Are We A Majoritarian Politic? A Question For The Modern Center-Left To Address (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Lately I have been getting a sense within American politics and punditry that there is a claim that America is no longer a majoritarian democracy, or at least, that the will of the majority of people has been thwarted by our current state of governance. It is posited, mostly from the left, that majoritarian impulses have been thwarted -- by gerrymandering, by the electoral college, by the seeming incongruence in voting and representation. 

We see it on the first page here. Gerrymandering is to blame. Or in another thread, we see that Democrats received a majority of votes, but only hold a co-equal part of a branch of government (this claim is dated). But whether or not you agree with conclusions reached or facts bandied about in those threads, a premise becomes clear: The center-left in this country seems to be arguing that majoritarianism, the form of government that reflects the majority will of the people, is either a good thing to be achieved or is the fundamental bedrock upon which our democracy lies. It becomes an argument and a policy wonk point of pride that there are those that seek majoritarian governance and representation at the federal level of government, true to the spirit and good workings of democracy everywhere.  

But is this correct? Are we majoritarian?

Well, we indeed see that there are shades of majoritarianism in our Constitution. The structure of it divides our governing spheres into federal, state, and local institutions, each having specific grants given to them by the Constitution. One could almost think of each step down the ladder as increasingly majoritarian. The federal government was originally constrained by the Bill Of Rights in cases regarding individuals, but the states weren't, and nor were localities. States could establish a religion, they set wage and labor laws, they did a whole lot in the realm of state activity and legislation that could be considered majoritarian. Massachusetts had a state religion as late as 1830. So when we think about the framework of our government, there is a nod given to majoritarianism over minority-inspired rights of the individual. 

But this glosses over a huge problem for the center-left or left. It ignores that we were essentially founded as a republican democracy and continue apace towards that tendency at the center-left's own behest. In the words of Richard Falk, republican democracy is "skeptical of human nature" and seeks to preserve the rights of the individual or minority against the majority's will. To see an example of a system in which the basic rights of minority blocs of voters are given sanctuary, one need look no further than Bill of Rights jurisprudence when considering actors at the state level. Employment rules, marriage laws, discrimination laws in housing, and others have been interpreted to be in force given broad readings of textual legislation (or just offered by the Court out of a duty to protect the implicit conditions of ordered liberty) passed by the majority, but extended to minority parties, expansive both in scope and target. 

So here is the odd conundrum. For every bit of agreement on gay marriage there is among the populace on the left and center-left, there is no infringement by any state or person upon that right, even when the majorities at the state and local level would disagree. Want to pray in school? Good luck, you haven't been able to since 1963, even if your town is 99.99% Christian. Desirable to the center-left and left, these restrictions on state actors or state recognitions of religion, yes. But hardly majoritarian. 

So it is with this in mind I ask: exactly how majoritarian are we in spirit and at our Founding? And did we leave enough potential for majoritarian impulses within our framework of government to shape a common society, one high in social capital rather than one high on individuality? 

I ask all of this because I think that part of our lack of trust in institutions and trust in government has come from a general decline in American majoritarianism at the state and local level. People see pluralistic groups, each with a differing claim to rights (where some of those rights are in conflict with other groups' rights) and expectations, and it is my opinion that we no longer have a commonality necessary to uphold communal organizations so necessary for any other type of association, especially associations that are political and economic.

What say all of you? 

 

[timschochet]

Fascinating question. I’m a big believer in Republican democracy. I don’t even like ballot initiatives; I pretty much think representatives should decide every issue of importance. 
 

The specific complaints by Democrats about the current voting changes, when you examine them one by one, do have merit IMO. These new laws being imposed in Republican state legislatures are blatantly designed to suppress minority voting, as well as other groups who tend to vote Democrat, and that’s extremely problematic and should be opposed by anyone who cares about the integrity of our system. That being said, the rhetoric by some liberals on this subject is, I believe, a little over the top: none of this new legislation, awful as it is, threatens the system itself. The system will survive. 
 

I’ve gone a bit off topic here as I wrestle with your question. I am a big believer in pluralism. I think it’s the best form of democratic outcomes. I don’t know if it weakens majoritarianism. If it does so be it I guess. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the founders did a reasonably good job of building a fence around raw majoritarianism.  If it weren't for the first amendment for example (a really critical example), this would be a much worse country. 

It's certainly possible to point to things here and there where I think the fence was built in the wrong spot.  I think the supreme court made a major error in Roe by taking abortion out of the hands of local majorities.  I think that same court erred in the opposite direction in Kelo.  Those are just two fairly recent examples, and it would be easy for folks to identify others that they see as better fitting their own person line of demarcation.  But regardless, no matter where you draw the line on what's up for majority vote and what isn't, some people are going to think you drew the line in a somewhat wrong place.  I think we got it close to right.

 

[rockaction]

I think the founders did a reasonably good job of building a fence around raw majoritarianism

What about the incorporation of the Bill Of Rights to state actors at the state level? In other words, the First Amendment's establishment clause was only held to restrain the federal government from establishing a state religion. For quite a long time. Now, many states had separation of church and state in their charter after the Bill of Rights was passed, but some states still had established religions. 

Here's my question so that I don't just sound like I'm spouting off: Do you think that our majoritarian impulses (like religious issues in the public sphere) are being served, or have they gone too far in the direction of individual rights? 

That, I guess, is the question that I'm asking. I especially find it interesting that the center-left wants to change election processes to err on the side of majoritarianism while simultaneously supporting the undercutting of majoritarian rule through the application of the Bill of Rights or legislative interpretation to the individual states. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What about the incorporation of the Bill Of Rights to state actors at the state level. In other words, the First Amendment's establishment clause was only held to restrain the federal government from establishing a state religion. For the longest time. Now, many states had separation of church in state in their charter after the Bill of Rights was passed, but some states still had established religions. 

Here's my question so that I don't just sound like I'm spouting off: Do you think that our majoritarian impulses (like religious issues in the public sphere) are being served, or have they gone too far in the direction of individual rights? 

That, I guess, is the question that I'm asking. I especially find it interesting that the center-left wants to change election processes to err on the side of majoritarianism while simultaneously supporting the undercutting of majoritarian rule through the application of the Bill of Rights or legislative interpretation to the individual states. 

I very strongly agree with incorporation.  I kind of doubt that the founders would have agreed (maybe I'm mistaken about that), but I do think incorporation follows logically from the premises underlying the constitution.  Given the choice between

a) There is no official federal religion, but Minnesota is officially Lutheran and New Hampshire is officially Episcopalian and Alabama is officially Baptist, and the practice of Islam is banned in 32 states. People can live where they choose and many people choose their place of residence in part due to its religion.

b) There is no official religion anywhere.  All faiths are legal in all states and none are privileged in any state.

I would very strongly prefer (b) and it is not even remotely close to being within sight of being a close decision.  

________________________________________________

I do get what you're asking about.  In my experience, people who go on about majoritarianism (or "democracy" as they commonly put it) haven't thought very carefully about this topic.  If I was going to try to steelman their argument, it would be something along the lines of a minority having too much ability to impose its will on a majority.  In other words, red state voters being able to rule over blue state voters.  If the government were really as limited as I would like it to be, that wouldn't matter much because nobody would care what party controls congress if congress can't do a whole lot.  But some of those restrictions have fallen by the wayside and I guess you can make a good argument that a big government controlled by a minority is worse than a big government controlled by a majority.

Even that steelmanned version is pretty uncompelling though.  My solution is always going to be to dial back the scope of government to the point that it doesn't matter what the electorate looks like.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A different way of putting it is that the anti-majoritarianism imposed by the constitution and bill of rights is an anti-majoritarianism that respects pluralism and tolerance.  It's an anti-majoritarianism that lets individual people do their own thing.  

That's one thing.  What we (very arguably) have today is an anti-majoritarianism where a minority gets to tell the majority how to live.  I get where these people are coming from, but I reject the unstated premise that the majority has any right to tell a minority how to live.  Woke progressives are not my friends on this topic, by any means.

 

[rockaction]

Thanks for the responses, guys. 

If I was going to try to steelman their argument, it would be something along the lines of a minority having too much ability to impose its will on a majority

This is part of what I'm getting at. The balance of individual rights and majoritarianism. I actually think it's swung too far in the direction of a minority having too much ability to impose its will on the majority, only I find that the center-left often supports these minority-run scenarios while at the same time lauding the values of majoritarianism. 

Perhaps this is just a "they're confused" thread, or that really that there is no ideological consistency to be expected and people are just going to pick and choose their means depending what ends they seek. 

 

[rockaction]

The specific complaints by Democrats about the current voting changes, when you examine them one by one, do have merit

This was a topic not designed to look at voting acts, but of structural changes in how we elect representatives. I brought up gerrymandering and that was probably a bad example. A better example is proportional representation in the House whereby the argument goes that the House should look how the Founders wanted it (adding seats in population-dense areas) and envisioned its workings. Also up for grabs is the existence of the Senate, which I've seen calls to reform so that North and South Dakota don't hold inordinate sway over legislative issues. That type of progressive thing.  

 

[roadkill1292]

As a strong proponent of proportional representation and systemic election reform I feel compelled to post in this thread but I'm not sure I understand where some of you are going with your arguments.

So I'll just chip in for starters with this observation: when representative structures result in minority control at either the state or federal levels, the elected government runs an inherent risk of being viewed as illegitimate by the majority of voters whose numbers failed to succeed for them.

"Hey, we won by the rules in place" is not a compelling argument to make to a losing majority and it never will be.

My apologies if I'm not on point in this interesting thread.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This was a topic not designed to look at voting acts, but of structural changes in how we elect representatives. I brought up gerrymandering and that was probably a bad example. A better example is proportional representation in the House whereby the argument goes that the House should look how the Founders wanted it (adding seats in population-dense areas) and envisioned its workings. Also up for grabs is the existence of the Senate, which I've seen calls to reform so that North and South Dakota don't hold inordinate sway over legislative issues. That type of progressive thing.  

This is an area where I think the progressive critique has more force.  

We have a government that was specifically designed for the purpose of frustrating majorities.  That's completely fine.  Bicameral legislatures, separation of powers, the presidential veto, judicial review, etc. all greatly restrict what majorities are able to accomplish, and I support all of those things.  But like lots of other ideas, "majorities must have their hands tied so they don't get too powerful" can be taken too far.  IMO, the current incarnation of the filibuster is a good example of having one veto point too many.  

Likewise, I do think there's some legitimacy to the argument that's its okay for the senate to be kind of unrepresentative (why have two Houses?) but that the actual senate takes this too far.  

Then again, my team is on the cusp of finally fixing Roe v. Wade after a nearly 50 year struggle.  I'm not terribly sympathetic to arguments that paint anti-majoritarianism as some kind of new thing because the left suddenly stopped benefiting from that arrangement.

 

[Jayrod]

people are just going to pick and choose their means depending what ends they seek. 

This is exactly the case.

Didn't win despite having more votes?  Unfair!

Vetoing bad laws passed by an evil majority? Justice!

As long as people agree with the outcome, they will support the system that generated it and as long as they don't agree with the outcome they will not support it and cry for change.

 

[rockaction]

As a strong proponent of proportional representation and systemic election reform I feel compelled to post in this thread but I'm not sure I understand where some of you are going with your arguments.

So I'll just chip in for starters with this observation: when representative structures result in minority control at either the state or federal levels, the elected government runs an inherent risk of being viewed as illegitimate by the majority of voters whose numbers failed to succeed for them.

"Hey, we won by the rules in place" is not a compelling argument to make to a losing majority and it never will be.

My apologies if I'm not on point in this interesting thread.

I think you're on point, actually. 

This bolded, I think, is very true. 

That said, the "Hey, we won by the rules in place" isn't necessarily the argument that follows from winning with a minority. The process through which the minority has acquired power will inevitably be looked at, and will need to be shown to be fair and beneficial for dispensing good and just governance. It is my opinion that good processes often result in good outcomes, so it's not entirely impossible to judge the process by the result; but that said, the reasoning behind the process is the most important here. How does something fit within our structure of government? What is beneficial about it in a utilitarian sense? What is beneficial about it in a moral sense? Why is it there and what is it preventing when majority opinion is thwarted by these processes or institutions? Those are the important questions to answer when claims of legitimacy are proffered by one side over the other. 

At least, I think. 

 

[rockaction]

I'm not sure I understand where some of you are going with your arguments.

Right now, it seems a mish-mash, but I'm really asking the question more than having a concrete answer. I just was reading Trust by Fukuyama last night from the '90s and seeing his prescient chapters about "The Crisis of American Trust." I started really thinking about majoritarianism vs. individual rights as we have come to understand them in the past fifty years or so. Noting that there was some provocative stuff on Twitter about the Senate and House reapportionment and adding seats, I became sort of mystified about majoritarian claims to supremacy, whether that was a good thing or not depending on the situation, and whether we practice (or practiced) majoritarian governance either today or during our nation's history. It also struck me that both sides (and I should have included the center-right) seem to want majoritarianism for me but not for thee with respect to certain rights and laws. 

Just thinking, is all. 

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'm a lefty who is also a strong believer in the genius of our constitutional system to check runaway majoritarianism. However -- and I fully recognize this may reflect at some level my own partisan biases -- I do think that in recent years we're seeing the danger of too much contra-majoritarianism. For one thing, if the majority of the population sees its will consistently thwarted, that can erode overall trust in the system. In addition, if a coherent minority recognizes that its only method for retaining power is doubling down on contra-majoritarianism, that can further warp our system (the modern use of the filibuster being the perfect distillation of that dynamic).

And if both of those things are happening at the same time, you can end up with a system where the majority doesn't trust majoritarianism because they view it as ineffective, and the minority doesn't trust it because it sees it as representing tyranny. Which pretty much describes where we are today. 

 

[rockaction]

I do think that in recent years we're seeing the danger of too much contra-majoritarianism

What about when it comes to Roe in 1973, which pits a minority/individual concern against state legislative majorities; or courts preventing majoritarian locales from allowing sanctioned and mandated school prayer of a particular denomination? 

Is that too much contra-majoritarianism? 

See, this is sort of where I wanted it to go. In what meaningful sense can we stand on abstract principle or is this all an ad hoc thing? 

 

[roadkill1292]

I think people are already doing this pretty well in here but let's make sure we delineate between minority rights and the rights of the minority or majority to enact policy. Granted, those lines can get blurry as hell. 

Also, I don't think I can ever reconcile myself to an election process in which the results are skewed by the arbitrary drawing of lines. Nor one in which large numbers of citizens have wildly disproportionate levels of national policy-making influence. Lots of other western democracies have decided that those characteristics aren't healthy and I agree with them.

 

[rockaction]

but let's make sure we delineate between minority rights and the rights of the minority or majority to enact policy. Granted, those lines can get blurry as hell. 

Let's Wittgenstein this. He thought problems in dialectic stemmed from the muddying of terms. A term can be used in one sense or in one application, but can take on a different meaning in a different context. He tried to keep things as clean as possible, so that the common term would not adopt the meaning of another sense of the word. I've intentionally avoided using the words "minority rights" because that gets too confusing in modern parlance. I can see the look. "Oh, so you mean racial minorities, right?" Well, no. I mean minority in the sense of raw numbers -- a person or people who seek something that a majority of the populace would not allow, but whose rights are protected by the institution or structure in question. 

It's a numbers thing with me. 

That said, let me try to clarify what you're saying. You're saying that minority rights -- individual rights -- are those things protected by government and are separate from policy or legislation enacted by a minority. The two uses of majority/minority invoke different things altogether. 

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

What about when it comes to Roe in 1973, which pits a minority/individual concern against state legislative majorities; or courts preventing majoritarian locales from allowing sanctioned and mandated school prayer of a particular denomination? 

Is that too much contra-majoritarianism? 

See, this is sort of where I wanted it to go. In what meaningful sense can we stand on abstract principle or is this all an ad hoc thing? 

The short answer is that I don't know. It's really tough to come up with a concrete theory on where exactly to draw the line. I also obviously don't want to side-track this with a discussion of abortion, but without getting into the specifics of that issue, I will say that the general idea that there are certain individual rights even a majority cannot take away seems very much in line with the constitutional system the Founders designed. (Whether a "right to privacy" is one of those rights -- or whether, say, a non-denominational invocation at a school graduation represents an infringement on the First Amendment's ban on state-sponsored religion -- is a separate debate.)

But yeah, there is an element of "I know it when I see it." Specifically, what worries me right now is that it's eroding overall trust in the system, particularly given that the last time we had a dynamic similar to the one I described in my post above, it led directly to the Civil War.

I'm also not proposing any specific solution. In theory I'm in favor of eliminating the filibuster, adding new states, getting rid of the Electoral College, etc. But I am also very cognizant of the fact that, if the Democrats managed to do all those things with a five-seat House majority and a 50/50 Senate, it not only wouldn't solve the long-term problem, it would make it substantially worse.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

That said, let me try to clarify what you're saying. You're saying that minority rights -- individual rights -- are those things protected by government and are separate from policy or legislation enacted by a minority. The two uses of majority/minority invoke different things altogether. 

I think one under-appreciated element of debates like this is that often when we talk about protecting "individual rights" from "the government", what we really mean is that we're counting on one body of government to check another one. Back in college I took a poli sci class where we read various decisions from the post-Lochner Court, and one of the Justices (I think it was Black) was very resistant to a lot of the more liberal decisions because he argued it wasn't the job of the (Federal) SCOTUS to overrule the decisions of states or municipalities. (I'm totally butchering the description of what Black said, but in my defense it's been nearly 30 years since I read this stuff.) Whereas his opponents argued it was the job of the Court to stand up for the individual against "the State".

All of which is to say that your formulation ("protected by government") stuck out to me, because it's something that is simultaneously clearly true but also in the eye of the beholder. Tangential to the point you were making but at the same time a very important thing to understand.

 

[timschochet]

Since I (and most other liberals I believe) regard a woman’s right to an abortion as a fundamental individual right guaranteed by our Constitution, I find myself very much opposed to @IvanKaramazov

 

[roadkill1292]

Let's Wittgenstein this. He thought problems in dialectic stemmed from the muddying of terms. A term can be used in one sense or in one application, but can take on a different meaning in a different context. He tried to keep things as clean as possible, so that the common term would not adopt the meaning of another sense of the word. I've intentionally avoided using the words "minority rights" because that gets too confusing in modern parlance. I can see the look. "Oh, so you mean racial minorities, right?" Well, no. I mean minority in the sense of raw numbers -- a person or people who seek something that a majority of the populace would not allow, but whose rights are protected by the institution or structure in question. 

It's a numbers thing with me. 

That said, let me try to clarify what you're saying. You're saying that minority rights -- individual rights -- are those things protected by government and are separate from policy or legislation enacted by a minority. The two uses of majority/minority invoke different things altogether. 

I'm mostly using the term "minority" as in numbers,  too, i.e. the supporters of a party who constitute a minority of the electorate. Racial and religious minorities are entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else but, as always, those rights aren't unlimited. A West Virginia public school instituting mandated Christian prayers may satisfy local mores but do unnecessary harm to religious minorities in the area. It may damage my progressive cred to say so but I also decry the court cases like the one in Alabama over drawing up enough minority-majority House districts -- but mostly because I think the districting process itself is largely an affront to better democracy. Multi-member districts would cure the problem fairly instead (and I note that using the word "fair" itself does not hold equal value for us all).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Since I (and most other liberals I believe) regard a woman’s right to an abortion as a fundamental individual right guaranteed by our Constitution, I find myself very much opposed to @IvanKaramazov

You're actually agreeing with me.  I'm not a fan of majoritarianism either.  

 

[rockaction]

I think one under-appreciated element of debates like this is that often when we talk about protecting "individual rights" from "the government", what we really mean is that we're counting on one body of government to check another one.

Yeah, that sounds correct. 

All of which is to say that your formulation ("protected by government") stuck out to me, because it's something that is simultaneously clearly true but also in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, I generally wouldn't say "from government." I would say " protected from the majority" or "protected by (an act of) government," I think. It could just be that I was trying to do a Turing test on myself to see if I'm capturing roadkill1292's argument correctly and my choice of "from government" or "by government" is actually innocuous (I do not think that it is innocuous, I'm just saying.)

 

[rockaction]

I will say that the general idea that there are certain individual rights even a majority cannot take away seems very much in line with the constitutional system the Founders designed.

 I certainly agree. 

I do think that in recent years we're seeing the danger of too much contra-majoritarianism. For one thing, if the majority of the population sees its will consistently thwarted, that can erode overall trust in the system. In addition, if a coherent minority recognizes that its only method for retaining power is doubling down on contra-majoritarianism, that can further warp our system (the modern use of the filibuster being the perfect distillation of that dynamic).

And if both of those things are happening at the same time, you can end up with a system where the majority doesn't trust majoritarianism because they view it as ineffective, and the minority doesn't trust it because it sees it as representing tyranny. Which pretty much describes where we are today. 

Some form of reckoning looms, it seems. Nice post. 

 

[timschochet]

You're actually agreeing with me.  I'm not a fan of majoritarianism either.  

We disagree on your point about abortion. You want it left to states and local authorities to decide. That, IMO, would violate individual rights, the very reason I am anti-majoritarian. 

 

[roadkill1292]

I think the question that I'm raising the loudest is: how much policy making power are we willing to grant a minority of voters? Granting that majoritarian policy is not always best -- there's no way to guarantee optimal outcomes in any event -- shouldn't persuasion supersede legislative power? Shouldn't a governing party at least have the consent of most of the electorate?

These are indeed pretty important questions for future governance because we are currently facing some period of time when a major political party implodes and there may be only anti-democratic forces filling the void.

 

[rockaction]

It may damage my progressive cred to say so but I also decry the court cases like the one in Alabama over drawing up enough minority-majority House districts -- but mostly because I think the districting process itself is largely an affront to better democracy. Multi-member districts would cure the problem fairly instead (and I note that using the word "fair" itself does not hold equal value for us all)

Interesting. What do the single-member districts lack or characterize that MMDs would cure with respect to fairness? What problems are the MMDs trying to solve? 

 

[timschochet]

Some form of reckoning looms, it seems. Nice post. 

I doubt it. I think rules will change, not the system. 
 

If the Senate keeps blocking legislation that the majority want, eventually the filibuster will be tossed or worked around. 
If the Supreme Court starts to make decisions that the majority strongly opposes, eventually the idea of having more than 9 justices will win out. 
 

Neither of these “solutions” will threaten the system. And they can always be reversed too. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Put it this way:  The American Left is all for Majority rule when it comes to elections.  But when it comes to things like transgender "rights" and CRT, for example, they don't want majority rule.  They want an incredibly small minority to be able to dictate to the majority by using the "the tyranny of the majority" trope.

And, TBH, I'm still trying to determine if there actually is a center-left to begin with.  More and more AOC types are joining the Democrat Party every election.  If there is one, it won't be around for long, IMO.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We disagree on your point about abortion. You want it left to states and local authorities to decide. That, IMO, would violate individual rights, the very reason I am anti-majoritarian. 

Abortion is just an example of one spot where I think the line is slightly off in one direction.  I cited Kelo as an example of the line being slightly off in the other direction.  This thread isn't really about abortion or eminent domain.  

 

[rockaction]

I think the question that I'm raising the loudest is: how much policy making power are we willing to grant a minority of voters? Granting that majoritarian policy is not always best -- there's no way to guarantee optimal outcomes in any event -- shouldn't persuasion supersede legislative power? Shouldn't a governing party at least have the consent of most of the electorate?

I think we're getting at something very similar, only you're talking policy as distinct from rights when it comes to a majority/minority discussion. I think that's a great question, and the answer is...I don't know how much policy-making power we want to grant a minority of voters. I would say not a whole lot. 

I do not know what you mean by "persuasion supersed[ing] legislative power." I'm getting lost in the language here. I'm trying to follow by context, but am coming up short. 

I think that yes, a governing party should have the consent of the most of the electorate. One would hope that a governing party has the consent of most of the electorate because either the electorate is homogenous enough to understand that consent is in the best interest of the individual as man against state, or one would hope that the fissures aren't too great between disparate groups of people, enabling the governing party to at least compromise to garner consent of most of the governed. 

In other words, that the body politic is comprised of people with at least somewhat compatible premises and notions of the good and the just. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Put it this way:  The American Left is all for Majority rule when it comes to elections.  But when it comes to things like transgender "rights" and CRT, for example, they don't want majority rule.  They want an incredibly small minority to be able to dictate to the majority by using the "the tyranny of the majority" trope.

And, TBH, I'm still trying to determine if there actually is a center-left to begin with.  More and more AOC types are joining the Democrat Party every election.  If there is one, it won't be around for long, IMO.

And I should've read further because @IvanKaramazov and @rockaction actually addressed this. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I very strongly agree with incorporation.  I kind of doubt that the founders would have agreed (maybe I'm mistaken about that), but I do think incorporation follows logically from the premises underlying the constitution.

Incorporation was via a post-Civil War amendment, so the founders' likely disagreement should be irrelevant even to "original intent" adherents.

 

[roadkill1292]

Interesting. What do the single-member districts lack or characterize that MMDs would cure with respect to fairness? What problems are the MMDs trying to solve? 

That of a state's delegation more accurately representing the state's electorate. MMDs make the line drawing a non-factor. 

Five separate districts with an overall 60-40 component can be cut in such a way that the majority wins all five House seats. Combine them into a single multi-member district and the more likely result is 3-2. Which of those more accurately represents the residents of those five (or one big) districts? Which of those processes sends the abomination of gerrymandering into history's trash heap?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the question that I'm raising the loudest is: how much policy making power are we willing to grant a minority of voters? Granting that majoritarian policy is not always best -- there's no way to guarantee optimal outcomes in any event -- shouldn't persuasion supersede legislative power? Shouldn't a governing party at least have the consent of most of the electorate?

These are indeed pretty important questions for future governance because we are currently facing some period of time when a major political party implodes and there may be only anti-democratic forces filling the void.

I think part of the answer to this depends on exactly how much the government is actually empowered to do.

Let's imagine an alternate universe where the US constitution survives in something like its 19th century form.  The New Deal was all struck down and the court never reversed course.  The commerce clause didn't get expanded to the point of irrelevance.  The ACA never happened because it was so obviously unconstitutional that it never even got any traction as a salient issue.  In that world, I think you can toss a 51% majority the keys to the car.  They can't cause too many problems when the guardrails are set so narrowly, so why not let them have their way over the relatively few things they can legislate about?

In our actual world, where congress can do pretty much whatever it wants and the president is all like "I know this executive order is illegal but I'm going to do it anyway because YOLO" I think majorities need to be very heavily tempered by minorities.  It's probably bad for a 51% majority to ram through big agenda items if it means bulldozing the other 49%.  That's just not a recipe for a healthy society in the long run.  Of course, it's even worse if the 49% minority gets to bulldoze the 51% majority.  This is why guardrails are good IMO.  

 

[timschochet]

Put it this way:  The American Left is all for Majority rule when it comes to elections.  But when it comes to things like transgender "rights" and CRT, for example, they don't want majority rule.  They want an incredibly small minority to be able to dictate to the majority by using the "the tyranny of the majority" trope.

I’m not normally a “both sides” guy, but this particular trait really is both sides, as in both sides are willing to argue for majority rule or against majority rule depending on whatever issue is at hand. 

 

[rockaction]

That of a state's delegation more accurately representing the state's electorate. MMDs make the line drawing a non-factor. 

Five separate districts with an overall 60-40 component can be cut in such a way that the majority wins all five House seats. Combine them into a single multi-member district and the more likely result is 3-2. Which of those more accurately represents the residents of those five (or one big) districts? Which of those processes sends the abomination of gerrymandering into history's trash heap?

Gotcha. You're talking about eliminating districts and going with a proportional voting system. I think that the latter clearly represents the residents of that state better than drawing five majority districts. That would be an interesting thing to look into. 

 

[rockaction]

Incorporation was via a post-Civil War amendment, so the founders' likely disagreement should be irrelevant even to "original intent" adherents.

Wait, though. It was the application of that amendment, but ask Frankfurter about incorporation. The first incorporation wasn't until the 1920s.

From Wiki: Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

In other words, the Justices did like what they did with the guardrails of old. They found a jurisprudential avenue, and they took it. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

We're majoritarian in some ways, not in others.

Some of the anti-majoritarian aspects of our governmental system are great. I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights, which is extremely anti-majoritarian. If the majority wants to censor anti-war demonstrators, too bad. If the majority wants to deny equal treatment under the law to gays, too bad. If the majority wants to favor or disfavor some particular religion (or religion in general), too bad. There are certain things majorities shouldn't be allowed to do. Article I used to provide a check on some state powers, but the Supreme Court's modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause has largely nullified that check. We've still got the Bill of Rights, though, and I'm all for it.

Other anti-majoritarian aspects of our government are more questionable, like the electoral college or equal representation of the states in the Senate. That may be an interesting issue to debate in the context of whether anything like that should be included in the constitutions of future start-up countries -- but in the United States it's a done deal. In any case, for the most part, I don't think it's a huge issue, though it's becoming a bigger issue with increased urban-rural polarization.

And then there are anti-majoritarian aspects of our government that are just lame, like gerrymandering. It's a loophole in the rules that both parties often (but not always!) exploit when they have a chance. It's annoying. But mathematically, it's usually not a huge deal at the federal level. (It can be a huge deal in state legislatures.)

The overall point, though, is that some things ought to be decided by majority rule while other things shouldn't be, and on the whole I think our constitution gets the balance roughly correct. There's room for improvement, but mostly just around the edges.

 

[roadkill1292]

Here's another argument for multi-member districts, especially if paired with Single Transferrable Voting (Odin help us, we DO NOT want to go down the rabbit hole of discussing STV in this thread; it is for Seriously Nerdy Nerd Types elsewhere. But it works great.): it will be a huge boon to those voters who are increasingly dismayed with the existing duopoly and wish to cast votes for third parties with realistic chances of winning representation. But at the same time it would probably reduce extremism in the ranks of centrist party candidates.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Wait, though. It was the application of that amendment, but ask Frankfurter about incorporation. The first incorporation wasn't until the 1920s.

But even for "original intent" adherents, it would be the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment whose intent matters, not the founders. The founders have nothing to say about how the 14th Amendment should be construed.

 

[rockaction]

But even for "original intent" adherents, it would be the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment whose intent matters, not the founders. The founders have nothing to say about how the 14th Amendment should be construed.

Very true. Thanks for that distinction. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But even for "original intent" adherents, it would be the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment whose intent matters, not the founders. The founders have nothing to say about how the 14th Amendment should be construed.

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to make any sort of veiled originalist argument for incorporation.  I just meant for my post to be kind of literal on the most superficial level possible -- that I like incorporation but that the authors of our founding documents probably wouldn't have.  That's all.  This is an area where I think I most likely have a slightly different opinion than the founders about something besides slavery.

 

[roadkill1292]

Lee Drutman writes in Time today about multi-member districting with a look at how "competitiveness" in single member districts doesn't necessarily address the representation problem.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

But even for "original intent" adherents, it would be the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment whose intent matters, not the founders. The founders have nothing to say about how the 14th Amendment should be construed.

Pedantic point: I get that when you say "Founders" you're talking about the actual people who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, but for the purposes of interpretation (and particularly for the purposes of "original intent") a ratified amendment is fully part of the Constitution, which means that whichever Congressman originally drafted the 14th or any other amendment is, constitutionally speaking, as much of a "Founder" as Hamilton, Madison or the rest of that crew.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Pedantic point: I get that when you say "Founders" you're talking about the actual people who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, but for the purposes of interpretation (and particularly for the purposes of "original intent") a ratified amendment is fully part of the Constitution, which means that whichever Congressman originally drafted the 14th or any other amendment is, constitutionally speaking, as much of a "Founder" as Hamilton, Madison or the rest of that crew.

I wholeheartedly approve of your pedantry, but disagree with your semantics.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I wholeheartedly approve of your pedantry, but disagree with your semantics.

How so?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How so?

"Founders" doesn't mean "people who draft or ratify a constitutional amendment." It means "people who founded a country."

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

"Founders" doesn't mean "people who draft or ratify a constitutional amendment." It means "people who founded a country."

Got it. And yes, colloquially speaking, what you're saying makes sense. But if an originalist judge wants to know how to interpret an amendment, they're going to look to the words of the people who drafted the amendment, not those of Hamilton et al. So for their purposes, the two are equivalent.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Got it. And yes, colloquially speaking, what you're saying makes sense. But if an originalist judge wants to know how to interpret an amendment, they're going to look to the words of the people who drafted the amendment, not those of Hamilton et al. So for their purposes, the two are equivalent.

If judges are going to look at one but not the other, that's the opposite of being equivalent.