The founders wanted slaves. I don't base my principles on what slavers want.
We should want to be better than them, and be glad that we've fixed some of their mistakes, and desire to fix the rest of their mistakes.
We should want to be better than them, and be glad that we've fixed some of their mistakes, and desire to fix the rest of their mistakes.
#NotAllFoundingFathers
Even if I grant the point uncontested—that their reasons for limiting the franchise were good—their methods included gross sexism and white supremacy, and have allowed our present condition of tyranny of the minority
Even if I grant the point uncontested—that their reasons for limiting the franchise were good—their methods included gross sexism and white supremacy, and have allowed our present condition of tyranny of the minority
But also I think it actually *is* stupid to think that the stated reasons for limiting the franchise were made in good faith, or prevented some sort of tyrannical "mob rule."
Limits to the franchise are never used to egalitarian ends. They're always used to tyrannical ends.
Limits to the franchise are never used to egalitarian ends. They're always used to tyrannical ends.
I mean think of the argument: "If you allow mob rule in America, then some bigoted majority might use mob rule to oppress minorities"
1) Yeah our limits to the franchise didn't prevent that from happening. Obviously.
2) But it did help entrench it. Obviously.
1) Yeah our limits to the franchise didn't prevent that from happening. Obviously.
2) But it did help entrench it. Obviously.
Or, a thought experiment along alternative lines: "If you have pure democratic voting, then the cities will be able to impose themselves tyrannically on the country and the country won't be represented."
This doesn't pass the sniff test on so many levels.
This doesn't pass the sniff test on so many levels.
Democrats Despite All Flaws govern the whole country. Obamacare DAF was for rural areas as well as cities. Warren campaigned on hospitals for rural areas. Sanders campaign focused on the needs of cities and rural people.
If majority ruled, the country would benefit.
If majority ruled, the country would benefit.
If the cities were *accurately* represented, then let's see what we'd have:
1) Environmental protections
2) Anti-monopoly protections
3) Education bills
4) Infrastructure bills
5) Health care bills
6) Predatory loan protections
Oh the tyranny.
1) Environmental protections
2) Anti-monopoly protections
3) Education bills
4) Infrastructure bills
5) Health care bills
6) Predatory loan protections
Oh the tyranny.
If all votes were counted evenly, politicians wouldn't be able to ignore the country OR the city. Why? BECAUSE ALL THE VOTES WOULD COUNT.
OK, so only 20% live in rural areas. You can't afford to ignore 20% of people.
But they shouldn't have 60% of the power.
Get it?
OK, so only 20% live in rural areas. You can't afford to ignore 20% of people.
But they shouldn't have 60% of the power.
Get it?
There is one ideology and one party that governs on the premise that only certain people matter, and they are in the minority. And they form mobs.
We have tyranny of minority rule.
Majority rule would not result in mob rule.
Observation of reality proves the opposite.
We have tyranny of minority rule.
Majority rule would not result in mob rule.
Observation of reality proves the opposite.
Almost as silly as using the worldview of 250 years ago to inform modern decisions.
But not quite.
But not quite.
