections?
Good government requires quite a bit of friction to slow things down. In the US, that has gotten out of hand, but the principle is sound. The direct democracy option would just move the chaos that's found on the internet even deeper into our political system. — T Clark
The race and abortion issues in the US are a pocket history of this process. Conservative states for decades have been passing laws on race, voting, and restricting abortion struck down as unconstitutional. Trouble is, in most cases you first need someone to break the law, they convicted, and then up through the federal appeals courts. And yes, people are expected to obey the law, subject to usual penalties, because it is the law until thrown out. — tim wood
I had directly voting for legislation in mind, — Down The Rabbit Hole
directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes? — Down The Rabbit Hole
The primary argument against direct democracy in the creation of law is that the law would be changing with the wind, and this would be unsustainable. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I'm not opposed to giving up some democracy in the interests of a system that works smoothly or protection for minorities. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Exactly! Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens)). Whether or not a country has a "written constitution" isn't determinative either way (e.g. Russia has a "written constitution", Israel, like Britain, operates with an "unwritten constitution" – both claim to be democratic). Scandanavian / Nordic countries seem to come closest to substantive democracies, but maybe that's only the "grass is greener" effect. Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic.But what country were you supposing is a democracy? — tim wood
Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens))....Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic. — 180 Proof
Is this undemocratic? Can this be justified in that it protects people and actions that are unpopular? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I had directly voting for legislation in mind — Down The Rabbit Hole
Again, that would be a disaster. How would laws be developed? Who would write them? Initiative petition or referendum? If it was run like Massachusetts, a petition by fewer than 3 million people would put a law on the ballot. What about all the daily, tedious, keep the machinery running laws? Who would deal with those? Bad, bad, bad idea. — T Clark
directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes? — Down The Rabbit Hole
That doesn't make it undemocratic, no matter what the Democratic cry babies would have you believe. I'm a registered Democrat by the way. Democracy doesn't have to be perfect majority rules. The electoral college is a clunky piece of machinery. I'm on the fence whether it should be abandoned or not. One thing it would do, for better or worse, is force almost all campaigning into just a few states. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not. — T Clark
Again, a system that is not pure majority rule is not necessarily undemocratic. If you think majority rule will help protect minorities, you are way off. We could outlaw Islam with nothing to stop us. Did I mention it was a bad, bad, bad idea. — T Clark
Exactly! Any country with a functioning political (procedural) democracy but without a corresponding functioning economic (substantive) democracy is not sufficiently democratic (i.e. controlled by the majority of stakeholders (citizens)). Whether or not a country has a "written constitution" isn't determinative either way (e.g. Russia has a "written constitution", Israel, like Britain, operates with an "unwritten constitution" – both claim to be democratic). Scandanavian / Nordic countries seem to come closest to substantive democracies, but maybe that's only the "grass is greener" effect. Neither the UK nor US, as we know, are substantively democratic. — 180 Proof
When asked what kind of national government was created during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin replied "A republic, if you can keep it." Consensus among legal historians and political scientists is that the USA is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. — 180 Proof
Laws are our primitive made up solution to deal with problems(created by older "solutions") that we don't currently have a technological solution. — Nickolasgaspar
The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically. The same question is not to be put before the electorate again within x years unless the legislature votes that it should be, or in the alternative upon a supermajority of the electorate. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Whether there is good reason to have the electoral college voting system is another question. It is clearly undemocratic to appoint a president when the majority voted for his opponent. — Down The Rabbit Hole
The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I'm no cheerleader for democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole
parliament — Down The Rabbit Hole
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.