Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Zebra · 10-21-2006, 01:35 PM

I am an occasional visitor as I am too busy for much of this. Hope that is okay.
1. Freedomfighter wrote: I think they did this because they knew that the fundamental structure of the nation had to be preserved by making it difficult to alter. If it were easily changed then we would have no protection of basic rights, and would indeed have a condition of mob rule.
I assumed the reason for the two thirds rule to change the US constitution was for the need for democracy to have a ‘clear majority’ on certain decisions. The Clear Majority principle was used by Mrs Margaret Thatcher in the UK over the Scottish Independence question. She stated that votes for or against Scottish Independence should not be a matter for simple majority decision, as they are held periodically over the centuries and sometimes fairly regularly. There could be 50 votes against and just one successful vote for independence and the UK would end as a nation. Because the decision to become independent could not be easily reversed; was arguably irreversible; and people were voting on the futures of future generations; she argued that a Simple Majority was not acceptable. She said it should be at least 51% and some people felt it should be higher. This is the Brit version of the clear majority principle. It struck me at the time that the US constitution regarding a need for a two thirds majority would be a good precedent to quote. The issue is resolved at the moment through devolution, not independence. So the founding fathers had mob rule in mind with the 66% rule too?
2. I admired the US as a federal republic and a democratic republic. It is not both? Oops. Better tell the UK modern studies teachers.
3. Sorry to keep mentioning the UK. I will try to catch up on USA politics. I do believe there are such strong parallels between UK and USA. It is easier to use examples I am familiar with, but recently there has been a big debate here in the low turnout rates at national elections. People seem to be less concerned now because of the popular argument that British politics is less controversial and so less interesting. Hence lower turn out. It is the result of British politicians getting along better and less conflict like that of the 1970s. Lower turn out is naturally high only in controversial eras.
The two party system is a natural consequence of our systems and is not necessarily bad, is one argument. The argument for proportional representation another.
4. My invitation to join this site stated that intelligent people were wanted, but I came here anyway! Thank you for your kind welcome to the forum. Hope you don't eat your words!!
5. F&Bender wrote : am I the bigger ass hole for wanting to "discriminate" against people who are cancelling out our educated vote, or are you the ass hole for thinking that minorities do not have enough educated members to make a rational vote? A good question, and difficult to say without sounding superior. I would put it this way: how do we empower people popularly considered to be admirable and of exceptional intelligence and foresight? And if the less well informed are less empowered, from what do they get the confidence to supply their political support?
5a. Many valuable opinions are owned by people who lose all the intellectual arguments and turn out to be right. Just because we ‘win’ an argument, or have a better education, it does not necessarily follow that we make better political decisions.
5b. Also it touched on a point close to my heart: how can we improve the decision making in our democracies?
5c. Every system can be said to be composed of three elements: dictatorship, oligarchy and democracy. The US Constitution is based on there also being divisions between Judiciary, Legislature and Executive. It is this clarity of thought, sound traditions and natural balance, that give western democracies their popular and moral support. It is the real advantage over non-western style government.
Consider the mistakes made though, from the decision by the British Government to declare war on Germany in 1914, to the Iraq invasion of March 2003. Arguably, they were not the wrong decisions based on the information at the time and the political stances of the persons taking them. Also, how do we know they were wrong, even with hindsight? In the former example, the assumptions are that Germany would have quickly defeated France and Russia and withdrawn with a better peace than those obtained in the 1870s, or 1918. Then no WW2 and a fraction of the loss of life and dislocation of WW1. The Iraq example assumes one can see the future and knows what would have happened had Saddam been left in power. Perhaps Iraq is not yet a clear mistake? But was it a good decision? Were sound decisions possible, or only good guesses?
The point is that if our politicians are as intelligent, honourable, and representative as possible, could our system be better? (Thanks to those still reading!)

10-21-2006, 01:35 PM	#28 (permalink)
Zebra Mercenary Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 328 Country:	Here’s my 4 cents’ worth. I am an occasional visitor as I am too busy for much of this. Hope that is okay. 1. Freedomfighter wrote: I think they did this because they knew that the fundamental structure of the nation had to be preserved by making it difficult to alter. If it were easily changed then we would have no protection of basic rights, and would indeed have a condition of mob rule. I assumed the reason for the two thirds rule to change the US constitution was for the need for democracy to have a ‘clear majority’ on certain decisions. The Clear Majority principle was used by Mrs Margaret Thatcher in the UK over the Scottish Independence question. She stated that votes for or against Scottish Independence should not be a matter for simple majority decision, as they are held periodically over the centuries and sometimes fairly regularly. There could be 50 votes against and just one successful vote for independence and the UK would end as a nation. Because the decision to become independent could not be easily reversed; was arguably irreversible; and people were voting on the futures of future generations; she argued that a Simple Majority was not acceptable. She said it should be at least 51% and some people felt it should be higher. This is the Brit version of the clear majority principle. It struck me at the time that the US constitution regarding a need for a two thirds majority would be a good precedent to quote. The issue is resolved at the moment through devolution, not independence. So the founding fathers had mob rule in mind with the 66% rule too? 2. I admired the US as a federal republic and a democratic republic. It is not both? Oops. Better tell the UK modern studies teachers. 3. Sorry to keep mentioning the UK. I will try to catch up on USA politics. I do believe there are such strong parallels between UK and USA. It is easier to use examples I am familiar with, but recently there has been a big debate here in the low turnout rates at national elections. People seem to be less concerned now because of the popular argument that British politics is less controversial and so less interesting. Hence lower turn out. It is the result of British politicians getting along better and less conflict like that of the 1970s. Lower turn out is naturally high only in controversial eras. The two party system is a natural consequence of our systems and is not necessarily bad, is one argument. The argument for proportional representation another. 4. My invitation to join this site stated that intelligent people were wanted, but I came here anyway! Thank you for your kind welcome to the forum. Hope you don't eat your words!! 5. F&Bender wrote : am I the bigger ass hole for wanting to "discriminate" against people who are cancelling out our educated vote, or are you the ass hole for thinking that minorities do not have enough educated members to make a rational vote? A good question, and difficult to say without sounding superior. I would put it this way: how do we empower people popularly considered to be admirable and of exceptional intelligence and foresight? And if the less well informed are less empowered, from what do they get the confidence to supply their political support? 5a. Many valuable opinions are owned by people who lose all the intellectual arguments and turn out to be right. Just because we ‘win’ an argument, or have a better education, it does not necessarily follow that we make better political decisions. 5b. Also it touched on a point close to my heart: how can we improve the decision making in our democracies? 5c. Every system can be said to be composed of three elements: dictatorship, oligarchy and democracy. The US Constitution is based on there also being divisions between Judiciary, Legislature and Executive. It is this clarity of thought, sound traditions and natural balance, that give western democracies their popular and moral support. It is the real advantage over non-western style government. Consider the mistakes made though, from the decision by the British Government to declare war on Germany in 1914, to the Iraq invasion of March 2003. Arguably, they were not the wrong decisions based on the information at the time and the political stances of the persons taking them. Also, how do we know they were wrong, even with hindsight? In the former example, the assumptions are that Germany would have quickly defeated France and Russia and withdrawn with a better peace than those obtained in the 1870s, or 1918. Then no WW2 and a fraction of the loss of life and dislocation of WW1. The Iraq example assumes one can see the future and knows what would have happened had Saddam been left in power. Perhaps Iraq is not yet a clear mistake? But was it a good decision? Were sound decisions possible, or only good guesses? The point is that if our politicians are as intelligent, honourable, and representative as possible, could our system be better? (Thanks to those still reading!)