Democratic problem?

[biostud]

I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

 

[JackieO]

Originally posted by: biostud666
...it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Welcome to Northern California! 😀

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: JackieO

Originally posted by: biostud666
...it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Welcome to Northern California! 😀

Well if your upset that all those horrible Liberals are misstreating you why don't you buy a Double-Wide in the midwest somewhere and live with your people.......







SHUX

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: biostud666
I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Wouldn't it be similar in most styles of government? Where a varying degree of the population is very much ignored...

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: biostud666
I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Wouldn't it be similar in most styles of government? Where a varying degree of the population is very much ignored...

No. Not really. Not in a proportional system of government. Even the communists get seats in such a system.

There's definitely a lack of balance in todays' US government.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: biostud666
I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Wouldn't it be similar in most styles of government? Where a varying degree of the population is very much ignored...

No. Not really. Not in a proportional system of government. Even the communists get seats in such a system.

There's definitely a lack of balance in todays' US government.

Yes, but they would in effect be more useless - wouldn't they? . The Senate would still have other representation outside of the winning party.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: biostud666
I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Hence the power of the filibuster!

But seriously, the GOP still has to make concessions and work with the Dems to pass legislation.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: biostud666
I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

That's why the system is set up the way it is though. The party in power, even if they have a majority in both houses and the presidency, can only make limited changes. Larger changes would require an amendment which would require a supermajority or bipartisan support. On the other hand, if the president is party A and the house/senate are party B, not much can get done without bipartisan support. The idea here is that anything that will make sweeping changes will require bipartisan support, while smaller changes may be made by whichever party holds the majority. I'll agree that the system is far from perfect, but it's better than any alternatives I've seen. What we have now is pretty good, and it's very hard to change it unless it's really for the better.

 

[her209]

Poor neglected Independents.

 

[JackieO]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: JackieO

Originally posted by: biostud666
...it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

Welcome to Northern California! 😀

Well if your upset that all those horrible Liberals are misstreating you why don't you buy a Double-Wide in the midwest somewhere and live with your people.......

SHUX

I think you misinterpreted my post. I suggest re-reading it, then considering the voting demographic of most of Northern California and then comparing that to the party of California's Govenor and the President. No wonder the Republicans think so little of us Liberals. 🙂

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ShuxclamsWell if your upset that all those horrible Liberals are misstreating you why don't you buy a Double-Wide in the midwest somewhere and live with your people.......
SHUX

I dont see how the thinking behind that statement differs much from a similar statement, made by replacing "Conservatives" for "Liberals", "apartment in the Projects" for "Double-Wide", and "ghetto" for "midwest". Heck, you could even leave the phrase "your people".

It is considered P.C. to be bigoted against poor people from rural areas, but it is very non-P.C. to be bigoted against poor people from the the cities. Just one of the odd facts of the political landscape in America, I guess.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: biostud666
I was just wondering if anybody think it's a democratic problem, that one party can have 100% power, while only representing a bit over 50% of the population.

When the majority of the senators come from the same party as the president, they have the opportunity to do more or less what they will in four years. While this is of course their right to do so, it could mean that the population who voted for another party are neglected all together.

I'm going to badly misquote here, but I think this was the gist of it:
"Democracy is a horrible system. It's chief advantage is that it is at least ten times better than any other system mankind has tried."

In any system, some portion of the population is not going to have their views be acted upon.

 

[jjzelinski]

Unfortunately, there isn't much of a problem with our democracy because we are a Republic. And with regard to how that relates the Elecotoral College sham, here's a depressing little gem.