In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Democracy can't last forever

niklasalniklasal Member Posts: 776 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
This quote is over 200 years old. It was penned by Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish historian, who in 1787 wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic over 2,000 years earlier. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure." From that comment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. "The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200. These nation's have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." At what phase of this cycle do you think we are in?
NIKLASAL@hotmail.com
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Again, our form of government was never intended to be a democratic form of government. But because of inaction, inability, or don't care attitudes, this is exactly what we have today in this country.In the meantime everybody, just complains and allows those in the voting majority to remain, as the voting majority. Fact is, the majority is always made up of the do nothing apathatic citizenry, that decries, complains, and cannot agree with one another on how to resolve the matter, so, because of the disarray and confusion, the more vocal activists, take the reins of power, and keep everyone else, confused and divided on issues. Kinda,like whats happened in recent years..[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 02-03-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 7mm_ultra_mag_is_king7mm_ultra_mag_is_king Member Posts: 676 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    very very very close to dependency, some are already there
    when all else fails........................
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    What phase are we in? We're moving TOWARDS democracy. And that's a very scary thought. This is a Contitutional Republic. Thanks, Turbo.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Timberbeast- I think we have been "moving" towards democracy, and away from Republicanism, for quite some time.The Feds have been eroding the position of the states from the very beginning of the Republic. Creating an amendment that took away the states responsibility in appointing Senators, and leaving it to popular democratic vote, was a big stepping stone towards mob rule. Taking away a states right to decide who can vote was also a step in the wrong direction. Now I am not saying a state should be allowed to prohibit someone from voting because of color, or ethnicity, but I do think it is appropriate to have requirements such as property ownership, income and literacy and age. Frankly, I think my position in society should be of more value to choosing electors than the strung out, homeless, illiterate junky that is now guaranteed the right to vote. Since I am contributing to society, , my voice should speak louder than the fellow who is nothing but a drain on Society.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salzo,I got to admit sometimes I appreaciate what you write.A good point you brought up concerns the electoral college, which is precisely the way the Constitution has been eroded, to our detriment.This system should be abolished or changed.I for one would prefer to see it changed, if the Supremem Court didn't do away with it.To reflect a count of each electoral vote from every state awarded to the winning candidate by the district won.In simpler lamguage, win a district represented by an electoral college vote, win that vote.Just as a way of confirming the popular vote of each state.This would be more equitable to each and every state, and be more representative of the electorate at large.I believe that is attainable in both houses of congress TODAY, it could be an amendment to the Constitution passed by a 2/3 majority.The major populated cities presently govern, the majority of the country under the present system.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turbo- How do you see the electoral college system of electing a president as an eroder of the constitution? I do not think so. I think the fact that we are still using the electoral college, and not resorting to popular federalism, is probably the last thing we have holding the constitution together. The "states" and not the Federal populace, is supposed to decide the election of president. Now I understand alot of people find that to be archaic, and they are right, but that does not make the electoral college wrong. It is the one thing that still binds us to the intent of the founders with respect to the Federal governments role in our lives.Just because it has been decided that the states no longer enjoy the authority they once had, and we have a federal government today that the states are now subservient to,does not make the fact that the constitutions intent is being ignored, and violated, correct.If we want the federal populace to decide elections, fine. But lets not kid ourselves into believing that that will not completely destroy the constitution and the concept of "states" altogether. It is already at the point where I do not understand why states even bother to have laws- they are now all subject to federal law, or federal black mail.
    Happiness is a warm gun[This message has been edited by salzo (edited 02-03-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Voices are lost with the present system being what it is. Example, about 70% of counties in Wisconsin vote republican, but 80% of the population is concentrated in two counties, both democrat strongholds, thus the dems win every election for president (Reagan Excepted). Secondly, I believe it should be illegal to conduct exit polls or to "project" a winner. There is more at stake than the presidency. Let's say that the media projects the democrat candidate as the winner at 9 pm Eastern, but there are 3 hours left with open polls in the west. How many repub. voters stay home, figuring they lost, and how much does this affect the "rest", the senators and reps? Geez, I think we went all through this after GW got in, didn't we?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Timberbeast- If you want to see Republicans win in Federal elections, the last thing you want is an election decided by federal "popular" vote. I understand your frustration with Wisconsin-I live in Pennsylvania, and we face the same dilemma. But the truth is, the electoral college was the only thing that allowed GW to be the winner of the last election.Even if you were to use Turbos suggested method, where the represented area gets a vote in the federal election, and it is no longer a "winner gets the entire state" system, the conservatives will get their butts kicked.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    That was my point, Salzo, I guess I didn't express it well enough. If the electors truly represented the state, they would go by who took the most counties, not by who took the most popular vote. I believe that was the whole intent of the electoral college, to make sure that folks "in the sticks" had a voice. Correct me if I'm wrong! Won't be the first time! A lot of people have lost complete sight of that, and believe that the November elections decide, when in fact, Constitutionally, there is no president until the electors vote. It's just done perfunctorily now, as an addendum to the general election. Jefferson lost the popular vote. But he won the electoral, and was mainly elected president because Hamilton thought him less of a threat to the Federalists than Burr. Well, time to start watching the pregame hoopla. I might miss someone saying "They have to come to play today." or "It all comes down to this.". LOL
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You are right timber. I just had a comprehension lapse.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salzo,I took long to answer cause my wife asked me to do something for her, so you know how it is... I still wear the pants in this family, though.Anyhow I see Timber answered the question.I'll still post, what I started to say on the subject.Here it is in a nutshell;Art II, Section 1, speaks of the executive power and how he shall be elected, and I quote:"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...., shall be appointed an Elector." and so on.These are the Electors known as the "Electoral College. The Constitution says nothing about a popular vote, an equitable vote for all people is what should be the goal, since the union is made up of United States, not large cities, scattered around the country.Each of these Electoral technically represent a voting district represented by a Congressman and in any given state and one Elector for each Senator. For instance CA, has 52 Congressmen and 2 Senators.The Democratic ticket received a total of 5,861,203 votes in 2000, to the Republican ticket of 4,567,429.The Demos didn't win every DISTRICT represented, yet they got all of the Electoral college votes, since the Demos appointed there Electors, they voted for the party candidates.A more fair and equitable way would be to allow the public electorate to decide the Electoral VOTES by simply assigning the districts vote represented by each Electoral voter, to the winning candidate in that district, which would have changed the last elections considerably, as the Bush/Cheney ticket, won the majority of districts represented in these elections. The 2 Electors representing the 2 Senators from CA, would then be given to the winner of the popular vote statewide.This would more accurately represent the will of the people, and not allow the dishonesty that prevails in the large cities, which seem to be where a lot of the illegal voting happens.Many small states have the same problem, Wisconsin has, the larger cities dominate the political landscape for the entire state.And the smaller states, would have an equal opportunity of having their voice heard.I`m telling you, it would have been a different story if these votes were counted this way, it would take the manipulation out of the way the system is set up to, today..
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turbo- If you really wore the pants in your family, you would have made your wife do whatever it is she asked you to do(LOL)Arent the districts based on population? If I am wrong on that, please correct me, but that is how I thought it usually set up.Let me speak hypotheticals;Take Pennsylvania- I am not sure ehat the exact amount of districts is that are contained in Philadelphia county, but it is alot. Lets say there are 10 districts. Now we go to potter county, which is a county that in size is larger than Philadelphia, but does not come close to having the same amount of citizens(or districts) as in Philadelphia. Lets say, that Potter County has One district. If Philly has ten districts, and they all go to the Democrat, and Potter has one district, which goes to the Republican, That equates to Ten Democrat votes1 Republican vote.I do not see how that would be a fairer way of doing it, it seems to me it would be the same. I have seen the "county by county" election map, and it was overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. However, counties do not make districts. Some districts, based on population might contain ten counties, while some counties, based on population, might have ten districts.Again correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the way of counting you are speaking about would be based on county, as opposed to district. Another words, no matter how many people are in a county, the county would get one vote. So if a county had a million people it would get one, and if a county had 100 people, it would get one. That might be a "fairer" representation within a state, but I would seriously doubt that the elected legislatures of a state would stand for that.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turbo- I missed alot in your previous post. So scratch my above post out. I understand what you are saying.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turbo- Doesnt the states have the option of setting it up the way that you described? Nothing in the constitution says they cannot do it that way. And isnt there a state(Maine, New Hampshire, some NE state I am not sure which) That does just what you are speaking of?
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salzo,Your confusing voting districts with congressional districts, which are represented by these Electors, I probably confused you, by using the word interchangeably.In every election it's very seldom one candidate makes a clean sweep of ALL districts in any given state, since the Federal Government represents all of the States, and Taxes all the States, and redistributes these taxes to the states according to the population of each state, it only stands to reason that since taxation and representation should be equitable, which means, to me the candidate that wins the district should get that Electoral College vote. Just cause a candidate wins a state by one vote, shouldn't qualify him to 54 Electoral votes in CA.By the way here in So CAl, during this last census, all the minority groups, were out pushing all, even illegals to propely report all persons in their households, because this is how they get their budgets increased, the numbers taken on the census, don't have to equal the number of voters, there is inequity (to other states who don't report the number of illegals)in the amount of money returned to states like CA, because of the influx and accounting of illegal immigrants in the state.It's more equitable than the way a tie is settled, by the House, which means the majority of elected party would settle the tie.HERE IS HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORKS.The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates: ? Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). ? The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs. ? Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. ? After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot. ? On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate). ? Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district]. ? On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president. ? In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States). ? The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress. ? The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president. ? In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office. ? At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office. Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • usmc2498215usmc2498215 Member Posts: 82 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Lots of words, consider; if our two party system continues to fail by in fighting and political class warfare, there is only one word to define at what step we will be taking next.......Revolution!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I trtied to add this, but couldn't for some reason or other.It wouldn't surprise me to find out that CA has 1-2 Congressional Districts due to the illegal headcount in the last census.Add to this all other southwestern states, and you've got a can of worms.Is the picture clearer now..
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Salzo,My last post was written before, your last, only I didn't get a chance to post till this AM.I think you got a handle on this subject, pretty well.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Turbo- You do nt have to tell me about the little games that are played with creating districts, and voter fraud.I am from Pennsylvania, the home of Philadelphia, which had in the 2000 election, OVER 99 PERCENT VOTER TURN OUT!! We have our share of ballot box stuffers in this state. And as you can imagine Philadelphia overwhelmingly went for Algore.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.