vision2020
RE: Democracy or Republic
Douglas,
You say: "History teaches, and our founders understood, that the principals
of
pure democracy work only at a a neighborhood level, but when applied beyond
that, result in anarchy. "
This is not my understanding of James Madison's notion of the U.S. as a
continental democracy. I understand Madison to say that democracy works best
in a large market place of ideas - even better than at a local level. It is
just much harder to control/monopolize the debate at the national level than
it is at the state and local level. A large area democracy is not a weakness
but a strength. Democracy works because we are smarter collectively than we
are individually. The bigger and better informed the collective, the smarter
we get.
I would say that the national level democracy is a lot healthier (open and
transparent, recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding) than in one
party states like Idaho. For example, major political decisions in the Idaho
legislature are made behind closed doors in the Republican Party caucus.
They pass major legislation w/ little debate. Conversely, leg. committee
chairs bottle up important legislation on a whim. We only have to look at
the power play among county commissioners to suggest that local politics
leaves something to be desired.
Do local newspapers really give in-depth analysis of all side of public
policy issues? Is there even a public radio station that reports the
political news in Idaho? (Now on public television Ma Idaho is warning me
a'gin them bad ideas contained therein. I guess I am supposed to ignore Mark
Russell when he pokes fun at politicians.) Is this the stuff of a health
democracy at the local level? I wonder and I wonder.
Steve Cooke
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Whitney [mailto:dwhitney@moscow.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:13 AM
To: John Cavalieri; William K. Medlin
Cc: Moscow
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic
Sorry for the late entry on this topic. The fact that the United States is a
Republic, and the meaning of that fact is all to often forgotten in the
political dialogue. The United States is a social compact between 50 member
states, not between 200 million citizens. The vote of an individual is
important only in the election of the representatives of each state to
congress. The founders believed that the vote of an individual should not be
important in electing the president of the republic-that is a matter for a
state, which, as an corporate entity composed as a number of individuals, is
the right entity to elect the president throught the electoral college. This
balance against the tyranny of a popular majority is a fundamental
characteristic of our national system, and to eliminate the electoral
college would soon result in a country which would be unrecognizable to any
of us. History teaches, and our founders understood, that the principals of
pure democracy work only at a a neighborhood level, but when applied beyond
that, result in anarchy. The idea was beautifully expressed in the musical
"1776," in which the votes for independance were proudly cast as
follows;"Virginia votes yes; Pennsylvania votes yes," and so forth. Looking
at the presidential election in that context, together with the fact that
Bush won 78% of the counties covering 80.7% of the land) and 58% of the
states, brings a new perspective on the essential nature of the electoral
college.
Doug Whitney
----- Original Message -----
From: "William K. Medlin" <dev-plan@moscow.com>
To: "John Cavalieri" <jcaval@uidaho.edu>
Cc: "Moscow" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: Democracy or Republic
> You'll find it in Jefferson's papers, Hamilton's Federalist, and it's
> implied in the general construction of federal government. It's also
> reflected, in keeping with social philosophy of that time, in the
> denial of voting in certain states to Catholics, Jews and members of
> other sects. to non-property owners, to women and, of course to
> slaves (counted as 3/5 persons to give the southern states more
> representation). If these provisions do not reflect a fear of the
> general population, whose disenfranchised people out-numbered the
> franchised by about 4 to 1, I don't know what you would define as
> fear of the popular will. Even since l920 and the voting rights act
> of l965, there are still many, many subtle ways in which some
> partisan politicians seek to prevent certain categories of citizens
> from going to the polls: outright intimidation, "running out of
> ballots", closing polls early, blockading access to polling places,
> refusals to assist minorities, elderly, infirm, etc to cast correct
> ballots, using worn out voting machines, confusing ballots, and still
> other devices. All of these things have been documented and, in the
> FL case, some of them no doubt will lead to legal cases filed against
> the FL government. We'll have to see. WKM
>
> >"founding fathers did not trust the public to make the right decisions"
> >
> >That is a pretty bold statment. I don't remember leaning that in
> >U.S. History.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Cavalieri
> > jcaval@uidaho.edu
> >
> >_
> > >
>
Back to TOC