Minorities Rule This Country

[BeFree]

Somewhere near just 11 percent of the population voted to elect more republicans.

Somewhere near 11 percent voted to elect more Democrats.

So, about 22% of the American public is what elected this congress.

There's the problem. The fix is getting people to vote so that the majority rules.

[kenny blankenship]

1. Abolish the Senate then. Majorities can't work their will as long as oligarchs veto it in Senate

The US Senate was designed to allow a minority to rule more or less invisibly. Back then oligarchs were individual human beings - white men over 30 of considerable property. They were the Tyrannosaurs of their day; yet even so they were mortal men who were capable of giving up a pet cause, of changing their minds with the times, and most importantly, of dying a natural death. Now the oligarchical interest is typified by immortal corporations. They never change their minds and they don't give up and they don't die. 100 vetoes available to the highest bidders versus the President's 1 veto. And stuff they veto in the Senate you never hear about if you're just an ordinary citizen going about his or her ordinary life. Going to need a super-duper majority to get rid of the Senate. Or a collapse. Guess which will come first.

[ermoore]

19. That's not gonna happen, but . . .

Obviously, no one is going to abolish the Senate. What do you think about repealing whatever Amendment it is that allows for the direct election of Senators (I don't recall the number off the top of my head)? I mean, repealing it would require that the state legislatures elect Senators, which might make the Senate less representational, but would also maybe increase turnover.

I'm just asking and haven't made my mind up whether I'd support it, but I think it's worth considering. I think lack of term limits is a problem and this would go a little ways to addressing that. It would also take out some of the money in those Senate races, or it might just move that money to individual state races (but I still think that's a win).

There are other pluses and minuses, and it's still pretty unlikely (although not as unlikely as abolishing the whole Senate), but worth a thought.

[EFerrari]

2. Iirc, the turnout is estimated to be about 3% lower than 2006. n/t

[Andy823]

3. I agree

If we can't get out the voters we can't win, pure and simple! That includes minorities, the young, the elderly, women, men, and the base! It didn't happen last week, we need to make sure it does in 2012!

[BeFree]

5. It didn't happen last week

It did happen in 2008 and the country ventured toward progress for two years.
It was great while it lasted, eh?

[Better Today]

4. So 78% may just realize the only thing determined by elections

is the size of the dick that we're going to get screwed with. Either way, we're getting screwed while corporations, the rich, the banks, and Wall Street sell videos of our rape.

[BeFree]

6. No, wrong

Well, right in the real cynical sense.

Imagine a 100% turnout. Imagine all the people.... that's what I like to do.

[Better Today]

10. To what end. Very few candidates are worth much of anything.

In the end they all seem to get to Washington and then get bought, if they weren't bought first. I live in the real world. Must be nice to live in a world cushy enough for such pie-in-sky imaginations.

[BeFree]

12. Pie in the sky?

Nah, I realize minority rule when I see it.

Or you could say the majority rules. But you can only do that if you think the majority are blubbering idiots who have allowed this reality.

[UTUSN]

7. Yip, that's what I've adopted as a sig/motto/mantra:

Total eligible voters: 201.5M. Total EV who VOTED: 90M (out of 201.5M) = 42%. SO. (Country being 50-50) Rethug “mandate” = 21% of “the country”. Total voting: 2006, 40.8%; 2002, 39.7%. “Red” = geographically empty miles/space. “Blue” = POPULATION paying for Red states.


**********And as for "minorities" running the country, in this case they're "plutocrats" and "autocrats" and just plain NUT-ocrats.

[BeFree]

8. Population 320 million+

Total who voted 90 million.

One percent = 3.2 million

So, 11% would be 11 x 3.2 = 35.4 million

And the vote was 45m for and 45m against.

So I officially revise my numbers and claim it to be a 14% minority instead of 11%.
Thanks for the numbers correction, UTUSN.

14% of the country rules. That's a bummer, eh?

[UTUSN]

11. Our great minds are on the same track. I got my #s from a random website. n/t

[deaniac21]

14. there are around 240 million of voting age. your calculation is

way off.

[BeFree]

15. My calculation is based on total population

We are all created equal.

[Better Today]

17. Actually no, because not everyone can vote even if they wanted to

so your numbers are foolish. Children, felons, and illegal immigrants (perhaps even legal immigrants, I don't know) are not allowed to vote and shouldn't be part of the equation but would be counted in "total population".

[kelly1mm]

20. Minors get to vote? Non-citizens get to vote? 320 mil is the total population.

not even the potential eligible voters or those motivated enough to at least register.

BTW, using your calculations, the President was voted in by a relatively small minority as well.

[CrispyQ]

9. The largest voting segment in the US is the non-voters.

Every election I watch the dems romance the undecided voters or the independents. They never try to persuade the non-voters to vote. Instead of shifting to the right in an effort to gain independents & traditional repubs who are appalled at what their party has become, the dems should adhere to solid liberal values & go for the non-voters. Sadly, "adhere to solid liberal values" seems to be the issue.

[BeFree]

13. well

If the majority ruled, most of the present day Democrat party leaders would be looking for employment and or a place to hide. As would the republican leaders.

[Spazito]

23. "Democrat party" ?

Hmmm, interesting.

[BeFree]

24. Go away

[Spazito]

25. Nope

[Better Today]

16. After reading through the entire thread and the comments therein,

You are either young and/or naive. Our elections are paid for so there will be very few candidates that will ever have the interest of the general public at heart, and whether it's 78% or 56% that don't vote, the idea that if they did vote things would be much different it entirely pie-in-the-sky idealism. Example, Landrieu in LA, whose primary opponent should have won, but the DNC and WH came in with financial and political support so she could have more money and hence win the primary. Had her primary opponent won, perhaps that seat would still be Democratic and with a good person, but alas, all politics these days (perhaps always, but definitely these days) are corrupt.

[BeFree]

21. Whoa!!

I am so sorry I didn't ask your permission for posting this, and doubly sorry for posting something you have no clue about. <grining sarcasm>

Of course politics is corrupted. Duh f'n duh.

The reason it is corrupted is because so few people vote.

[felix_numinous]

18. One minority is stealing this country from everyone else.

The silent majority is made up of people who are working 3 jobs, cannot get to the polls, watch too much M$M, or do not believe they mean anything.

People together in great numbers can outweigh corporate funny money, we need everyone we can get.

[BeFree]

22. Thanks, felix

Unlike some here, you actually get it.