Comments on: The Fallacy of One Man, One Vote http://virginiaconservative.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/the-fallacy-of-one-man-one-vote/ Remember...the government exists to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the government. Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:24:02 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Mike D. http://virginiaconservative.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/the-fallacy-of-one-man-one-vote/#comment-47 Mike D. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:36:31 +0000 http://virginiaconservative.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-47 It seems that that this nation may have been built on something better than "one person, one vote" - discernment and compromise. The 3/5ths compromise, as far as I know, was made in an effort to keep the country united in a climate where different areas of the country had very different ideas on whether a slave counted as a representable person. Rather than let a fledgling union dissolve, the founders of our country made a compromise. While both conservative and liberal groups may disagree with the Supreme Court's rulings from time to time, it is the court's power of discernment that is an important check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. It seems to me that a group of nine people, appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative, seems to avoid the will of the popular vote as much as possible. I agree with M. Cairo that changing the rules whenever it suits out whims can be very dangerous. Yet I would like to point out that adhering to the principles of state sovereignty, the 'dead' Constitution, and secession seem to do just as much damage to the rules as "one person, one vote". If a state or group believes that they can override the rulings of the larger union, or if they believe they can simply leave a union with which they disagree, then the rules are again nullified and the capricious will of the people (or state, or group) again rules the day. If the Constitution has a carved-in-stone meaning that was developed hundreds of years ago, people who grapple with questions that aren't addressed expressly in the Constitution will feel a need to fill in the gaps with their own ideas of law and order. The Bill of Rights are themselves amendments to the Constitution that is held in such high esteem, and the process of amendment (though slow and little known in the public sphere) enables the rules to change. While we may disagree on issues as individuals, parties, and voting blocs, it is important to remember that the power of our nation is not in its rigid, one voice outlook, but in its rich diversity and the compromises that this diversity demands and promotes. It is in looking back to the actions of the Founding Fathers, those that include conferencing, compromise, and discernment, that rules regain and maintain their importance and relevance. It seems that that this nation may have been built on something better than “one person, one vote” – discernment and compromise. The 3/5ths compromise, as far as I know, was made in an effort to keep the country united in a climate where different areas of the country had very different ideas on whether a slave counted as a representable person. Rather than let a fledgling union dissolve, the founders of our country made a compromise. While both conservative and liberal groups may disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings from time to time, it is the court’s power of discernment that is an important check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. It seems to me that a group of nine people, appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative, seems to avoid the will of the popular vote as much as possible.

I agree with M. Cairo that changing the rules whenever it suits out whims can be very dangerous. Yet I would like to point out that adhering to the principles of state sovereignty, the ‘dead’ Constitution, and secession seem to do just as much damage to the rules as “one person, one vote”. If a state or group believes that they can override the rulings of the larger union, or if they believe they can simply leave a union with which they disagree, then the rules are again nullified and the capricious will of the people (or state, or group) again rules the day. If the Constitution has a carved-in-stone meaning that was developed hundreds of years ago, people who grapple with questions that aren’t addressed expressly in the Constitution will feel a need to fill in the gaps with their own ideas of law and order. The Bill of Rights are themselves amendments to the Constitution that is held in such high esteem, and the process of amendment (though slow and little known in the public sphere) enables the rules to change. While we may disagree on issues as individuals, parties, and voting blocs, it is important to remember that the power of our nation is not in its rigid, one voice outlook, but in its rich diversity and the compromises that this diversity demands and promotes. It is in looking back to the actions of the Founding Fathers, those that include conferencing, compromise, and discernment, that rules regain and maintain their importance and relevance.

]]> By: M. Cairo http://virginiaconservative.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/the-fallacy-of-one-man-one-vote/#comment-31 M. Cairo Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:20:50 +0000 http://virginiaconservative.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-31 Your point here and in the blog on 7 July is a very good one. It's important to remember that this is not a democracy, it's a Federal Democratic Republic. Or, perhaps one could call it, in the full-blown form, a Constitutional Federal Representative Democratic Republic. I can enumerate what each of those terms represents but I won't bore you. However, it's important to note that tempering the will of the majority with the rule of law was a major goal of the constitution, not to empower a privilieged minority, but to ensure that a standard of citizens' rights would always be upheld regardless of a majority vote. A lot of prople phrase this in terms of the founding fathers being "afraid" of "real democracy," but I think that's mis-stating the case. It's more accurate, I think, to say that they were conscious of the need to see to it that everyone, including the government, was subject to the same set of rules, and that those rules had a set system that determined when and how they could be changed. THe trend these days is to say that laws and Constitutions are "living documents" that can basically be re-interpreted to mean whatever any person may want. But THAT is the real fallacy: when the rules can be changed whenever someone pleases, then they cease to be important - what becomes important is WHO'S MAKING the rules. People who support this kind of system make a lot of noise about representation and American republicanism and how it's "unfair" and dilutes the "will of the people." But consider this: in all western history, the Greeks came closest to pure democracy, and they had no checks on the auhtority of the votes they took - they routinely executed and exiled people who had committed no crime other than being unpopular... this was done democratically, of course. Your point here and in the blog on 7 July is a very good one. It’s important to remember that this is not a democracy, it’s a Federal Democratic Republic. Or, perhaps one could call it, in the full-blown form, a Constitutional Federal Representative Democratic Republic. I can enumerate what each of those terms represents but I won’t bore you. However, it’s important to note that tempering the will of the majority with the rule of law was a major goal of the constitution, not to empower a privilieged minority, but to ensure that a standard of citizens’ rights would always be upheld regardless of a majority vote. A lot of prople phrase this in terms of the founding fathers being “afraid” of “real democracy,” but I think that’s mis-stating the case. It’s more accurate, I think, to say that they were conscious of the need to see to it that everyone, including the government, was subject to the same set of rules, and that those rules had a set system that determined when and how they could be changed. THe trend these days is to say that laws and Constitutions are “living documents” that can basically be re-interpreted to mean whatever any person may want. But THAT is the real fallacy: when the rules can be changed whenever someone pleases, then they cease to be important – what becomes important is WHO’S MAKING the rules. People who support this kind of system make a lot of noise about representation and American republicanism and how it’s “unfair” and dilutes the “will of the people.” But consider this: in all western history, the Greeks came closest to pure democracy, and they had no checks on the auhtority of the votes they took – they routinely executed and exiled people who had committed no crime other than being unpopular… this was done democratically, of course.

]]>