I know what you are thinking; what do those two things have in common? Not a whole lot actually, but together they show us why intelligent discourse based on agreed facts and agreed laws matter.
Before I go any further with the important part of this entry, let it be known that I don’t much care if gay marriage is legal or not. This post has nothing to do with whether gay marriage should be legal or not. We could (and maybe we will) debate ad nauseum about whether marriage is a right or actually a sanctioned contract, or whether common law definitions count with regard to a constitutional lack of definition, but we’re not going to, not now anyway.
This article is about our form of government, because ultimately that is what is missing in all the reporting and arguing that is going on right now. Democracy is often misused and misunderstood, perhaps because it is overused and has become almost synonymous with “election”. The facts are that there are different types of democracy, and the United States is a Republic that happens to have democratic, though representative elections. That may seem nuanced (to coin a phrase), but its important. More often than not, when it suits their needs, people will use democracy to mean direct democracy, which is majority rule – period. On the other side, when votes do not go their way, they argue for representation to save them.
At this point a lot of people are tempted to think “what’s wrong with majority rule?” I’ve thought that, and quite honestly it works really well until you are the one in the minority. The superiority of representative government is its ability to insure against the biggest fault in direct democracy; oppression of the minority by majority rule. That means that we can’t vote a populations rights away just because 51% of us think its a good idea.
There are faults in the representative form of government we have too, but that is another debate, the fact is, we have what we have, which is representation, not direct democracy. This, then, leads us to the point at hand.
In 2000 people (read: the side that lost) were clamouring about direct democracy. There was debate (that continues today) that the electoral college should be abandoned and all that mattered was the popular vote. Unfortunately for those people, that’s not how it works. It is interesting that Al Gore got more votes, in much the same way it is interesting that Samuel J. Tilden did in 1876, but it is irrelevant to the election itself.
Fast forward eight years, and we find ourselves in a similar situation, only with the tables presumably turned. I say “presumably” here, because I do not find it much of a stretch that the majority of people who backed Al Gore in 2000, probably oppose Proposition 8 (aren’t polar politics fun). In this case the majority spoke, we got our direct democracy, and that should be the end of it.
The giant, stinking, festering problem here is the unlikely scenerio that both of these positions are completely wrong. The California Constitution [section 2, article 8] clearly establishes vote by the majority as the vehicle for statue or ammendment. It not only provides for, but requires direct democracy. The U.S. Constitution [article 2, section 1] clearly establishes indirect democracy for election of a president.
The rules by which we play politics, and the solution for our grievences are almost without exception found enshrined in our constitution(s). Certainly in these two cases, the rules are clearly established, and were clearly followed, and yet, the debate rages on. Only the public debate is not about the rules, it is emotional and many cases misleading.
The process is what makes us great. If we cannot even agree on what that process is, or if we choose to ignore that process when it doesn’t suit our desires, then we risk undermining our very foundation. When that happens, there will be no rights, no rules, and no protections. That benifits no one.
…I’d pay to see a single CNN “journalist” mention that
Share on Facebook
