Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Who’s Putting Our Democracy in Peril?
The Democrats have once again taken a word that is a treasured symbol for our country–Democracy–and has tried to desecrate it by assigning blame to Republicans for imperiling it. The irony is that they apparently don’t know what a Democracy actually is, having chosen to mis-define it, celebrate Marxism, and use their new definition to incriminate Republicans. I thought I could help them out by clarifying the characteristics of a Democracy, and we can all reflect on who is doing the most damage to our country.
Let’s start with the border—you know, the southern border that is supposed to indicate the line where we begin to protect our national security. Oh wait, that’s right, we have no security in the south . . . due to the neglect of the Biden administration. And then we have the overwhelming abuse of fentanyl, which no one has addressed . . . well, probably because we have no southern border to provide national security, and we don’t want to offend the Chinese. And then we have illegal immigrants bearing down on our borders, even though our borders are closed . . . except that they are not closed. And what about the fact that sex trafficking is taking place due to the dominance of the cartels . . . but of course, those are just rumors . . . as is the news that children may be being kidnapped to harvest their organs.
And we have the Democrats behind these activities, in spite of their trying to blame the Republicans. And the Democrats fear our Democracy is imperiled.
But let’s just move along here . . . with our commitment to climate change, we are severely limiting our access to coal and natural gas, even though we could supply ourselves and most of the world. (Even Elon Musk knows we can’t stop using fossil fuels in one fell swoop.) But of course, we are using both of those fuels to manufacture solar panels. You know, those panels that insurance companies are threatening not to insure because of the weight they put on the roofs of ordinary homes. And we are being told to purchase electric vehicles that require hard-to-acquire elements for their batteries . . . and the fact that the average car buyer can’t afford an electric vehicle. And the fact that you risk being stuck in some god-forsaken place when you run out of power . . . and let’s not forget that we are trying to buy energy products from other countries who, unlike us, have no scruples about producing them.
And speaking of national security, let’s not forget our military, that can’t staff its ranks because it can’t find enough people who are fit enough, smart enough, or interested enough to join this woke enterprise. Maybe those people didn’t grow up with two mothers.
And finally, being told that we must suffer this “transition” time as our country becomes poorer, less free, disrespected by most of the world, and incapable of protecting ourselves.
So tell me again, Democrats, why is our Democracy in peril?
Published in General
Yup. Ain’t it beautiful?
All good. Australia is a bicameral democracy but not a Republic.
I think you can have a representative democracy that is still not a republic, if you only have majority-rules type delegation. e.g., only a House, but no Senate.
I don’t think there’s any requirement that a bicameral legislature have one part that is strictly representative and another that isn’t.
You could, for example, have one part that is elected by districts within each state, and the other where the members are elected state-wide within each state, but with the same numbers of members for each state.
In India (a Republic) the members of the House are directly elected by the people, but members of the equivalent of the Senate are mostly elected by the States’ legislative assemblies (who were elected by the people of each State).
Edited to add: but it’s the same basic process in Spain, which is a monarchy. So…I think it’s more than voting (which is democracy, right?).
Or just go to that wall that money comes from (ATM).
That’s the way it was here, until the 17th Amendment was passed and the country started to go to hell.
The filibuster became more important then, not less.
That sounds vaguely familiar.
I suppose that’s true, although the filibuster isn’t in the constitution, it’s just something the senate decided to have in certain areas.
Just adding that India is pretty much the poster child at the moment of how to undermine and vitiate democracy, so my feeling is that there’s more to that than just legislative structures or federalism or being a republic.
Currently, we have both the senate and the presidency elected in the same manner. There is something seriously wrong with this.
It’s set up so the central government is supposed to only get done what EVERYONE can agree it must get done.
That has been grossly perverted.
If we are constantly passing things at 50/50 splits (or close to it), maybe the central government shouldn’t be the governing structure passing it. That’s what the state governments are supposed to be there for.
Let us not become overly attached to definitions or labels. PRC and DPRK, etc. There’s a *reason* the USCS defined pornography as something which “I know it when I see it.”
Or something like that.
After calling us “semi-fascists,” Biden was quoted in the Orlando Sentinel today:
Right.
I believe the problem is the popular vote. The popular vote is how governors and other state officials are elected, as well as US Senators. It only takes a small number of Democrat-machine controlled voting districts to provide the necessary vote totals to overcome any lead a Republican opponent has. This is why Demos are clamoring to get rid of the Electoral College, the final obstacle to an eternally-Democrat-controlled Federal Executive Branch.
We should do the following:
I know this is not good, but I am having trouble more and more listening to “the other side”. Between redefinition of words that end up with me not sharing a common language with which to communicate and the rank character assassination of people who simply want the best for our society, it is impossible to have a conversation. I put “the other side” in quotes because I am not entirely sure of the outlines of who constitutes this group. Progressive activists, for sure. Registered Democrats, not necessarily. Democrat politicians, I would not say “all” but for their party discipline that makes any deals unreliable. Media, sadly most. I think you get my drift. And it gives me no pleasure to feel this way.
You reflect my own sentiments to a great degree. And I’m not proud of it either. But I think sometimes people earn our disparagement, and after a time, they don’t even earn our attention, never mind our respect. It’s called consequences.
This was the original structure of the US constitution as well. House members elected by the people and Senators selected by the state legislatures. That was changed by the 17th amendment under the presumption that state legislatures were corrupt in selecting senators and that the people would do a better job. It is an innovation we should probably scrap.
The original structure was designed to give states equal representation in the senate so big states like Virginia and New York couldn’t dominate small states like Rhode Island and Vermont. It was also set up so that the Senate would represent the interests of the states rather than the interests of the people of the states, which is what we lost with the direct election of Senators. It is unlikely that the power of the states would have been as eroded if we still had the Senate appointed by state legislatures.
The filibuster is not part of the structure of the constitution it is a tool to limit debate on a particular matter to keep it from being talked to death. It is designed to force a larger consensus on legislation, which is actually a good thing. The problem is in our partisan times neither party can gain a durable majority in the Senate and neither party is very good at legislating, they have lost interest in it. This means a lot can’t get through the Senate that is popular with the base of either party. What should happen is that the legislators should trim their sails. Pursue legislation that is modest and can get broad support. Since they are only really interested in appealing to their base partisans on both sides decry the system as broken when they are in the majority and use it mercilessly when they are in the minority.
The Senate needs to be non democratic otherwise the country would be run based on a coastal consensus primarily from California and New York which have very different views and voting patterns from the rest of the US. If the senate were truly to run as a pure majoritarian body the country would have split apart years ago. The problem isn’t the system. It is that neither Red State America or Blue State America actually represents enough people to be able to force its political views on the other. They really should be focused on finding a way to compromise and live together instead of doing political battle which each other.
Ah, but then we have something ridiculous like egos and preferences get in the way. Everyone thinks he or she knows best. And we all have to suffer with that reality.
States with bicameral legislatures already allow for #2, it’s a question of how the state senates are filled.
Another reminder of this one:
They are the democRAT party, not democratic nor democracy. They are RATs who hate America and everything that it has ever stood for. Obama’s transformation continues. He wants the money and power from every white person that isn’t fully on board as his supporter, so that he can redistribute it as he sees fit. And he hated for America to have any standing or power in the world also. All of his dealings with Iran, Russia and China illustrated this.
If we have a fair election presumably we’ll sort it out. If we don’t, then what? Which is at the heart of matters. We have to come to grips with these folks, the groups that appear to have excess influence, and folks from all sides of the political spectrum who seem to accept that we can run things fairly and democratically from the top if we elect the right people. We can’t. We should use the top and the President rather dynamically and broadly, but mostly to undo the embedded bureaucratic state and to reduce the influence of the Chinese, Soros and our own far left whose out of proportion influence is being addressed in the article. What they say is insane as the article incisively points out.
That has never given us a reliable or practical result. We need to stop the elites from dominating our lives in many, many ways.