| Are you glad democracy prevailed in the disputed election - in Minnesota?! (re: Senator Al Franken) |
|
|
|
Asked 264 days ago
by SHIELD  United States |
|
About
A traveler. I've lived in 10 states and 13 cities. I've been throughout Europe, South America, and Canada, and I've visited Down Under and Asia.
|
14 Points
|
Certainly. Why would anyone not be glad?
Because it is an example of the "tyranny of the majority."
The tryranny? Or the wisdom of the masses? How do you distinguish?
So you favor the tyranny of the minority? How small a minority? Just one? Like the Tsar?
Of course not. That would be silly. The majority can make some really stupid choices sometimes. I think that this is one of those times. But I'm in the minority. (by definition)
"tyranny of the majority" is a phrase the founding fathers used a lot to refer to the danger of large states overwhelming small states in votes. I adapted it for my own use because it sounded more elegant than Minnesota voters were stupid to take a joke and make a senator of it.
It referred to the idea that just because everyone wanted it didn't mean it was a good idea. A *profoundly* anti-democratic ideal.
But it, unlike dictatorship, is self-correcting.
When it is allowed to be. When Jarvis-Gann laid the foundation for the destruction of California's school system (and eventual bankruptcy), they deliberately included a provision that local municipalities could raise taxes for school--but only with a 2/3 super-majority vote, which, it turned out, was just as impossible to obtain as the framers of Prop 13 thought it would be. A later amendment reduced it to a super-majority of only 55% percent, but by then the damage was done, and California never again did anything but slide in per-cap spending and exit testing of high school grads. On the other hand, that change allowed the schools, and perhaps the state itself to hang in for another decade.
What a loaded question. What if I am unhappy because democracy didn't prevail in the Minnesota election?
Call Kathrine Harris.
Awesome answer of the day!
The election was stolen by going to counties where Franken was strong and creating extra votes from absentee and rejected ballots. How can you think that "democracy prevailed" where the rules on how to count the votes change from district to district.
Ask Katherine Harris.
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 263 days ago by deleted user Reply"We?"
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 263 days ago by deleted user ReplyI thought you were all just one person using multiple screen names!
You mean to tell me there are THAT MANY people that messed up in the head?! If Ronald Reagan hadn't closed down all of the mental institutions we could get you guys some help. Maybe the coming Universal Healthcare initiative can provide some relief!
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 263 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Some districts had ►more◄ votes▲ then voters▼.
Notice: the votes were counted, Coleman won but every time they recounted them, there were more votes for franken until he led, then the votes stopped counting.
It's what they tried to do in Florida until they were stopped. I guess "Practice make perfect!" (and who would be more perfect at fraud then the party of Chicago)
That dispute should never have been allowed to drag on so long. It is another abuse of the system. Glad it's over.
I disagree with the premise of the question. The recent election in Iran was more democratic than this one.
Yes, Franken should have been seated months ago.
That's not "exactly" what I meant. But I am glad we live in a country where we can still have this debate without being arrested, or worse.
I know what you meant. I'm messing with you.