Republcians thwarting will of the people

[someoneyouknow]

It seems Republicans are big on talking about the will of the people, but when it comes down to it, they'll do whatever they can to thwart that will. Currently, 16 states submitted 120 bills this year to prohibit or reign in the use of ballot initiatives. The moves worry advocates who say they undermine the idea of direct democracy and could effectively shut down the initiative process in some states.

In Arkansas, the changes came after voters legalized medical marijuana in 2016 and last year approved raising the state's minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2021.

The state's governor signed into law legislation overhauling the way measures are approved for the ballot so that a proposed initiative and the signatures collected in favor of it are reviewed at the same time. The change, critics say, would mean groups could waste time and money circulating petitions only to find out afterward that there was a problem with the wording that would disqualify it from the ballot.​

As always, Republicans claim they're trying to protect the people from "outside interests", completely ignoring it's their own people who sign the petitions for these ballot initiatives and the same people who vote on these initiatives. This protection from "outside interests" is of course wholly different from all the bribing, er, lobbying from "outside interests" which takes place year round and generally saddles the voting public with untold millions, if not billions, in bills and taxes it must pay rather than corporations.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/gop-lawmakers-states-seek-limit-voter-initiatives-63881607

 

[BotanyBoy]

It seems Republicans are big on talking about the will of the people, but when it comes down to it, they'll do whatever they can to thwart that will. Currently, 16 states submitted 120 bills this year to prohibit or reign in the use of ballot initiatives. The moves worry advocates who say they undermine the idea of direct democracy and could effectively shut down the initiative process in some states.

In Arkansas, the changes came after voters legalized medical marijuana in 2016 and last year approved raising the state's minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2021.

The state's governor signed into law legislation overhauling the way measures are approved for the ballot so that a proposed initiative and the signatures collected in favor of it are reviewed at the same time. The change, critics say, would mean groups could waste time and money circulating petitions only to find out afterward that there was a problem with the wording that would disqualify it from the ballot.​

As always, Republicans claim they're trying to protect the people from "outside interests", completely ignoring it's their own people who sign the petitions for these ballot initiatives and the same people who vote on these initiatives. This protection from "outside interests" is of course wholly different from all the bribing, er, lobbying from "outside interests" which takes place year round and generally saddles the voting public with untold millions, if not billions, in bills and taxes it must pay rather than corporations.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/gop-lawmakers-states-seek-limit-voter-initiatives-63881607

If that’s really the case then people of those states will start voting in direct democracy democrats.

Also...

Why should corporations pay?

Why shouldn’t the public be paying their fair share?

When will the lower 47% start paying their fair share?

 

[phrodeau]

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed by Senate votes representing a minority of the population. Same for the tax cuts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed by Senate votes representing a minority of the population. Same for the tax cuts.

But a majority of states, which is what our democracy is based upon, not mob rule.

 

[KeithD]

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed by Senate votes representing a minority of the population. Same for the tax cuts.

Trump was confirmed by a minority too. One that lacks human decency, I might add.

 

[YDB95]

But a majority of states, which is what our democracy is based upon, not mob rule.

Strictly speaking, it was based on preserving slavery. Seriously, that is what the electoral college comes down to.

 

[phrodeau]

But a majority of states, which is what our democracy is based upon, not mob rule.

Is it only in certain circumstances that you prefer the state to hold power rather than the people? I didn’t think that was your thing at all.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Strictly speaking, it was based on preserving slavery. Seriously, that is what the electoral college comes down to.

It was the Electoral College that put Lincoln in the presidency, which was the death knell for slavery

I consider the initiative process to be one of the main parts of Democracy. If the legislature is too craven or corrupt to do the right thing, they can be bypassed through an initiative.

 

[YDB95]

It was the Electoral College that put Lincoln in the presidency, which was the death knell for slavery

True, but beside the point. I mean, another reason for the electoral college was that the founding fathers didn't trust the voters completely and wanted a safety-valve in case a dangerously incompetent ideologue won the popular vote.

Now, of course, twice in the past 20 years, it's been the only reason why a dangerously incompetent ideologue WAS elected president.

 

[KeithD]

Citation? My understanding was that they just wanted the smaller colonies to sign on and the smaller states were dragging their feet because they'd always be outvoted. That it was that simple. Sometimes it's easy to overanalyze with today's circumstances in mind.

 

[ArtfulRyder]

Heard there were some rumblings in Oregon about lawmakers causing a fuss too.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Strictly speaking, it was based on preserving slavery. Seriously, that is what the electoral college comes down to.

No, you need a US history class.

Is it only in certain circumstances that you prefer the state to hold power rather than the people? I didn’t think that was your thing at all.

Yea it’s called federalism. We are a union of states, not a single mob of people.

The people hold power through their elected representatives who represent the people of their state at the federal level.

If you want mob rule you do that at the state level. At the federal level the house is as close as you’re going to get.

Citation? My understanding was that they just wanted the smaller colonies to sign on and the smaller states were dragging their feet because they'd always be outvoted. That it was that simple. Sometimes it's easy to overanalyze with today's circumstances in mind.

For once I agree with KeithD, who apparently paid some attention in us history class.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Heard there were some rumblings in Oregon about lawmakers causing a fuss too.

Yup. Cowardly Republicans have left the state so a quorum can't be had which in turn means legislation can't be enacted.

This happened in Pennsylvania as well. To prevent a quorum and thus a vote, several legislators fled from the capital. Eventually one was found and forcibly brought back. While he was held down in his seat by those who wanted to vote, a quorum was called, the vote taken, and Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution.

 

[YDB95]

No, you need a US history class.

I'll be sure to complain to the trustees at my college, where I majored in history.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll be sure to complain to the trustees at my college, where I majored in history.

You should ask for your money back.

I’m a biologist and even I got enough US history and government to know you were full of shit.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Trump was confirmed by a minority too. One that lacks human decency, I might add.

No candidate had a majority of the vote in 2016. Therefore, anybody who won would have received a minority of the votes.

 

[YDB95]

I’m a biologist

Which certainly explains your overconfidence in your grasp of the social sciences. I've seen it a hundred times before.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which certainly explains your overconfidence in your grasp of the social sciences. I've seen it a hundred times before.

What overconfidence? Exactly......

The social sciences have become little more than an echo chamber of radical leftist lunacy.

Which is likely why you not using social science to back up your claim that the reason we have a representative democracy, a federal union of states and the electoral college as opposed to direct mob rule democracy, is to preserve slavery with anything except deflections like this one.

Even KeithD, arguably one of the most partisan (D) crackpots on the board.....called you out on that silly shit.

 

[YDB95]

It took all of one minute to find a reliable source on this. Which means even a biologist could have done it.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

 

[jaF0]

I suggest an Initiative to overturn the attempt to reel in Initiatives.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It took all of one minute to find a reliable source on this. Which means even a biologist could have done it.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Yes, and it supports my position that a representative democracy and federal structure was intentionally made to temper direct democracy/mob rule.

Not your verifiably erroneous position that representative democracy and federal structure were strictly for the purpose of preserving slavery.

Strictly speaking, it was based on preserving slavery. Seriously, that is what the electoral college comes down to.

 

[phrodeau]

What is “men most capable” supposed to mean?

 

[BotanyBoy]

What is “men most capable” supposed to mean?

Whatever the reps decide it means.

 

[dan_c00000]

No, you need a US history class.

Ah bot, I see your back to getting destroyed because your white power history books always leave out slavery.

The problem the Framers tried to solve with the electoral college was this: the Northern states had many more qualified, free white male voters than the slave South, since slaves could not vote. This meant that the antislavery North would outvote the South consistently in elections for Congress and the President.

In order to solve this problem in presidential elections, the delegates to the constitutional convention created the electoral college.

Wow, racist bot! You didn't even stand a chance on that one. Guess you better go back to using your other racist alts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ah bot, I see your back to getting destroyed because your white power history books always leave out slavery.

The problem the Framers tried to solve with the electoral college was this: the Northern states had many more qualified, free white male voters than the slave South, since slaves could not vote. This meant that the antislavery North would outvote the South consistently in elections for Congress and the President.

In order to solve this problem in presidential elections, the delegates to the constitutional convention created the electoral college.

Wow, racist bot! You didn't even stand a chance on that one. Guess you better go back to using your other racist alts.

Vox and a paper from UC Davis.... known radical race obsessed leftist propaganda outlets are the best you've got?

LOL

It's not that history leaves out slavery, it's that it's not relevant to the topic.

You fail just as hard as the other race obsessed lefties here.