Turns out it only works if the population doesn’t believe they want that.
My teacher in middle school did specifically call out that it would take a project over several decades to co-opt the system.
Well, they’ve been going after the judgeships for decades.
Yeah. That’s exactly what happened.
Checks and balances wasn’t about avoiding fascism.
It was to make sure all three branches of governments stayed in power over the body politic.
And they still are in power.
When I was growing up, they told us the US was the greatest country in the world. Now that I’m older, I realize it’s one of the worst in the Western world in nearly every statistic.
So…the us is the greatest at being the worse!
Chink in that armor was allow people without education, attention, and just plain common sense to vote
Kinda why the Electoral College exists.
But it was too cool to hate on it.
Because the people running the game know without it the game becomes who has the best propaganda.
Well, as you have seen, the game of propaganda was won by the ignorant, dark visioned, loudmouthed clowns
Sounds like you agree with Plato. It makes sense.
To be fair we were lied to growing up. Be nice to others and santa.
I’d believe it when I see it
Maybe it’s time you guys rewrote your constitution into something more modern instead of treating the old one as a holy scripture handed down from Olympus.
But I doubt that’ll ever happen.
Now is definitely not the time to rewrite the constitution. Could you imagine what the powers that be would do to it?
Subscription based rights.
Trump is about to rewrite our Constitution, just not the way it should be written.
If he does, at least it’ll show that it can be rewritten.
A lot of people are being shown that a lot of stuff that kept their country going was decorum, shame and tradition, not rule of law.
Regulatory capture and citizens united both exist to undo those checks and balances. No system is immune to corruption.
Interestingly the US system was always more vulnerable to corruption, and everyone knew it. Our executive branch is far too powerful. That’s why when the US has engaged in nation building they never install governments like ours. Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc. the pentagon always insists on a parliamentary system, because they’re better in every way (less prone to grid lock, less prone to tyranny of the minority, weaker executive, etc.).
America was built on the ideas of freedom and equality by slave owners who didn’t think women should be allowed to vote.
Not exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
Most places wanted no slavery.
The original tryanny of the minority was the planation owners that would not join beyond the Articles of Confederation unless they could continue with the slavery.
Women were still held down as they had been hisrorically, damn near everywhere. Not realy unique here.
Don’t forget they were also terrified of democracy. The Senate is one of the most comically anti-democratic institutions ever concocted. Wyoming has as much power as California. I mean it beggars belief that anyone but a complete imbecile could agree to something like that.
The founding fathers were correct. A pure democracy is also known as mob rule. Anytime you can get 51% to agree with you, you can do whatever you like.
If 51% vote to take the homes of black people, that’s decided and done.
Which is why modern democracies are all some form of representative democracy. Which in theory is supposed to act as a sort of check and balance on the system.
I’m not following your argument, though I am slightly drunk. The disproportionate representation that’s the focus of the post means that less than 51% of the populace could wield the levers of power in the Senate. That’s minority rule, which is even worse than mob rule.
I get that mob rule is bad, and that we need checks in place to curb the possibility of abuses of power, but I see that as necessitating laws for super majorities and ranked choice or other ways of ensuring less extreme representatives getting into power.
It’s not democratic from a person level, but it is more democratic from a state level. At the time they hadn’t quite figured out if they wanted to be a country or a collection of states that sometimes work together.
Democracy is a system of government whose power is vested by the people (“demos”). Notice that the Senate does not legislate on behalf of people. Instead, it represents the interests of random land masses (clusters of zip codes). It is as stupid as it sounds and the exact opposite of democracy.
One of the main arguments by Senate proponents during the US founding was that democracy was unacceptable. “Government by the people for the people? What gives these people the right…” etcetera. If you want quotes I’ll dig them up, but that’s the vibe.
“Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. […]
No. In fact, two democracies have never gone to war with each other. Why would they?
Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man’s life or property will be secure." - John Adams (1807)
Ah, redistribution of wealth and moral progress, terrifying. In case it’s not obvious from these pathetic quotes, John Adams was a moron.
The first two political parties were formed around that very debate.
I mean, they did give an earnest try at preventing a king from happening, and it did work for a couple hundred years.
