Coronavirus fears hammer markets - how far will it go?

[Grinder]

[rob feature]

My point was you can make fun of Trump giving Rush a medal before he dies of cancer, (which liberals seem to be gleeful about) but don't speak ill of Pelosi, a life-long example of corruption and entitlement

I did not know Rush had cancer - that sucks.

And by all means, let Pelosi have it. I just thought one particular opinion went too far.

[DavidRam]

My point was you can make fun of Trump giving Rush a medal before he dies of cancer, (which liberals seem to be gleeful about) but don't speak ill of Pelosi, a life-long example of corruption and entitlement

Liberals love and worship their evil politicians as if they are some sort of gods... If one dares say anything derogatory about them, may they do so at their peril!

I am sure if I had said something about a Republican politician no longer being with us, Rob would not have had a problem with that...

[JCsAudio]

If the electoral college is eliminated and the popular vote used instead then the cities who have the highest populations, who also happen to have more people dependent on government handouts, and harbor leftists liberals, will determine the elected officials every time and that would not be fair for the rest of the country where city life doesn’t fit the needs of the general population. Pretty much three states would pick the president every election. That would not be fair to the people in the midwest who have sparse populations. Just because you live in a highly populated area doesn’t mean your voice should be louder than the rest of the country. If you have watched the news lately then you should take note those liberal run cities are a disaster and people are leaving them in droves such as NYC.

Let’s face it, leftists liberals do not offer the average middle class hard working American anything but higher taxes and increased restrictive government regulation that stifles businesses and innovation and kills the economy. The smarter voters who love America and embrace hard work in order to make their families life better know this and vote for people like Trump, so liberals resort to lying, cheating, steeling, and will even go as low as to destroy our great cities in America to get their power back. People don’t want a totalitarian government, they want elected officials who work for the people and want to make America great. This is why Trump is winning. If the popular vote is used then say goodby to a fair democratic system because the democrats and their extreme left ideas will be instituted. Say goodbye to your second amendment rights. Say goodbye to law and order and a safe society for all. Say goodbye to even capitalism and our great American way of life. And when things get really bad you will be forced to depend on the government and that is exactly what leftist liberals want so they have total power over you and your life and with a corrupt voting system you won’t have a voice that they will listen too.

The lying gets worse too because 95% of all the media and internet giants such as CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Google, and Facebook are in bed with the Democrats and that I’m not 100% sure why but they mislead the American people with their very biased fake news.

And if you don’t believe me then listen to Maximo Alvarez’s who came from a country who promised their people the same lies and when they got the power they oppressed their people. It’s the same lies folks, don’t fall for it. You don’t need the government to control you. https://youtu.be/jJnShBMG3uY

[Grinder]

Stop Saying "We're a Republic, Not a Democracy"

The claim that the United States political system is "a republic, not a democracy" is often heard in libertarian and conservative circles, and is typically invoked whenever the term "democracy" is used in any favorable context. This claim is generally invoked when the user believes one of the following:

1. "I don't like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I'll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea."
2. "A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored."

Also key to these claims is to invoke the authority of "the Founding Fathers" — by which is meant the pro-centralization nationalists and not the Anti-Federalists — for the usual reasons that anyone appeals to authority rather than offer a real argument.

A recent example of this phenomenon emerged late last year in the debate over the electoral college. Advocates for eliminating the electoral college system were criticized by the republic-not-a-democracy crowd as being for democracy while those who wished to keep the electoral college described themselves as being in favor of the far-more-preferable republican style of government.

For example, at The Federalist, Donna Carol Voss writes:

[The Electoral College] works that way because this isn’t a democracy; not a pure one...“Pure democracy” is just another phrase for “mob rule.” Dictatorship of the majority means 51 percent of the citizenry rule the other 49 percent. That minority has no rights except those the condescending majority grants.

In practice, the arguments boils down to this: "you can be for republican government, or you can be for mob rule, otherwise known as democracy."

Now, there are many good reasons to support the electoral college, and I have written about some of them myself. But, the claim that one must support the "republican" electoral college on the one hand, or be an advocate for "mob rule" on the other, is not one of them.

Voss's use of the republic-not-a-democracy claim here also illustrates the laziness that is typically employed in its usage.

Like almost everyone who denounces democracy of favor in republican government in this context, Voss invokes James Madison, who warned against "pure democracy" and "mob rule" in favor of republican government.

How Madison Defined "Democracy"

The problem for Voss here is that even if the US abolished the electoral college — and many other "republican" institutions as well — it would still be nowhere near being a democracy as defined by Madison.

If one is going to invoke James Madison as a supporter of one's anti-democratic positions, one should at least be aware of how Madison defines democracy. He defines it this way in Fedealist No. 10:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction... Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [Emphasis added.]

Madison continues: .

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison then defines a republic simply as "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place."

Later, in Federalist No. 39, Madison defines a republic further:

…we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified…

It turns out that Madison's definition of democracy describes a sort of regime that exists nowhere on earth. No country and no regime actually has democracy or "mob rule" as described by Madison, nor is any regime — including that of the United States — in danger of becoming that way. In fact, using Madison's republican criteria of having a small number of representatives represent a large number of people, the United states is far more republican than nearly every other modern republic. And, the US is becoming more republican as time goes on.

Moreover, virtually no one argues for the sort of democracy denounced by Madison. Wanting to abolish the electoral college, or even abolishing the Senate, does not make one into an advocate of Madison's version of a democracy.

In fact, every single regime on earth today that calls itself "a democracy" clearly qualifies as a republic according to Madison's definition. All the countries that are described as democracies in contemporary discourse use representative schemes of government, and all have a system which at least in part "derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people." They also all elect representatives instead of employing direct lawmaking.

Consequently, in contemporary usage, there is no relevant difference between the words "republic" and "democracy." Thus, claiming a preference for a republic over a democracy communicates essentially zero information unless one precisely defines the two terms in a way that departs significantly from Madison's definitions.

Not surprisingly, of course, those who bring up the Founding Fathers and their republic-not-a-democracy claim rarely bother to define the actual difference between the two. If these modern republicans were to use Madison's definition, of course, they would quickly find that warnings about Madison's sort of democracy are irrelevant in the modern world.

Now, this isn't to say that one cannot argue against the excesses of majoritarian government — or even against majoritarian government in toto. There are many plausible and respectable arguments against it.

But, if anyone wants to argue against majoritarianism, he should simply do so. There is no need to rely on a half-baked usage of the writings of "the Founding Fathers" who clearly supported a political system in which majority votes play a big part in selecting elected officials, and which is obviously a democracy according to the modern usage of the term.


https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy

(I don't know why^this^url doesn't appear as a link. It can be copied and pasted it into your browser)

[BigAl205]

I did not know Rush had cancer - that sucks.

https://www.caraudiojunkies.com/show...dal-of-Freedom

[rob feature]

https://www.caraudiojunkies.com/show...dal-of-Freedom

I do see that there were a few people who brought that up now. But I did toss a thumbs down to the one saying he was gonna be dead soon...since we seem to be keeping score.

[rob feature]

If the electoral college is eliminated and the popular vote used instead then the cities who have the highest populations, who also happen to have more people dependent on government handouts, and harbor leftists liberals, will determine the elected officials every time and that would not be fair for the rest of the country where city life doesn’t fit the needs of the general population. Pretty much three states would pick the president every election. That would not be fair to the people in the midwest who have sparse populations. Just because you live in a highly populated area doesn’t mean your voice should be louder than the rest of the country. If you have watched the news lately then you should take note those liberal run cities are a disaster and people are leaving them in droves such as NYC.

Let’s face it, leftists liberals do not offer the average middle class hard working American anything but higher taxes and increased restrictive government regulation that stifles businesses and innovation and kills the economy. The smarter voters who love America and embrace hard work in order to make their families life better know this and vote for people like Trump, so liberals resort to lying, cheating, steeling, and will even go as low as to destroy our great cities in America to get their power back. People don’t want a totalitarian government, they want elected officials who work for the people and want to make America great. This is why Trump is winning. If the popular vote is used then say goodby to a fair democratic system because the democrats and their extreme left ideas will be instituted. Say goodbye to your second amendment rights. Say goodbye to law and order and a safe society for all. Say goodbye to even capitalism and our great American way of life. And when things get really bad you will be forced to depend on the government and that is exactly what leftist liberals want so they have total power over you and your life and with a corrupt voting system you won’t have a voice that they will listen too.

The lying gets worse too because 95% of all the media and internet giants such as CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Google, and Facebook are in bed with the Democrats and that I’m not 100% sure why but they mislead the American people with their very biased fake news.

And if you don’t believe me then listen to Maximo Alvarez’s who came from a country who promised their people the same lies and when they got the power they oppressed their people. It’s the same lies folks, don’t fall for it. You don’t need the government to control you. https://youtu.be/jJnShBMG3uY

I do get the point about sparsely-populated areas. However we're talking about the election of one person acting as an executive figure representing all citizens of all states. As a central figure to all, I'd prefer to see a popular vote in Presidential elections as it reflects a more true representation of peoples' will. Not that my opinion will change anything - but it is what it is.

It just seems like an awful lot of folks get screwed out of a vote. There are gobs of Republicans in California, but they don't outweigh the Liberal vote - by a pretty decent margin so they won't have any effect on the outcome in a presidential election. It probably even discourages some from voting as there's nothing they can do to affect how their state's delegates vote and that's not a good thing.

I still contend that a lot of the reason we have the current process in place is that we did not have the ability to accurately count and report votes when it was implemented. Now we do.

[Grinder]

Let's Expand the Electoral College

Far from being outdated and past their time, the ideas behind the electoral college are greatly underutilized. The electoral college is thought by many to be somehow uniquely American, but this is not the case. Similar mechanisms — sometimes called "double-majority" systems — have been used in many different times and places in political history.

The current confusion about the mechanics of the electoral college appear to be largely a function of the fact that it is now widely forgotten that the United States is intended to be collection of independent states, and not a unitary political unit.

For an illustration of why a system like the electoral college is so essential, we can look to the European Union. Consider, for example, if the European Union were to hold a union-wide election for a single chief executive. (The EU does not hold such an election, however, because the EU is controlled by appointees, and because there is no president in the conventional sense.)

If the EU were to do this, we would immediately notice that a small handful of large and populous member countries could dominate election and policy decisions union-wide. Without some sort of mechanism to even out these disparities, smaller states wold continually be at the mercy of the larger ones.

For instance, Germany, France, and Italy by themselves constitute 47 percent of the population of the European Union (not counting the UK). The member countries with interests at odds with the large dominant states would be at a lopsided disadvantage. Small countries like the Czech Republic, for example, contain a mere two to five percent of the EU population and would be largely irrelevant to building a majority coalition in any sort of majority-rule system.



In the US, there is a similar imbalance with the 4 largest states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida) constituting one-third of the US population. The top-ten largest states total 54 percent of the US population. Thus, a citizen of, say, New Mexico, might find himself in a similar situation to the Czech voter if ever national political trends go against local needs and preferences.



In both the US and in our theoretical EU, double majority requirements have been — or could be — constructed to enhance the importance of small and medium-sized states. Wyoming's population for example — because of the way the electoral college is constructed — is more than four times more influential in the electoral college than in a nationwide popular vote. While being a small minority is always a problem when it comes to projecting political power, a system like the electoral college lessens the minority's disadvantage. Voting schemes like the electoral college, in other words, function as a check on overwhelming numerical advantages while giving a nod to geographical, cultural, and economic diversity across a large confederation.

Not surprisingly then, double-majority systems (or variations on the theme) have long been used to prevent the centralization of political power. A current example is the double-majority system used in Switzerland. Under the Swiss system, voter ballot initiatives must win both an electoral majority, and a majority vote in more than half of the member states (i.e., cantons).

Were such a system employed in the US, for example, any winning candidate would have to win both a popular majority and more than 25 states (or D.C.).

As it is, the electoral college rests on a modified "multiple-majority" system which nonetheless somewhat evens out population differences between small states and large states.

This could, of course, be extended to the states themselves. Politics would be quite different in California, for example, if gubernatorial candidates had to win both a popular majority and a majority of the state's counties.


Expand the Electoral College to Other National Contests

Double-majority and multiple-majority systems mandate more widespread support for a candidate or measure than would be needed under an ordinary majority vote.

Unfortunately, in the United States, it is possible to pass tax increases and other types of sweeping and costly legislation with nothing more than bare majorities from Congress which is itself largely a collection of millionaires with similar educations, backgrounds, and economic status. Even this low standard is not required in cases where the president rules via executive order with "a pen and ... a phone."

In response to this centralization of political power, the electoral college should be expanded to function as a veto on legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court rulings.

For example, if Congress seeks to pass a tax increase, their legislation should be null and void without also obtaining a majority of electoral college votes in a manner similar to that of presidential elections. Under such a scheme, the federal government would be forced to submit new legal changes to the voters for approval. The same could be applied to executive orders and treaties. It would be even better to require both a popular-vote majority in addition to the electoral-vote majority. And while we're at it, let's require that at least 25 states approve the measures as well.

Those laws, regulations, and treaties that fail to obtain widespread geographical approval from a large number of states will automatically fail, and the elites in Washington will take to condemning elections and public political engagement as "cumbersome," "costly" and contrary to the wise decisions of the "experts" who know better.

https://mises.org/wire/lets-expand-electoral-college

[ckirocz28]

No I didn't.

I suspect the electoral college thing came about as a matter of logistics

Back in the day, it would be pretty tough to get accurate vote counts on short order as horses were the fastest method of communication. It would be much easier to have delegates report how his district voted.

We don't suffer these restraints anymore. Data is easily transferred securely at almost the speed of light.

Yes you did.