I was listening to President Bush on C-SPAN during lunch and he was talking about the Marriage Protection Amendment. Where you come down on this issue isn't where I want to go. He cited that every state has some sort of law recognizing marriage as being between one man and one woman and that those initiatives were usually supported by at least 70% of that state's populace (though those states usually had options for other legal unions). He also said that the problem was that "activist" judges were striking down the laws and that an amendment was the only was to unsure that the will of the people be upheld.

Which is what brought me to the question. Even if you, a governor or president believes that the will of the majority of people is wrong, should their will be carried out regardless? Isn't that the nature of a democracy, that the will of the people is supposed to carry the day? Is it up to "activist" judges to stop us when they think we're wrong?

Like I said before, I don't want to debate the issue in question, but the process behind it. And I recognize the possibility of making bad laws (i.e. Slavery is AOK), but for the time that's how things were and eventually "We the People" changed our minds about that (the hard way). Shouldn't every issue go through the same process?

Last edited: Monday, June 05, 2006 at 11:37:28 AM

This is the kind of stuff that makes me think I should start wearing pants again.

Last edited: Monday, June 05, 2006 at 11:34:49 AM

Wow, nice question.

I DO think that it should be "the people" who decide these things and whom are deciding on majority votes. But in this age of manufacturing consent and mass ignorance it can make you wince.

For example, take "ti the boss's" comments (sorry for picking on you, ti) in the "rollingstone" thread, they show he has not understood (or not read) the majority of the thread, I would hate the outcome of a public vote where their were hordes of similar people to him, unfortunately the best you can hope for is to help educate (note: NOT re-educate) people in these topics. If people are genuinely ignorant, but well-meaning you'd be surprised how quickly peoples arguments fall apart. I think part of the problem is people don't question and argue enough, I mean, I'm not claiming to be some sort of omnipotent god knowing ALL truth, a lot of arguments I have held have shriveled-and-died under scrutiny only to be profoundly converted by the argu-ee. But I think much of the problem is that people DON'T argue, people DON'T question, all that happens is that certain "truths" are drilled into your head by the media killing off any hope of a balanced conversation.

If we had a society who WAS politically alive then this wouldn't even be a question you would have to ask; but the sad fact is, we don't! You can't/shouldn't blindly lead other people in a direction they don't want to go in... But you CAN help others think about these things...

Their was an advert run in the U.K recently running up to the elections, in which it posed the question 'if you don't do politics, what DO you do?':

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/dontdopolitics2004.cfm

It tried to explain that politics IS everything: the advert starts with a man saying "I don't do politics"; it then leads on to talk about other subjects including football(soccer to all you yanks) and the man who said "I don't do politics" had no option but to say "I don't do politics" and kill the conversation in every eventuality...

I felt it was quite successful, it tried to appeal to peoples everyday concerns and explain that THAT is politics; but I felt it was sad that their even HAD to be an advert like this in the first place...

Last edited: Monday, June 05, 2006 at 12:02:58 PM

No, the masses of Republican conservative religious rightists are NEVER wrong. Poll numbers down? Time for a gay bash! That'll get the Christians really fired up! Oh, and while we're at it, change our name to Jesusland. _[/sarcasm]

Last edited: Monday, June 05, 2006 at 1:30:36 PM

^ Useless post.

Please try to put that "free thinking" brain of yours to use and make a meaningful contribution. Otherwise, go away.

Is the will of the people ever wrong.... YES!!!!

For all of the reasons stated above: Lack of education, Media biases, and just plain ignorance. This is the whole reason why our system is set up as checks and balances. The judicial system has the responsibility to prevent mob mentality from destroying the nation. This is the system by which injustices caused by the legislative process can be resolved. For Bush to be attempting to subvert the judicial system by making a constitutional amendment is an excellent example of why we need the checks and balances. It establishes stability of the laws by enforcing precedent as the strongest (but not absolute)authority. This keeps our laws from changing drastically with every election and the whim of the electorate.

I was saying exactly what V is saying right now. Sometimes "we the people" are just plain stupid. Sometimes we want to be irrational to justify our views. What if the majority of people wanted to demolish the world? Would you let them do this at the expense of the lives of the minority?

It's easy to get examples of what Rabban is getting at...

At work, I'm the head of a team that is deeply involved in improving the instruction of mathematics in our school. I have a fair level of expertise in this area, and have done a great deal of research in preparation for this role.

Now I come up to a barrier. Some of the people who will be ratifying the changes my team is recommending have not seen the research, and may not buy what we have to tell them. Here's where the possible tyranny of the majority can come into play. People will be uninformed and get in the way of some good research based practices. Tradition could get in the way of progress.

My team has a responsibility to present our findings to the whole group and make it comprehensible. If that is done effectively, we should be able to sway opinion toward our point of view. We may have a few who don't buy in, but we can get the support we need to go ahead. However, we need to educate the people to make this happen.

This is fairly easily done with 40 people. The message can go fairly directly to them, and there isn't a lot of opportunity for misinterpretation or manipulation.

This process of researching ---> informing ---> proposing change ----> educating stakeholders -----> getting support ---> implementing changes is similar to an election, but in my case the number of people makes it easy.

When we start talking about entire populations, things get very difficult. There are opportunities for misintrepretation, misrepresentation, divisiveness and laziness. I see these things as the biggest barriers to an effective government.

How we handle these issues is very important, and currently, I don't think it's being done well.

In Canada polls usually give a small edge to those favoring Death Penalty for major crimes, but the politicians voted long ago to not have death penalty in the land. A binding referendum would pass. So IMOHO it's a good case of political activism.

Sadly, we drift further from the American system and toward democracy. A good example is the lack of criticism of Bush's "democracy crusade". He is encouraging the Iraqis to define themselves as different groups that must struggle against each other for political domination over each other. He has ignored the importance of individual rights and set in motion a guaranteed civil war. Meanwhile, we Americans are mute on on the issue because Bush is simply following what has become the popular philosophy: Democracy (mob rule).

Last edited: Monday, June 05, 2006 at 4:16:19 PM

Most people get their facts from celebrities and those "facts" most of the time are just their opinions

Excellent distinction, BC. It is always important to define the terms in use, and the US is, in fact, a constitutional republic. There are safeguards in place to limit the power of the people, while still allowing for voice from different groups. The Senate and House of Representatives is an example. Each house has their own process and their own voice, but the two houses are required to iron out differences in conference committees.

The Supreme Court is the biggest safeguard for minority viewpoints, and has served us well over the years. I get concerned when the judicial branch appears to be in the pocket of the executive branch.

We have a well designed government in the US, but need to be diligent lest one portion of it become too important.

What if we the people are tools?

^so spot on. "...right makes might..."

The definition of marriage is crucial to all societies. Man and Woman as parents is sacred for us all. It has been that way for 5 thousand years. Why change?

Good post BC. From the same writer I read 'The Ominous Parallel'.

This is one of the more interesting threads that has popped up in a while. Nice going Rabby. It is also one of the more intellectually challenging, which means I will be left in the dust. :)

"We The People" was a MUCH easier broad-stroke statement when the pool of "the People" was smaller, there was less cultural diversity, and much much less complicated issues for "The People" to grapple with.

"The People" of 2006 is a diluted bunch. Special interests abound, great cultural diversity separates the people as much (if not more) than unites, and the issues facing the government, which was originally defined as "by the people, and for the people", are now having to make decisions that the general population cannot or will not be able to fully understand.

"National Security" has long separated "the Peoples" ability to vote on international policy such as who we fight and why we fight (long before 9/11, but even more so since 9/11). The inability for "The People" to wade through the media machines of our political parties has pretty much invalidated the vote of "The People" for most important issues. We rarely understand then big picture of an issue, we usually only understand the message of the special interest that spent the most money or had the best marketing.

And finally, (not sure if I am on topic with this one or not). Saying that the White House is only upholding the will of the majority to ban gay marriage is BULLSH%T. This is a Bush Administration Agenda.

If The Bush Administration really followed the will of "the majority of the people", then Bush should also step out of office because his approval ratings show the majority are unhappy with him, he should also pull out of Iraq immediately because the majority want us to leave Iraq,...the list of things the Bush Administration has done that has met with a majority vote against him is long. He is picking and choosing when to "Uphold the will of the majority", and his pick in the Gay Marriage fight is based on his religious beliefs.

And finally 2 (definitely off-topic) Why does anyone give a DAMN what the genders are of two people that fall in love and want to get married? Maybe the religious zealots should put as much attention on getting pedophile priests out of the churches.

Yeah, why change? Let's stop all technology right now, end research. End interracial marriages because the Bible condemns it. Keep the Republican corporatists in power forever. Make absolutely sure that 55% of the world goes to bed hungry. Be stagnant.

Not for me. Off the top of my head, not eight thousand other people who share my views on RevLeft. Not for the antifascists. Not for queer rights groups. Not for the scientists who keep discovering that homosexuality is linked to genetics. "My genes are SACRED!" For me, RevLeft, and the scientists who keep this world moving forward, NOTHING is sacred. "Sacred" doesn't exist.

And slowly we're starting to debate the issues rather than the question I posed. Try to stay focused.

Going back the to Republic vs Democracy idea, I agree that we're represented by our elected officials. The thing is, I often don't feel represented. I've voiced my opinions to my senators and representatives on a few topics. I always get a letter in response, usually to the tune of why they agree or disagree with me and why they're going forward with the view they already hold. IS that what we want? It seems that the process is to elect professionals that we like, then hope their represent our views once they get to Washington. But there's really know way of knowing what they're going to do. It seems that what beings to happen is that the views of thousands and millions are filtered through (or blocked by) a few and THEY vote THEIR conscience and probably what they feel gives them the best chance of reelection. And we're always bemoaning the rich's power over this country, but for the most part the people we elect are rich. Who else can seriously afford to run for office?

Still, I think the best chance we have is to be highly educated concerning the candidates' positions and vote for those who most closely represent our views. That's a slight twist on the process when compared to what people might expect, but it may be the best way to ensure your view gets some air time.

It's cyclical.