Representative Governments

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Curiously the recent election resulted in a direct-democracy decision*. Thus a decision by the mob as it were. That mob can go either way really: toward a Maoist pole or a Francoist pole. I do not think we really have cause to celebrate Trump populism, as populism rarely turns out as envisioned. For that reason indirect republican democracy can be seen as (in some sense) an intelligent safeguard.

If you feel you can trust the mob you will trust their choices. One half of the US now does not trust the other half. What a bizarre situation.

How does one resolve this dangerous absurdity Greta?
___________

*I mean a sort of upstart will of the people, a populist election upset.

[prothero]

A representative government sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe one day we will try it?

Representative of whom or what?

Representative of people's interests rather than those of institutions.

Curiously that was exactly Donal Trumps argument for his election, against the establishment, the institutions, an appeal to right wing populism, nationalism (America First) and against the liberal elite (immigration,globalism, international relations and international trade). He is going to open the coal mines, return the steel mills and the auto factories and put them back to work despite the forces of automation and globalism. The people have been bamboozled, hoodwinked, we have elected the local snake oil salesman mayor of the town. More people read fake news than main stream media professional reporting, more people read his tweets than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Incredible.

[Greta]

How does one resolve this dangerous absurdity Greta?

I can't resolve the absurdities of my own tiny life, let alone those of a huge and powerful nation that is hell bent on self destruction.

[Reflex]

I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.

You have been given two arguments for it, you just don't seem to like them or care to address them, the historical reasoning about states rights, states representation and the feelings of states with smaller populations. Would you like to do away with the Senate also, some Senators represent 10 million people while others represent fewer than 250,000?

Gustav linking a conservative website is not an argument, certainly not two arguments. I can't have a conversation with a inanimate web page.

Okay, then here's another: Math Against Tyranny

Of course, you never do let facts get in the way of your opinion....

[Hobbes' Choice]

You have been given two arguments for it, you just don't seem to like them or care to address them, the historical reasoning about states rights, states representation and the feelings of states with smaller populations. Would you like to do away with the Senate also, some Senators represent 10 million people while others represent fewer than 250,000?

Gustav linking a conservative website is not an argument, certainly not two arguments. I can't have a conversation with a inanimate web page.

Okay, then here's another: Math Against Tyranny

Of course, you never do let facts get in the way of your opinion....

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Representative of whom or what?

Representative of people's interests rather than those of institutions.

Curiously that was exactly Donal Trumps argument for his election, against the establishment, the institutions, an appeal to right wing populism, nationalism (America First) and against the liberal elite (immigration,globalism, international relations and international trade). He is going to open the coal mines, return the steel mills and the auto factories and put them back to work despite the forces of automation and globalism. The people have been bamboozled, hoodwinked, we have elected the local snake oil salesman mayor of the town. More people read fake news than main stream media professional reporting, more people read his tweets than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Incredible.

The only hope American has, is that DT will believe, whatever he does or does not do, that he is making American Great (again). Narcissists, and psychopaths like DT are rarely effective, yet have so much confidence that they think they are effective.
DT cares nothing for anything he said; he does not believe in what he promised. DT cares only for himself. Hopefully the next four years will go without too many broken families, deaths, invasions, and economic catastrophes.

If you are in the US, join the Democrats to help get rid of Hilary and her band of merry men.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Hobbe's said:

"DT cares only for himself."

A weak argument. In reality every individual cares only for himself or herself, no matter what the case. DT is just more obvious about it.

PhilX

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I can't resolve the absurdities of my own tiny life, let alone those of a huge and powerful nation that is hell bent on self destruction.

Based on impression only --- I can only know the most superficial elements of your thought --- your comment that the US is 'hell-bent on self-destruction' seems to reflect and express a fairly common political and perhaps also existential stance. Based on what you have written, and what others write who seem to come from a similar platform, you seem like a political nihilist.

But I am led to ask the question: 'What do you mean by destruction?' This implies that you have at least a somewhat clear idea of what destruction is and then also what preservation would or should be.

A huge and powerful nation, I think this is obvious, cannot be said to have a 'will' in the sense that your phrase implies. But we do know that a specific person can be hell-bent on his or her own destruction and when this occurs, when we observe it in others, we usually note a psychological impulse operating there, wouldn't you say? But if the nation is headed toward disaster or toward destructive ends the question becomes Why is this happening? and What is the corrective?

What I find interesting is that when we listen to and read the opinions of people --- for example on fora like this one or in the comments under NYTs articles (Camille Paglia referred to this as a new medium for social and political analysis and understanding!) --- we often hear it said, in one way or another, and for one reason or another, that 'things are falling apart'. Doom is approaching. 'The centre cannot hold' et cetera. And everyone always mentions the reasons why they imagine this is so. And the stories rarely concur between them.

The Traditionalists (like Rene Guenon and Julian Evola) hold to the Hindu idea of descending cycles and that we are entering or that we are in the darkest and most conflicted stage of an ever-recurring process or cycle. If this is so then effectively any effort will only contribute to the continued descent toward chaos and conflict. I have to admit that at times I think that this may best describe 'what is happening' and so I too am a sort of pessimist.

[prothero]

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

[Reflex]

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

Hobbes doesn't let the facts get in the way of his opinion. Just a quick look at a map of how the counties voted is enough to prove the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution. It's kinda scary to imagine New York and California having all the say.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

The reason the constitution cannot be amended is ample evidence that it ought to be. A country run on a 200 year old consitution will rot and die. The US is either a country or it is a loose confederation of semi-autonomous states. THe fact is the the POTAS is not there to represent 'states', which are only arbitrary divisions with no reasonable nations, or semi-national identity, but the entire people of the American nation (is such a thing is a worthy entity).
That being the case each person's vote ought to have the same weight as any other person's.
In the UK we have 4 nation states, all divided by constituencies which attempt to apporoximate towns/cities or regions. In the early 19thC it became tragically obvious that the consistuency divisions were unfair, and since that time they have come under continual review in such a way that each MP is voted in by a proportion of the population that is roughly equal in number.
Ask yourself why should Maine have more clout that more populous regions. Change the boundaries for fucks sake. Make the smaller states, larger superstates.
This is a perfect example of why a written constitution is stupid.
Historical arguments are witless, idiotic traditionalism.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you are capable of arguing for the EC, then I'd like to hear it. Until then I'll assume you do not have the wit.

I presume you are familiar with the EC as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention to get the less populous states to even join the Union (the United States) in the first place, equal representation of each state in the Senate being another such compromise.

I presume also you are familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC and the fact that such an effort is almost certainly bound to fail because the less populous states still would not vote for it, since their interests would be consumed by those of the more populous states.

I again presume you have decided such historical and realistic arguments are invalid and that your point of view, that the only thing that should matter is the majority popular will is the correct and valid point of view and that all arguments or reasoning to the contrary displays a lack of "wit".

Hobbes doesn't let the facts get in the way of his opinion. Just a quick look at a map of how the counties voted is enough to prove the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution. It's kinda scary to imagine New York and California having all the say.

You are talking bollocks.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You are talking bollocks.

Well, that settles it then.

[Greta]

I can't resolve the absurdities of my own tiny life, let alone those of a huge and powerful nation that is hell bent on self destruction.

Based on impression only --- I can only know the most superficial elements of your thought --- your comment that the US is 'hell-bent on self-destruction' seems to reflect and express a fairly common political and perhaps also existential stance. Based on what you have written, and what others write who seem to come from a similar platform, you seem like a political nihilist.

I am just observing. From outside of the US the internal tensions and self destructive behaviours are obvious. If they think that the current approach of retreating into superstition and infighting is going to help them compete with a much more focused China, they will be disappointed.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It looks as if the KKK has taken control of the US. Thank you PC 'progressive' thought-police. You just had to be extremist twats, pushing people towards the right. Now look at what you've done. Self-righteous arseholes.
They claim that there is no such thing as culture, and that cultural and national identity are simply illusions, then drivel on about 'multiculturalism' and how everyone is supposed to 'embrace' this glorious melting pot that they envisage. Never mind that the reality is that people keep their cultural identity, rarely assimilate, and end up all fighting with each other and ruining previously idyllic and relatively crime-free cities and countries.