Since we live in a country where a majority of Americans are in agreement............

[Auld Phart]

But it’s 2024 when Shor’s projected Senate Götterdämmerung really strikes. To see how bad the map is for Democrats, think back to 2018, when anti-Trump fury drove record turnout and handed the House gavel back to Nancy Pelosi. Senate Democrats saw the same huge surge of voters. Nationally, they won about 18 million more votes than Senate Republicans — and they still lost two seats. If 2024 is simply a normal year, in which Democrats win 51 percent of the two-party vote, Shor’s model projects a seven-seat loss, compared with where they are now.

Sit with that. Senate Democrats could win 51 percent of the two-party vote in the next two elections and end up with only 43 seats in the Senate.

Opinion | David Shor Is Telling Democrats What They Don’t Want to Hear (Published 2021)

His forecasting model shows a looming disaster for Senate Democrats. Are they going to do anything about it?

www.nytimes.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

......on issues like abortion, gun control, climate change, immigration, campaign finance reform, etc., why isn't the majority's wishes reflected in public policy?

I would argue it's because of the disproportionate representation of conservatives in the Senate, more gerrymandered districts in Repub controlled states than Dem controlled states, and the comically anachronistic Electoral College. If not for the latter we likely would not have had a Repub prez since Reagan. Hence, we'd have a liberal super majority in the SC. Nor would we have suffered through Mitch McTreason being the majority leader in the Senate if not for WY's 580K residents having equal representation to CA's 39M.

Can this be fixed to prevent the current tyranny of the minority?

Exactly.

It’s the consequence of the executive and judicial branches of government along with the Senate being fundamentally undemocratic, where their control is determined by the states contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

These undemocratic institutions allow for the tyranny of Republican minority rule.

 

[Edgetho]

We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

And currently the minority has found ways to achieve more representation than their numbers allow

We are a Republic. Fukking period. The word 'democracy' or democrat' does not appear in the Constitution. Republic does. On numerous occasions. For a territory to become a State it must guarantee a REPUBLICAN form of governemnt.

In a democracy, individual rights can be nullified through the voting process. In a Republic, like ours, there are certain 'unalienable' rights that are absolute.

 

[dblack]

What’s your definition of consensus?

Lack of paramount objection. ie the minority is willing to accept the majority's decision. They might not like the results, it might not be their preferred course, but they're not going to take to the streets in protest.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You've hit on the problem.

that is what was intended and I repeat if you dont like it get an amendment to change it and stop whining like a little baby cause you dont like the reality of HOW our government works and has since 1789

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Two senators for each state was a concession to small states made at the founding in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. The Founders arguably never envisioned a situation like the disparate populations of CA and WY.

Yes they did. They had the populations of Boston and New York.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

that isnt the senates job the senate represents the States not the people, god do any of you retards understand the Constitution.

Ohh check out which fools in this post dont understand how the Government works Surada thinks the senate represents the people.

 

[Lesh]

You keep taking about pure democracy.

We don’t have that and don’t want that

You think we are a direct democracy?

Are you that stupid?

 

[MisterBeale]

Yup, I've heard that one before. Please read this.

The Real Reason Why Republicans Keep Saying “We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy”

The author of Democracy May Not Exist on a sinister new talking point.

slate.com

Aristotle’s Political Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

". . .TIP: Pure direct democracy is not an ideal mixed-Republic (it is pure democracy). Therefore, it makes sense from this perspective that the term Republic today generally implies some for of indirect democracy within a popular and lawful government. See Plato on Democracy.. . . "

What is a Polity? - Fact / Myth

Classically speaking, the term Polity means "a state" (a group of people under a single social contract), but it also implies an "ideal state" (a Kallipolis).

factmyth.com

Plato on Tyranny: How Democracy and Oligarchy Become Tyranny From Plato’s Republic​

".. . . . A main ideas here are:

1. Unrestrained liberty and equality (the qualities of both Democracy and Anarchy) are corrupting, as is the unrestrained accumulation of wealth (the quality of Oligarchy). In respect to this conversation, what is true for a person, is true for the state.
2. A state run by those best suited to run it is more stable and effective than a state run by those who obtain power other ways (such as by wealth, or by merely being a citizen, such as with a democracy).
3. Each “higher order” form (Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, etc) has a tendency to devolve into the next form in line (where Timocracy becomes Oligarchy, Oligarchy becomes Democracy, and Democracy becomes Tyranny).
4. A mixed Republic that places Aristocracy first, then Timocracy, and then under those Oligarchy and Democracy can help avoid the decent into Tyranny (while preserving the virtues of Oligarchy and Democracy and allowing those who naturally have a tendency toward those systems to exist and thrive within those sub-systems of the state freely).
5. Since Democracy is the form that the others devolve into before devolving into Tyranny, a central aspect of this theory is “How Democracy leads to Tyranny.”
6. Since Oligarchy specifically devolves into Democracy, a state ruled by Oligarchs is a slippery slope. In Plato’s book, a full chapter is devoted to showing us how an Oligarch is lifted up as the champion of the people, and how he over time becomes a tyrant.
7. Since Timocracy specifically devolves into Oligarchy, a state ruled by Timocrats is a slippery slope.
8. Thus, you either have a Monarchy/Aristocracy (rule by a wise one or few), a Mixed Republic (a mixed system), or a decent to Anarchy and then Tyranny (a decent toward chaos which results in a despot taking control).

To explain this another way, governments based on the virtues of liberty, equality, and/or wealth only (just those with no “checks and balances“) tend to produce chaos and naturally result in tyranny over time due to a lack the proper restraints (true for a soul, a person, a community, a state, etc). Not because these virtues are not good important qualities, but because they aren’t the qualities best suited for leading and producing stability. If you have a ship, you don’t want to vote on navigation, you don’t want the rich or the strong to navigate, and you don’t want to navigate in a state of chaos, you want the best navigator to navigate (in terms of talent and other such factors).

In simple terms, although this can be said many ways and is in the book (mostly using metaphor), pure oligarchy and pure democracy are bound for tyranny due to their very nature (as is timocracy to some extent) and thus these forms require the checks and restraints offered by the more principled and orderly forms. . . . "

How Democracy Leads to Tyranny From Plato's Republic - Fact / Myth

In his Republic, Plato examines how Democracy can lead to Tyranny in a republic. We explain Plato's theory as it pertains to democracy and tyranny.

factmyth.com

 

[ThisIsMe]

......on issues like abortion, gun control, climate change, immigration, campaign finance reform, etc., why isn't the majority's wishes reflected in public policy?

I would argue it's because of the disproportionate representation of conservatives in the Senate, more gerrymandered districts in Repub controlled states than Dem controlled states, and the comically anachronistic Electoral College. If not for the latter we likely would not have had a Repub prez since Reagan. Hence, we'd have a liberal super majority in the SC. Nor would we have suffered through Mitch McTreason being the majority leader in the Senate if not for WY's 580K residents having equal representation to CA's 39M.

Can this be fixed to prevent the current tyranny of the minority?

As far as senate seats go, you can fix that by changing the cotus. Get an article 5 convention if states.

As far as gerrymandering, some would suggest that it’s all just hype, it’s currently not an issue.

The gerrymander myth | Brookings

Neither party currently enjoys a significant aggregate advantage from gerrymandered districts.

www.brookings.edu

Also, the dems do it too:

How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander

Republicans tilted the House map. Democrats are clawing their way back.

www.vox.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You think we are a direct democracy?

Are you that stupid?

you dont like how our government works get an amendment and change it

 

[sartre play]

Only thing I know for sure, the division of the majority of Americans from one another, Has enabled the rich and powerful too take more and more control of everything & make it work in their favor.

 

[Lesh]

Lack of paramount objection. ie the minority is willing to accept the majority's decision. They might not like the results, it might not be their preferred course, but they're not going to take to the streets in protest.

So you’re saying a near total agreement?

By that measure “consensus” means nothing.

The American electorate will never achieve that

 

[Lesh]

you dont like how our government works get an amendment and change it

Change what? Change from a direct democracy that doesn’t exist?

 

[ThisIsMe]

States are able to set policy for themselves in a number of areas. But can you explain to me why 580K people should have equal influence on federal policy as 39M?

They don’t, California has 52 representatives in the house and Wyoming has 1.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Change what? Change from a direct democracy that doesn’t exist?

change how the senate works that is the complaint after all, only way to change it is amend the constitution.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So you think the organizing principle of the Constitution was agriculture? You know this was before commercial farming, right?

It was about property and sovereignty and avoiding mob rule.
You endorse mob rule.

 

[Lesh]

They don’t, California has 52 representatives in the house and Wyoming has 1.

That’s the House, in the Senate they have the same number of Senators with a fraction of the population

 

[dblack]

So you’re saying a near total agreement?

No. I'm saying lack of paramount objection. That's the way it is with the bulk of the laws Congress passes. When you start trying to "transform society" it gets problematic..

 

[MisterBeale]

But it’s 2024 when Shor’s projected Senate Götterdämmerung really strikes. To see how bad the map is for Democrats, think back to 2018, when anti-Trump fury drove record turnout and handed the House gavel back to Nancy Pelosi. Senate Democrats saw the same huge surge of voters. Nationally, they won about 18 million more votes than Senate Republicans — and they still lost two seats. If 2024 is simply a normal year, in which Democrats win 51 percent of the two-party vote, Shor’s model projects a seven-seat loss, compared with where they are now.

Sit with that. Senate Democrats could win 51 percent of the two-party vote in the next two elections and end up with only 43 seats in the Senate.

Opinion | David Shor Is Telling Democrats What They Don’t Want to Hear (Published 2021)

His forecasting model shows a looming disaster for Senate Democrats. Are they going to do anything about it?

www.nytimes.com