The thing I can't stop thinking about is this: I'm 48, and in my adult lifetime there has been one Republican who won the popular vote. But I will probably spend the rest of my life under the authority of a Supreme Court dominated by hard right conservatives. How is that democracy?
I know we have a counter majoritarian system. I am familiar with the constitution and our history. I know why this is technically possible. I am asking whether it is tenable to keep thinking of our country as a democracy when it works out like this.
The Framers were deeply distrustful of direct democracy. They attacked it again and again at the Convention. They saw it fail several times elsewhere, believing it ultimately leads to mob rule. In the end, they chose representative democracy, where people vote for people who vote on their behalf.
I think that's a good thing. Imagine if any group of people decided to do a referendum. Our country would consist of thousands of small Bantustans, each with its own peculiar and contradictory laws. There is wisdom in giving greater powers to minorities so majorities can't wreak havoc.
Sure, sounds great -- and extremely familiar, because this is the explanation that every American primary school system offers. The only problem is that it's myth. The founders were primarily concerned with limiting democracy in order to preserve the ruling class.
It's also irrelevant because we're not talking here about counter-majoritarianism, but the direct rule of a minority over a majority. No "minority rights" being protected here, especially since the "majority" is a coalition of minorities. The protection entire accrues to: the ruling class. Shocking.
Literally no one is talking about referendums.
The weak federal system was an attempt to preserve localities making their own laws... which you seem to dislike.
Counter-majoritarianism also created a 2 party system that they saw as a failure and that we see as a bane.
So what's your point again?
