What's The BEST Way To Protect Political Minorities?

[ZombieGak]

Discussing the Constitution in another thread there was this exchange:
==========================================
BW: The reason that these protections were put into place in the Constitution was to protect the citizens of small states from the majoritarian dictates of the citizens of very large states. It's a check & balance, like the Supreme Court, or the two party system. This seems to me to be something that any progressive should support.

Anyway, it only slows change, and give people a chance t really reflect on the changes they wish to make. It cannot stop the majority for ever, if only because some other way will be found to get their way.

Yes, I think it's fair enough, but certainly you are entitled to your own opinion.
==========================================
ZG: No TRUE Progressive would support anti-democratic government. There are other ways to protect minorities besides giving SOME citizens a bigger vote than others... and the Bill of Rights proves it.

Problem with the Framer's "solution" is it can lead to MINORITY government.... and election 2000 proves it. US and world history were changed against the will of the People.
==========================================

[lvx35]

1. This is an old, important argument.

As a democrat, I have to say I support democratic goverment...As a civil libertarian, I have to say I support individual rights even against majority wishes. There's nothing I can really say fully except that you have to find a final, sane, balancing point!

[ZombieGak]

2. then it seems........

Then it seems you would support my position that the best way to protect rights is with constitutional safeguards.... not un- or anti-democratic vote weighting/dilution schemes. The problem with the latter method is they can lead to minority government... and there's no current constitutional protection against another Bush 2000.

[lvx35]

3. Constitutional protections can be anti-democratic

that's the catch. For instance, if I say you have a right to free speech, but 90% of your community votes to censor your naughty book, who is right? One stance is for individual rights, one is democratic, supporting majority rule.

The real kicker to the individual rights side is corporate personhood. I believe in the privacy rights of the individual, but since corporations are legally people, that also means you can't know what your neighborhood corporation is dumping into your ground water...

but I may not have understood your argument.

[ZombieGak]

5. bill of rights trumps some majority opinion

There's no need for a Bill of Rights to protect popular speech. The intent is to place some limit on what might be mob rule to protect unpopular speech. I have no problems with that.

I do like checks and balances, but not the kind that give some citizens a bigger vote than others since such vote weighting/dilution schemes can always lead to a tyranny of the minority.... and one can't get any more anti-democratic than that.

[lvx35]

4. delete: dupe

[pinto]

6. I'm assuming you mean the electoral college in Prez elections?

Just a little unclear on the discussion. Thanks.

[ZombieGak]

7. I think the original poster meant......

In that discussion the original poster seemed to think that if the Framers came up with an un- or anti-democratic way of protecting the interests of some citizens... then Progressives should embrace it.

I could not disagree more.

As for what those un- and anti-democratic features are in the Constitution... I see three... the Senate, the EC and the amendment process.

S/he seems to think that some citizens, based on choice of state residence, deserve bigger votes than other citizens. I believe in one person/one vote... and where all votes weigh the same.

[pinto]

8. Which thread are you talking about? That would help clarify the discussion

Thanks.

[ZombieGak]

9. here it is......

The original thread was about a different topic... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x133839

But BW's comments raised some new issues.

[Burning Water]

10. Hello again.

Seeing as how I was the poster you disagree with, let me expound a bit. Somewhat undemocratic methods are an absolute necessity to protect minority rights.

As an example: there is no more anti-democratic institution than the Supreme court. Appointed for life by one man, confirmed by 51 others, who are themselves not elected in such a manner that everyone gets an equal vote. We, the people have absolutely NO voice in their selection.

Yet, historically, the SC has been the most powerful, and important, protection for minorities and unpopular political positions. This may be about to change, but that is another story.

If the Supreme Court does change, it will be important to have other power centers to oppose them. As long as we remain in the minority we will need them. (Please, let's not get off on how we are the real, true majority. The Repukes, whether they got there legitimately or otherwise, are in the seats of power. Officially, they got the most votes. I'm trying to deal with that reality, and election theft is another subject)

No system yet created by man is perfect. I doubt one ever will be created. As long as that is so, sometimes the bad guys are going to win the battles. I like the fact that institutions are in place to slow them up, in our country, at least. Sometimes that means that progressive positions will be slowed up, too. That may be a price that we have to pay.

But think how much progressivism has advanced since the days when the Constitution was written as opposed to the advances it made in all of history previously. It's not like the idea of the community sharing its goods with the less fortunate is new. The early Christians practiced it. The Old Testament Hebrews were commanded to remember the poor.

And, without the check and balances of the United States Constitution, the progressive revolutions of many countries, France, Russia, Cambodia spring to mind, have been nightmares of mass murder and genocide. I think the faults of the USA, and they are many,fade next to these horrors.

Now, there is plenty of room for disagreement with this position. But remember, whatever non-tyrannical solution that you come up with, the conservative party, whether Republican or some new one, will win from time to time. So junking the system because it didn't work the way you wanted it to do is a step that should be taken only after serious and prolonged consideration, and not in a mood of frustration and despair.

I trust that this clarifies my position on this issue for you, and I would be glad to continue it as I can.

[ZombieGak]

11. You're not making your case

In theory the People's representatives pick the members of the USSC... though the Senate is arguably among the most anti-democratic representative bodies on the planet giving about 16% of the population 50% of the seats.

Yet your premise that BECAUSE the USSC is anti-democratic it is best qualified to protect rights is bizarre. It's working in a context of pre-existing law... yet even then ignores the 9th amendment. The USSC could just as well serve this purpose if the Senate which confirms nominees were more democratic: based in proportional representation giving each citizen an equal vote AND the right to vote their conscience and be represented.

As for your comment that the GOP got the most votes... they did in 04 House races... and presumably the presidential race. But Dem Senators got more votes than GOP senators over the past 3 elections. I posted those numbers a few days ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x98746

Yet you seem to be distancing yourself from your original comments which had little to do with the USSC but was a general support for the anti-democratic aspects of US federalism... all "to protect the citizens of small states from the majoritarian dictates of the citizens of very large states. It's a check & balance, like the Supreme Court, or the two party system. This seems to me to be something that any progressive should support."

Given that the majority of the world's democracies have instituted systems that better measure and reflect the will of the people... and these democracies have better citizen participation than the use which ranks 140 of 163 nations... your claim that we NEED anti-democratic government or two party rule to protect some citizens has no basis in reality. It's merely a regurgitation of the official secular religion we learned in grade school. I already suggested a way that preserves democracy, protects against minority government AND protects rights.... and you never responded. I'm also still waiting for you to explain your claims that the 2 party system protects rights... and that Progressives should support our anti-democratic system.

[Burning Water]

12. I think that we

are coming from two different perpesctives. If I didn't manage to convince you, too bad. I guess I can live with that. Peace.

[ZombieGak]

13. have you tried to make your case?

You made two key claims in your initial post that a government has to have some anti-democratic aspects to protect minority rights... and by this I don't mean the Bill of Rights or USSC... and that Progressives should embrace this as opposed to trying to protect rights yet maintain democratic institutions.

I haven't seen any defense of the above except to try to equate progressive revolutions of 200 years ago with today's Progressives. Progress has been made in democratic institutions and in that light the US system is antiquated and clearly anti-democratic. So why should today's Progressives embrace our system when it gave us Bush? US and World history were changed against the will of the American People.

[Burning Water]

14. But remember,

it wasn't that the system broke down. It was the theft of elections. This could occur in any system, whatsoever.

I tried to support the position, but you dismissed everything I had to say. I see no point in continuing the discussion. Peace.


"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".

[ZombieGak]

15. of COURSE election 2000 was "THE SYSTEM'S" fault

Yes the GOP thugs in Florida acted abysmally, and the USSC, to their eternal shame, immorally stopped the Florida recounts. But all the court did was let the anti-democratic EC vote weighting/dilution formula take over... and that formula gave each voter Bush's Florida lead 1000X the weight of a voter in Gore's national lead in deciding the election. But in the end Gore didn't get a majority either... but no doubt would have if we had an instant run-off vote.

So would you be happy with Election 2000 if Bush had a safe 5000 vote lead in Florida yet still was behind Gore by 495,000 votes and it never went to the USSC?

Didn't think so.

Why is it so many just can't place the blame for election 2000 where it belongs... on the anti-democratic EC? Here's my analysis... because most treat the Constitution as some religious document and if it conflicts with their common sense democratic instincts... it's those instincts that get buried. So since they are incapable of critiquing our own Constitution they must forever look for something else to blame when we have an election 2000.

The currents of anti-democratic government are insidious. Let's not also forget that Thomas was confirmed by senators that repesented less that 50% of the US population... and he became a key vote in Gore v Bush. Bush then abused his position to push for a total GOP takeover of government.

So whose rights are the system protecting? The "rights" of those who vote for election losers?