The end of Democracy?

[SgtSpiderMan]

Trump is NOT the end of democracy, but the response to Trump by various groups/individuals very well might be.

The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints. That being the case there is a legal argument that each state can determine who may, or may not, appear on the ballot(s). This is a legal theory that has never been truly tested in deference to allowing the people to make the final decision. The legal theory of the state electoral supremacy is in full bloom this election season. So let's explore this a little further.

IF any state, by whatever means, can determine who may or may not be on the ballots then any state can and then what is the purpose of having an election at all? Every election will be a "Hobson's Choice" from the standpoint of the citizen. It the state can exert that power then what is to stop them from doing so with statewide or local elections? The end result is that every individual state, depending on who's currently in power, can create a situation where only their particular group will ever be in power.

While the notion of the state making those determinations may sound seductive if your particular group is in power, is that what you really want? What is your alternative if the group you currently support no longer represents what you believe? Your electoral choice is reduced to a variation of what already exists. Iran, among other nations, is a good example of that consequence. Back to Hobson's Choice.

The question is ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court and it's a thorny question indeed. If they decide that the states do NOT have that power then we have taken one more step towards nationalized elections. On the other hand to decide otherwise is to provide the various states the power to achieve exactly what I've discussed in the previous paragraphs. Neither decision is a particularly good decision.

So to summarize; we have 50 different elections but they all have to be run the same way.

It’s hilarious how Ish still doesn’t understand how anything works.

 

[ll74]

It's a state's rights issue until it isn't.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's a state's rights issue until it isn't.

It’s a state’s rights issue until their candidate violates the Constitution.

 

[Chernosoth]

Democracy doesn't end, but it is sometimes suspended. Public disgust with both parties and neoliberal corporatocracy may lead to an authoritarian who rules for a while, until a war defeat or similar disaster, or becoming overwhelmed in micromanagement. Such a person might be past 50, but past 60 would be too old for leading a revolution.

 

[DeluxAuto]

It's a state's rights issue until it isn't.

It's pretty much the "both sides" deflection.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Trump is NOT the end of democracy, but the response to Trump by various groups/individuals very well might be.

The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints. That being the case there is a legal argument that each state can determine who may, or may not, appear on the ballot(s). This is a legal theory that has never been truly tested in deference to allowing the people to make the final decision. The legal theory of the state electoral supremacy is in full bloom this election season. So let's explore this a little further.

IF any state, by whatever means, can determine who may or may not be on the ballots then any state can and then what is the purpose of having an election at all? Every election will be a "Hobson's Choice" from the standpoint of the citizen. It the state can exert that power then what is to stop them from doing so with statewide or local elections? The end result is that every individual state, depending on who's currently in power, can create a situation where only their particular group will ever be in power.

While the notion of the state making those determinations may sound seductive if your particular group is in power, is that what you really want? What is your alternative if the group you currently support no longer represents what you believe? Your electoral choice is reduced to a variation of what already exists. Iran, among other nations, is a good example of that consequence. Back to Hobson's Choice.

The question is ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court and it's a thorny question indeed. If they decide that the states do NOT have that power then we have taken one more step towards nationalized elections. On the other hand to decide otherwise is to provide the various states the power to achieve exactly what I've discussed in the previous paragraphs. Neither decision is a particularly good decision.

It's become a mantra to the Left.

Republicans, Libertarians, people who no longer bother to vote are all enemies of Democracy.

True Democracy is making your political opposition a criminal act and then using the force of your freely-elected government to make sure that your opposition is driven out of politics and denied the right of franchise. You just cannot have the wrong people running for office and voting to fill those offices. You need a strong, central national Party that can better candidates properly and offer you those candidate who you should vote for and the Left comes here every day and advocates for that system with a passion, a passion often associated with our southern Latin cultures...

This is why The Biden Administration and its supporters are laser-focused on Trump and the J6 protest, the people peacefully assembling and addressing government oversight possible malfeasance in the the voting process. At least it wasn't a mostly peaceful protest, full of outrage and fire, both figurative and literal.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Democracy was, is and will remain a pernicious evil, a chimera which covers and does not abrogated basic human nature.

It's mob rule and the mob is fickle and easily mislead and mobilized with lies and misrepresentations.

It's why we were not founded as a Democracy but rather as a Constitutional Republic.

The day that dream died was the day the mob wrested the Senate away from the state legislatures in the name of Democracy and gave it over to themselves even though they already controlled one wing of the third branch of government. Mob rule is a very, very bad thing. As Senator Byrd put it, the Senate was designed to be the saucer which cools the coffee (the passions of the people as represented by The House).

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Democracy was, is and will remain a pernicious evil, a chimera which covers and does not abrogated basic human nature.

It's mob rule and the mob is fickle and easily mislead and mobilized with lies and misrepresentations.

It's why we were not founded as a Democracy but rather as a Constitutional Republic.

The day that dream died was the day the mob wrested the Senate away from the state legislatures in the name of Democracy and gave it over to themselves even though they already controlled one wing of the third branch of government. Mob rule is a very, very bad thing. As Senator Byrd put it, the Senate was designed to be the saucer which cools the coffee (the passions of the people as represented by The House).

And here I thought that it was so the holder wouldn't burn hir fingers when ze took grip to pour the contents down the drain.

 

[Chobham]

So to summarize; we have 50 different elections but they all have to be run the same way.

It’s hilarious how Ish still doesn’t understand how anything works.

They don't and they aren't.

 

[YDB95]

This is why The Biden Administration and its supporters are laser-focused on Trump and the J6 protest, the people peacefully assembling and addressing government oversight possible malfeasance in the the voting process.

The right's ability to convince themselves of things that are miles from the truth never ceases to amaze me.

 

[DeluxAuto]

It's become a mantra to the Left.

Republicans, Libertarians, people who no longer bother to vote are all enemies of Democracy.

True Democracy is making your political opposition a criminal act and then using the force of your freely-elected government to make sure that your opposition is driven out of politics and denied the right of franchise. You just cannot have the wrong people running for office and voting to fill those offices. You need a strong, central national Party that can better candidates properly and offer you those candidate who you should vote for and the Left comes here every day and advocates for that system with a passion, a passion often associated with our southern Latin cultures...

This is why The Biden Administration and its supporters are laser-focused on Trump and the J6 protest, the people peacefully assembling and addressing government oversight possible malfeasance in the the voting process. At least it wasn't a mostly peaceful protest, full of outrage and fire, both figurative and literal.

That's a lot of words just to say that you support an insurrectionist's insurrection, Aj.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They don't and they aren't.

Just to clarify, you said they did have to be run the same.

 

[Chobham]

Just to clarify, you said they did have to be run the same.

No I did not, period.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No I did not, period.

Yes; you did, it’s literally there in writing.

 

[stxjimmy]

Democracy was, is and will remain a pernicious evil, a chimera which covers and does not abrogated basic human nature.

It's mob rule and the mob is fickle and easily mislead and mobilized with lies and misrepresentations.

It's why we were not founded as a Democracy but rather as a Constitutional Republic.

A mighty big claim, and as per it’s those extolling the virtues of the constitution who are most willing to trash it and to offer their ardent support to an insurrectionist election result denier.

 

[ll74]

Democracy was, is and will remain a pernicious evil, a chimera which covers and does not abrogated basic human nature.

Lol.

 

[Chobham]

Yes; you did, it’s literally there in writing.

Then you can quote it. Let's see if you can read.

 

[jomar]

I fully believe that if trump is somehow reelected president the USA will cease to be a democracy as we know it.

States aren’t excluding trump from the ballot willy nilly, as chobham would have you believe. No, they are following the constitution.

Lastly, boo fucking hoo. Repubs are loud and proud about canceling roe v wade and returning abortion to the states. But now are crying foul that states are actually exercising their rights regarding the constitution and an insurrectionist who wants to be president.

 

[zipman]

Democracy was, is and will remain a pernicious evil, a chimera which covers and does not abrogated basic human nature.

It's mob rule and the mob is fickle and easily mislead and mobilized with lies and misrepresentations.

It's why we were not founded as a Democracy but rather as a Constitutional Republic.

The day that dream died was the day the mob wrested the Senate away from the state legislatures in the name of Democracy and gave it over to themselves even though they already controlled one wing of the third branch of government. Mob rule is a very, very bad thing. As Senator Byrd put it, the Senate was designed to be the saucer which cools the coffee (the passions of the people as represented by The House).

So today you think it's mob rule. But I thought you said it was the tyranny of minority? In the end, it doesn't matter what you say because you have no convictions, you have no actual beliefs.

All you have is your undying hatred of liberals and the left and you will do / say / support anything that you think "owns" them - like an insurrection, like no peaceful transfer of power, like the lie that the election was stolen, like a candidate who thinks you can throw out the parts of the constitution he doesn't like.

You and Ish have been bloviating on here for decades but at end of the day, you're just two sad, little pathetic boys.

 

[ll74]

A republic is a democracy.

 

[DeluxAuto]

So today you think it's mob rule. But I thought you said it was the tyranny of minority? In the end, it doesn't matter what you say because you have no convictions, you have no actual beliefs.

All you have is your undying hatred of liberals and the left and you will do / say / support anything that you think "owns" them - like an insurrection, like no peaceful transfer of power, like the lie that the election was stolen, like a candidate who thinks you can throw out the parts of the constitution he doesn't like.

You and Ish have been bloviating on here for decades but at end of the day, you're just two sad, little pathetic boys.

 

[Comshaw]

Trump is NOT the end of democracy, but the response to Trump by various groups/individuals very well might be.

The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints. That being the case there is a legal argument that each state can determine who may, or may not, appear on the ballot(s). This is a legal theory that has never been truly tested in deference to allowing the people to make the final decision. The legal theory of the state electoral supremacy is in full bloom this election season. So let's explore this a little further.

IF any state, by whatever means, can determine who may or may not be on the ballots then any state can and then what is the purpose of having an election at all? Every election will be a "Hobson's Choice" from the standpoint of the citizen. It the state can exert that power then what is to stop them from doing so with statewide or local elections? The end result is that every individual state, depending on who's currently in power, can create a situation where only their particular group will ever be in power.

While the notion of the state making those determinations may sound seductive if your particular group is in power, is that what you really want? What is your alternative if the group you currently support no longer represents what you believe? Your electoral choice is reduced to a variation of what already exists. Iran, among other nations, is a good example of that consequence. Back to Hobson's Choice.

The question is ultimately going to end up in the Supreme Court and it's a thorny question indeed. If they decide that the states do NOT have that power then we have taken one more step towards nationalized elections. On the other hand to decide otherwise is to provide the various states the power to achieve exactly what I've discussed in the previous paragraphs. Neither decision is a particularly good decision.

Firstly let me say I believe all elections for federal office should be run by federal authorities or at a minimum have federal level regulations for EVERY FACET of an election. Why? Simple. State and Local elected officials make decisions and pass laws that affect ONLY those within their state. Those elections should be run by each state. Those elected to federal office make and enforce laws that affect the entire country. I don't want someone in Mississippi making decisions about how an election is run (or allow it to be manipulated) that will elect a person who will make and enforce laws that affect me. I'm sure the opposite is true too.

As far as a state making the decision that a candidate can not be on a ballot, it has started to and will work its way through our court system. I think it will ultimately end at SCOTUS. That is how all such disagreements should be worked out in our system. It is the way it is designed to work. And whether we agree with the ultimate ruling or not, it works. I don't see how that is, as you claim, a bigger threat to our democratic republic than an ex-president trying to make an end run around the entire system via an insurrection.

I believe when it does get to SCOTUS the court will find the state can not remove a national-level candidate from a ballot. And I believe that is how it should be. As much as I think Congress was in error, while Trump was impeached, he was not convicted. If Congress did not find him guilty, I do not believe a state can unilaterally declare him to be so.

That said, if he is found guilty in the coming criminal trial that would bar him running for any office ever again.

Or...you know, your party could try not putting unqualified criminals up for positions of power

You mean like Biden?

So where is the proof? Can you offer any? Any at all? The repayment of a loan from Hunter to his Dad? There's a whole paper trail that shows it was what it was claimed to be. Joe being on phone calls with Hunter's foreign business partners? No evidence has ever been presented that shows Joe did anything but exchange pleasantries. But okay, let's say that could be evidence. You'll accept that, but ignore millions of dollars from other countries going DIRECTLY (because he refused to step away from his business while serving) to our president by proxy of payments to his hotels? Choose wisely.


Comshaw

 

[jaF0]

^^^ Yet again ..... one does NOT have to be convicted of anything at all to be disqualified from serving. Why can't some people get that through their heads?

Also, again, it doesn't really matter if one is on a state ballot or not. Even if that (or any, or all states) 'elect' a person who is not eligible, or has been disqualified, that person will not, can not be sworn in and serve.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Then you can quote it. Let's see if you can read.

Already did.

 

[jaF0]

The United States does NOT have national elections, we have 50 separate state elections that are required to operate within certain, and limited, constitutional constraints.

Which means they all have to be run the same way, on the same day. Some use machines, some use paper, some allow mail in, others don't, rules vary on absentee ballots, but the end result is compliance with Federal rules. What happens before and after may vary slightly, but not significantly.