[lit-ideas] Re: Exodus
- From: Harold Hungerford <hh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:40:24 -0700
I looked at the reviews of Dahl. In theory, I agree with him that the
Senate and the Electoral College violate the modern principle of one
person-one vote. In practice, however, there is no possibility at all
of altering the Constitution to revamp them. No small state would vote
for such an amendment.
I live in California (pop. 35 million-odd); next door is Nevada (pop 2
million-odd). These are 2002 estimates. The six New England states have
14 million people, the "West North Central" states -- IA, KS, MO, MN,
NE, ND, SD -- have 19 million. So, counting Nevada, New England, and
the WNC states, it takes 14 states to equal California's population.
With one more state, that's enough to defeat any constitutional
amendment.
We have at least rectified the worst abuses embedded in the original
Constitution: the exclusion of women, Indians, and blacks, and the
property-rights restrictions on voting.
The notion of a constitutional convention to remake the Constitution
would give me the horrors.
As to proportional representation, I think the jury is still out. PR
certainly contributed significantly to the destabilization of many
European and Latin American governments during the last century. As a
practical matter, England doesn't have it: the two-party system is
still dominant.
And you may be thinking of Lainie Guinier.
Happy camping!
Hal
On Jul 7, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Veronica Caley wrote:
Harold and John,
Dahl is suggesting that we think about the reason or reasons for
upholding
the Constitution as it now stands. And he thinks the two party system
is
undemocratic and prefers proportionality. And he believes the
population
believes this as well.
A woman nominee to be head of the Civil Rights department in the Dept.
of
Justice suggested this during Clinton's first term. Needless to say,
she
was forced to step down just for saying this. I can't find her name at
the
moment as I am camping in western Michigan.
Veronica
> [Original Message]
> From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 7/5/2004 8:17:47 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Exodus
>
> Good stuff, Harold. Any feedback from your friend?
>
> John McCreery
>
> On 2004/07/05, at 14:21, Harold Hungerford wrote:
>
>> I wrote this today, to a friend who has been a lifelong
>> conservative.=20
>> It seems appropriate to the Fourth, so I submit it to this list.
>>
>> You were asking why people should support Kerry, as against being=20
>> opposed to the duplicitous and incompetent Bush and Cheney. I
>> support=20
>> him because I think he will support the Bill of Rights and also=20
>> President Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights far more than
>> Bush-Cheney.=20=
>>
>> It is easy to get hung up on details and fail to look at the broad=20
>> picture. Kerry comes MUCH closer to giving Americans what FDR
>> offered.=20=
>>
>> It does not hurt that he is a decorated veteran -- as against the
>> draft=20=
>>
>> evaders in the Bush coterie.
>>
>> I turned 21 in 1952. My parents were Republicans; I remember wearing
>> a=20=
>>
>> Willkie button in 1940 and a Dewey button in 1944 and 1948. We were=20
>> quite comfortably affluent throughout the Depression and, by and
>> large,=20=
>>
>> the war. But by 1950 I was a Democrat, in part because of Nixon's=20
>> savaging of Helen Gahagan Douglas, in part because of Joseph
>> McCarthy,=20=
>>
>> but mostly because I had come to accept the basic tenets of the New=20
>> Deal as I finally began to mingle with the unprivileged. I voted
>> for=20
>> Adlai Stevenson in 1952 because I thought, like Eleanor Roosevelt,
>> that=20=
>>
>> he would come closest to carrying on FDR's heritage. I have voted
>> in=20
>> every presidential election since then. I have never voted for a=20
>> Republican presidential candidate because I knew that they would=20
>> actively or passively seek to destroy that heritage, as Reagan and
>> the=20=
>>
>> Bushes have manifestly done.
>>
>> Here's a link to FDR's Second Bill of Rights:
>>
>> =93The Economic Bill of Rights=94
>>
>> Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of
>> the=20
>> Union
>>
>> <http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html>
>>
>> I think, by the way, that Dahl (below) may be thinking of our rigid=20
>> separation of the executive from the legislative, and perhaps also
>> of=20
>> the two-party system.
>>
>> Harold Hungerford
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2004, at 7:53 PM, Veronica Caley wrote:
>>
>> One of the things I find remarkable about this site is that they
>> admit=20=
>>
>> that
>> they have the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court. So
>> much=20=
>>
>> for
>> checks and balances. And still, they can't manage to create a=20
>> dictatorship.
>>
>> I just read a fascinating book called, "How Democratic is the American
>> Constitution?" This book was written by a political scientist
>> named=20
>> Robert
>> A. Dahl from Yale. He says that not one democratic country in the
>> world
>> has copied the American model.
>>
>> Veronica
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
