Canadian Politics vs. The Founding Fathers of the United States: Fear of the Majority Edition

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by LeonTrotsky, Jun 27, 2012.

  1. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    So, in the last upload of "Stalin Subway" our Glorious Leader shared some of his frustrations in regards to a particular Canadian minister and the current conservative government, most of which were foundend in proposed, and likely to pass immigration laws that would heavily favor the conservative agenda and are quite questionable in terms of ethics. While I would like to lend my voice in opposition to these proposed laws and regulations, I would be much more inclined to "spike the football" in the name of the Founding Fathers of the United States, because they forsaw the possible pitfalls of a government run simply by majority rule (at least, that's my understanding of the Canadian legislature, though I would appriciate some clarification). This is known as the "fear of the majority", and arose from various expiriences under the Articles of Confedaration that governed the United States before the Constitiution (By the way, Pennsylvania, my state, played a huge part in the development of the fear of the majority by having a slim majority brutally oppressing a large minority). In developing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers crafted the document to limit majority power and the most well developed of these limitations was the idea of pluralism, detailed in one of the Federalist Papers, #23 I think. In essence, pluralism limits both minority and majority power in a few ways:
    1. There are enough branches that it is difficult for any one entitiy, large or small, to gain full power.
    2. Each branch is insulated from another in certain aspects, so one or two branches cannot dominate the others.
    3. Each branch is connected with the others in a manner that ensures that each branch cannot function without the cooperation of the others.
    4. Intrests can effect Congress freely, effectivly insuring that neither gains signifigant power (Big business lobbiests vs. Union lobbiests).

    So, in effect, this whole post boils down to: we told you so:
    [IMG]
    Duces
    The Shaw and Demondaze like this.
  2. Shisno Doesn't know who did this

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    NKVD Underground
    Ummmmmmm. OK?
  3. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    You're talking about the trias poliica, a concept the French came up with and was pretty much directly copied.

    Also i believe the Canadian system is a federalized version of the British system, but i'm not sure. Anyways what has the Trias Politica got to do with the majority? I mean if the majority votes one way, lets say dem. then there will be a dem. president and a majority dem. congress, ergo a majority dem. Judges will be apointed? Or am i not following you?
  4. 0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,746
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Canada
    Form what I have learned in history of Canadian government is that there is one reason that has only occurred recently. This season is party policy. In recent times representatives were less able to vote for what they believe in or what their constituents want. The MPs are afraid of being punished or even kicked out of the party if they do not vote along with party policy. A recent case of this is a Conservative MP who video taped at home saying he would like to vote against the Conservative budget bill because it's undemocratic. He also hinted to to the other members of the party that might vote it down (I think one said enough MPs to defeat the bill). The Conservatives then made him give a speech that was false but it wasn't believable, he sounded like he was forced to which he was. The Conservatives are not the only ones guilty of this the NDP are to. The long gun registry vote is where it made it's way into public view. Three members of the party decided to vote with the bill because that is what their constituents wanted. Sadly they were punished. I hate this and it needs to be fixed by greatly reducing the power of parties to punish those who break party lines. MPs should be able to vote for what they want or their constituents because that is what they were elected for. Then again I hope for a NDP majority next election which might actually happen. There is also that, if they just keep passing things only aline with the party not what the people want the party is probably going to lose the next election.
  5. Warburg Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Message Count:
    834
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    United Federal Kingdoms of Scandinavia
    I'm pretty sure it was called the tyranny of the majority...
    EDIT: And Duces? Do you mean the latin plural for Dux, which means leader(s) or is it just a really bad spelling error of Douches?
  6. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
    I think here is where were going two completely different directions. What I mean is that the US Founding Fathers chose a three branch government in order to limit the power of any one faction, even if they were the majority. It's explained in one of the Federalist Papers (I'm sure @pedro3131 could tell you which, I think its #23). The whole idea is that the government is large enough and seperated enough to ensure that a majority never truly has total control except in the most extreme circumstances, like after the US Civil War. Its more about how the branches effect majority control rather than the branches themselves. I have to go, I'll explain more later.

    Its just something my Lit teacher used to say. I find it funny.
  7. Warburg Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Message Count:
    834
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    United Federal Kingdoms of Scandinavia
    Hey I was right! :)
  8. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Well I think that might be propaganda, cause i'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but if it is the Trias Politica, you're talking about the three sectors of government:

    -Legislative or congress
    -Executive(?) or presidential
    -Judicial or High Court

    And as seen as Congress and The President are pretty much elected by majority vote, and they, or atleast one of them appoint the Judges in the high court, so how does this stop majority controll?
  9. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    Hmm I think I'll make a coffee house video about this.
  10. General Mosh Citystates Founder!

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Scattered to the 4 corners of Earth
    @LeonTrotsky
    @Warburg

    You idiots :p

    Duces in the way Leon was using it means "peace". As in "see ya" or "goodbye". And its spelled deuces. I didn't get it until my girlfriend (ex) explained it to me.
  11. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Fun fact, Montesquieu didn't come up with that, it has been echoed in some form by every political thinker since Plato....

    The Courts are checked both by the executive and the legislative. The executive nominates, not appoints, judges, who are then confirmed or denied by the legislature. The executive's check on the judiciary comes both from appointment and in enforcement. In the US the executive controls the police force and the district attorney's office so if the executive doesn't like a law he can not only direct officers not to enforce it, but also can direct prosecutors not to prosecute the cases.

    @LeonTrotsky they actually talk about it in a bunch of them. 51 is the most famous though.
  12. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Yeah well, the details bore me, still remains the same that the majority doesn't seem to be nullified though.

    And well yeah, allot of people said power should be seperated in diffrent forms, but the system used by almost all democratic countries these days was the frenchmans vision of it.

    Hmm interesting, but how would that work for the parties, because if you're an MP and get kicked out of the party, surely you remain an MP, and wouldn't the voters remember that guy who stood up for his constituents? Just seems like bad business tbh, you'd just get allot of independants in parliamant.
  13. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Read up on Polybius (who Montesquieu even quoted from in The Spirit of the Laws), Pluto's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, and even Machiavelli's Discourses. You'll find the idea of separation of powers and even the three branch system is not only hinted at, but quite evident. The idea didn't originate in France, it's more or less been a central tenant or republican thought since Grecian times.
  14. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    You're most probably right, but i have little interest in where an idea comes from, only in if it is a good idea, wich it evidently seems to be. But now you have reminded me i should go read up on my Plato.

    But i guess even you aren't able to clarify this 'fear of the majority' concept? For that is my main question
  15. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Well again, that's kind of the critical idea behind republicanism. It's well studied by Plato and Aristotle and examined in the American context by De Tocqueville. In terms of how America isn't majority run, you could point to, among other things, the fact that the president isn't elected by a majority vote but by the electoral college. It so happens that this closely aligns with the popular vote, but we've had 2 presidents who didn't win a majority of the votes in their election year. Executive power is checked by the judiciary which operates completely outside of the realms of public opinion. The legislature has always been more in line with public opinion, but it's their job to represent the will of the people, despite what the framers had intended (Senators weren't voted in by the people until the early 20th century).
  16. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    So you're saying that this isn't in place anymore (senators are chosen), cause otherwise i just think it's a load of hot air, because you're talking marginal statistics now. As i see it:

    Majority vote = rep:
    Rep. Pres + Rep. Dom. Congress -> Rep. Dominated HIgh Court = majority rules?

    Or am i just being plain retarded here xD? I mean sure there is an 'unlucky' chance the system fails and the pres is dem, but thats happend twice... And i believe there is a 2 year gap between voting pres and sen, but this wouldn't help too much usually either right? Or are the American people so easily mislead as to fucking contradict themselves every 2 years?
  17. Warburg Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Message Count:
    834
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    United Federal Kingdoms of Scandinavia
    Well fuck me! And here I thought I had it all figured out...
    General Mosh likes this.
  18. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Not really. I mean, the Republicans in this scenario would have a great deal of power, but a Republican supermajority in both houses of Congress would be neccesary for total control. Also, Supreme Court Justices are given life terms, so any faction would need to absolutely dominate American politics for quite a while before being able to totally stack the judiciary. Finally, American political parties are much broader entities compared to their European counterparts, and it is likely that even within a one party system that everyone would agree. A good example for this is American politics post-Civil War until probably Theodore Roosevelt.

Share This Page

Facebook: