Author Topic: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight  (Read 5783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2019, 04:49:15 PM »

Online The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1035
  • Tommy Points: 278
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long. 


Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2019, 05:18:58 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10576
  • Tommy Points: 1126
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2019, 05:35:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.

By that token, representative democracy is also “undemocratic”. Half the country is led by an Executive they don’t agree with, and a Congress who doesn’t enact their wishes.

Let’s go to pure democracy and create laws by ballot initiatives / referendum.

I suspect if folks really cared about one person, one vote they’d object when their own party gerrymanders legislative districts.  Instead, people’s principles seem to be aligned with what would benefit their party of choice.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2019, 05:37:29 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.

Right, wrong, or otherwise, do you actually think 2/3 of state legislators would ever agree to a dissolution of the EC?  You're asking a whole lot of people to essentially give up their way of life in favor of urban desires.  I can't see that ever happening.

You'd probably have better luck just moving in a mass exodus to a rural or southern state.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2019, 06:00:21 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6429
  • Tommy Points: 118
I like the EC as a backup plan. I felt it was always meant to be a backup once better voting systems came into place. Yet in the era of hacking and manipulation I don't want to get rid of it and just make it a backup.

Can there a compromise between the two? Like if the vote is scewed by over x amount of votes the EC is voided and if it is under x amount of votes the EC is used? Would that help?
It was never meant as a backup, it was always intended to act as a check against the rise of a demagogue. Also keep in mind that the office of the Presidency and the federal government in general are far more powerful now than the founders ever envisioned or intended. The original intention was for the vast majority of governing to be done at the state level. The federal government was for defense, interstate issues, and matters too big for any one state to handle on its own. It was really thought to be a union of independent states. The independence of the states has waned over time, with good reason. The founders were mostly concerned with the central government abusing its power, but over time it became clear that state governments also could be abusive. Moreover, people became more mobile and began to think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of a state.
I have not been taught that. If that was the thinking people would call the founding fathers elitist and narcissistic. I was taught in war situations and lack of communication that an EC was a way of still getting a vote. So no one leader can seize/hold power when the nation was under duress. In ecessence a backup plan if people could not get votes a representative would vote for them.
Trade deadline mock team: Celtics,
Irving, Rozier, Wanna
Smart, Robinson, Dozier
Tatum, Morris, Semi
Griffin, Theis, Yab
Horford, Baynes, Williams

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2019, 06:15:51 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
In Massachusetts, the ratio between registered Democrats is around 3:1 compared to Republicans.  Yet at the State House, the ratios are about 6:1 (Senate) and 5:1 (House).

Is over-representation of the majority any fairer than under-representation? Maybe we should move to a system involving avPM and proportional representation.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2019, 06:43:42 PM »

Online The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1035
  • Tommy Points: 278
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.
The United States method of government as established by the founding fathers is NOT a Democracy.  Our form of government is that of a Federal Republic and has always been so.  True Democracy does not and would not work in any large non homogeneous country with diverse beliefs and way of life.  It would inevitably lead to civil war due to tyranny of the majority every single time.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2019, 06:50:46 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10576
  • Tommy Points: 1126
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.
The United States method of government as established by the founding fathers is NOT a Democracy.  Our form of government is that of a Federal Republic and has always been so.  True Democracy does not and would not work in any large non homogeneous country with diverse beliefs and way of life.  It would inevitably lead to civil war due to tyranny of the majority every single time.

Then call it what it is and stop saying its a democracy, but labels apart. Is tyranny of the minority any better than that of the majority?

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2019, 07:04:37 PM »

Online The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1035
  • Tommy Points: 278
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).
Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States.  The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous.  If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others.  Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair.  What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable.  More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California.  Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out.  Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.

The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.
The United States method of government as established by the founding fathers is NOT a Democracy.  Our form of government is that of a Federal Republic and has always been so.  True Democracy does not and would not work in any large non homogeneous country with diverse beliefs and way of life.  It would inevitably lead to civil war due to tyranny of the majority every single time.

Then call it what it is and stop saying its a democracy, but labels apart. Is tyranny of the minority any better than that of the majority?
Tyranny of the minority is a complete falsehood that is being regurgitated by people who lost a hotly contested election or 2.  None of these conversations would be taking place had the democrats nominated a remotely decent candidate, instead they nominated you know who and handed the election to Trump.  The current core of rejects up for nomination by the dems are going to hand the election to him again because they aren't smart enough to nominate someone who is even marginally acceptable to middle America.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2019, 07:39:44 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14371
  • Tommy Points: 1862
  • bammokja
Imagine you were an alien crew that landed on earth to study political systems, and they were told of this wonderful system called Democracy that is based on one man one vote, rule of law, and the concept of equality of persons before the law. They also tell you that the beauty of this system is embodied in the USA. You decide to soak in this wonderful system by taking residence in the USA.

You observe the system for a number of years, and you notice that the US has 50 states of varying sizes in land area and population yet they each of 2 senators with same voting rights in the Senate. You also notice that this great country has an executive president with great powers but three million more people voted for the woman that ran against  him.

You are trying to understand this then you read that there is one man in the Senate that gets to decide what the other 99 can even consider. Hmmmm

While pondering this you are told not to worry too much about these two matters because you learn that there is a third branch of government that will right these imbalances. You are excited about this and exclaim 'so there is a way for the people to vote on important matters' and you told no no that there is a  body of nine people who get to decide the consequential issues that shape the fabric of the society. You get more excited and ask are these people elected by the popular vote, and you are told no. They are not elected at all. They are appointed for life by that executive and four of them have actually been appointed by executives that lost the popular vote in their election.

Finally, you ask your neighbors to explain this system some more...and they go back to the Constitution which they explain is the foundation of the American experiment and was written in an agrarian society for agrarian times when life expectancy was low. And you ask if this was/is an experiment isnt it time to tweak it some?

This country probably needs a Constitutional Conference.
and is the norm for the vast majority of people who were raised and educated and trained in the US, the definition for democracy above fails to even consider economic democracy.

is there voting by the majority on the workplace? is there equal representation for workers and owners and share holders at meeting? do workers have freedom of speech without fear of retaliation and are protected by law? are workers and owners treated equally in courts?

are the rights to food, housing, jobs, education equally enforced for all? ha, do such rights exist in a meaningful fashion?

democracy in the US, which is highly questionable if we use anything but current structures and practices as our standard for judging democracy, is minimal at best.

as stated by others, you cannot have political democracy without first having economic democracy.

as is the norm for such threads, terms are tossed about with no real thought or analysis of the definition or origins.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2019, 07:58:26 PM »

Offline celts10

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 360
  • Tommy Points: 18
The current core of rejects up for nomination by the dems are going to hand the election to him again because they aren't smart enough to nominate someone who is even marginally acceptable to middle America.

Agreed. Despite his lackluster effort thus far, I think Biden will emerge as the Democratic nominee simply because it's his "turn" and the DNC is smart enough to realize that he is the only person who has any actual chance of beating Trump. Unfortunately, Biden is too old and not very sharp anymore so Trump will eat him up in the debates. I think Trump wins re-election in 2020.

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2019, 08:07:31 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
is there voting by the majority on the workplace? is there equal representation for workers and owners and share holders at meeting

Should there be? I think that would be disastrous for many businesses.

For instance, why would a secretary have an equal vote to a partner at a law firm? The partner invested capital. The partner got a law degree. The partner is the one on the hook for malpractice, complying with Bar rules, etc.

The secretary should be respected and treated well, but s/he has no business being anywhere close to an equal stakeholder.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2019, 08:48:29 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2376
  • Tommy Points: 381
Quote
is there voting by the majority on the workplace? is there equal representation for workers and owners and share holders at meeting

Should there be? I think that would be disastrous for many businesses.

For instance, why would a secretary have an equal vote to a partner at a law firm? The partner invested capital. The partner got a law degree. The partner is the one on the hook for malpractice, complying with Bar rules, etc.

The secretary should be respected and treated well, but s/he has no business being anywhere close to an equal stakeholder.
“Shareholder” and “stake holder” are two different things.
Publicly traded companies should have worker representation on a a corporate board

Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #43 on: August 08, 2019, 09:02:16 PM »

Online The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1035
  • Tommy Points: 278
The current core of rejects up for nomination by the dems are going to hand the election to him again because they aren't smart enough to nominate someone who is even marginally acceptable to middle America.

Agreed. Despite his lackluster effort thus far, I think Biden will emerge as the Democratic nominee simply because it's his "turn" and the DNC is smart enough to realize that he is the only person who has any actual chance of beating Trump. Unfortunately, Biden is too old and not very sharp anymore so Trump will eat him up in the debates. I think Trump wins re-election in 2020.
I don't think Biden's chances at the nomination look good at all.  He is constantly contradicting himself.  He is a fumbling, bumbling, train wreck waiting to happen.  Biden also has the multiple investigations Durham/Horowitz that at minimum are going to shed a lot of bad light on the Obama/Biden administration hanging over him. 


Re: we do not run a democracy, lets get that straight
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2019, 09:44:38 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
is there voting by the majority on the workplace? is there equal representation for workers and owners and share holders at meeting

Should there be? I think that would be disastrous for many businesses.

For instance, why would a secretary have an equal vote to a partner at a law firm? The partner invested capital. The partner got a law degree. The partner is the one on the hook for malpractice, complying with Bar rules, etc.

The secretary should be respected and treated well, but s/he has no business being anywhere close to an equal stakeholder.
“Shareholder” and “stake holder” are two different things.
Publicly traded companies should have worker representation on a a corporate board

Equal representation, though? No way.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required