FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war." - - Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia - Popularized by Bob Marley in the song War

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

What Is Democratic?

What Is Democratic?


Having devoured the meanings of the words “establishment” and “conservative” with some fava beans and a nice chianti, Donald Trump has spent the last several weeks cannibalizing yet another word that used to have meaning: democratic. Trump says that the delegate system is undemocratic; he says that caucuses that do not swing his way are undemocratic; he says that candidates cutting deals with one another to stay in or out of particular states is undemocratic; he says that if he does not win the Republican nomination while carrying a plurality of votes, that’s undemocratic, too.
All of this assumes, of course, that Trump is the embodiment of the will of the people. By no other definition of “democratic” are any of his accusations remotely true.
First off, there is nothing undemocratic about delegates. Delegates are merely representatives. Some delegates are chosen by popular vote and are bound to vote in favor of the candidate selected at the primary election; some are not. There’s nothing wrong with either system. Arguing against bound delegates is arguing against referenda; arguing against unbound delegates is arguing against basic republicanism.
Second, caucuses are democratic. People meet democratically and select delegates to represent them at the caucus. These delegates are selected, presumably, based on the trust of those who vote for them. Trump had no complaints about the caucus system in Nevada. He only hated the system in Colorado, where he lost.
Third, candidates cutting deals with one another other isn’t undemocratic, unless it’s also undemocratic for Trump to call for candidates to drop out of the race based on lack of success. In either case, candidates make their own decisions about whether to put themselves forward for election. The notion that it is undemocratic for Ohio Governor John Kasich to abandon the Indiana caucus in order to let Texas Senator Ted Cruz stop Trump there, is just as silly as the argument that it is undemocratic for Republicans to refuse President Obama’s court nominees an up-or-down vote.
Fourth, plurality does not equal majority. The point of the delegate process is to generate an artificial majority from a plurality. That’s what happened in 2008, when Senator John McCain, R-AZ won just 46 percent of the popular vote, but a significant majority of delegates. If Trump can’t pull off that feat, that’s his own fault. Most Republicans don’t want Trump. Most Republicans don’t want Cruz or Kasich, either. That inability to choose means that delegates that Republican voters selected will now perform what is, in essence, a run-off election with the remaining candidates.
If we could remake all the rules right now from scratch, I’d propose a system of proportional representation in all primaries: Compress the schedule so it doesn’t take months to run through the process. If nobody hits a majority, cut off the bottom candidates, then re-run the election process again. That’s just my idea, though — and there’s no reason that my idea ought to trump the ideas of the grass-roots activists of various states.
Trump’s redefinition of “undemocratic” is merely ad hoc politicking, as always. No substantive changes would have satisfied Trump. And when it comes to the definition of “undemocratic,” threatening riots in Cleveland if you don’t get your way tops the list.

What Is Democratic?


Having devoured the meanings of the words “establishment” and “conservative” with some fava beans and a nice chianti, Donald Trump has spent the last several weeks cannibalizing yet another word that used to have meaning: democratic. Trump says that the delegate system is undemocratic; he says that caucuses that do not swing his way are undemocratic; he says that candidates cutting deals with one another to stay in or out of particular states is undemocratic; he says that if he does not win the Republican nomination while carrying a plurality of votes, that’s undemocratic, too.
All of this assumes, of course, that Trump is the embodiment of the will of the people. By no other definition of “democratic” are any of his accusations remotely true.
First off, there is nothing undemocratic about delegates. Delegates are merely representatives. Some delegates are chosen by popular vote and are bound to vote in favor of the candidate selected at the primary election; some are not. There’s nothing wrong with either system. Arguing against bound delegates is arguing against referenda; arguing against unbound delegates is arguing against basic republicanism.
Second, caucuses are democratic. People meet democratically and select delegates to represent them at the caucus. These delegates are selected, presumably, based on the trust of those who vote for them. Trump had no complaints about the caucus system in Nevada. He only hated the system in Colorado, where he lost.
Third, candidates cutting deals with one another other isn’t undemocratic, unless it’s also undemocratic for Trump to call for candidates to drop out of the race based on lack of success. In either case, candidates make their own decisions about whether to put themselves forward for election. The notion that it is undemocratic for Ohio Governor John Kasich to abandon the Indiana caucus in order to let Texas Senator Ted Cruz stop Trump there, is just as silly as the argument that it is undemocratic for Republicans to refuse President Obama’s court nominees an up-or-down vote.
Fourth, plurality does not equal majority. The point of the delegate process is to generate an artificial majority from a plurality. That’s what happened in 2008, when Senator John McCain, R-AZ won just 46 percent of the popular vote, but a significant majority of delegates. If Trump can’t pull off that feat, that’s his own fault. Most Republicans don’t want Trump. Most Republicans don’t want Cruz or Kasich, either. That inability to choose means that delegates that Republican voters selected will now perform what is, in essence, a run-off election with the remaining candidates.
If we could remake all the rules right now from scratch, I’d propose a system of proportional representation in all primaries: Compress the schedule so it doesn’t take months to run through the process. If nobody hits a majority, cut off the bottom candidates, then re-run the election process again. That’s just my idea, though — and there’s no reason that my idea ought to trump the ideas of the grass-roots activists of various states.
Trump’s redefinition of “undemocratic” is merely ad hoc politicking, as always. No substantive changes would have satisfied Trump. And when it comes to the definition of “undemocratic,” threatening riots in Cleveland if you don’t get your way tops the list.


No comments :