Confessions of a closet monarchist
By asf6 Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Some of you may have thought this matter was settled a couple of centuries ago, but there are a few of us still out here who like the idea of a benevolent philosopher king.I've been thinking about this for a long time, knowing that the people of the United States are basically unqualified to vote. Without resorting to any exaggerations, there is quite strong support (Converse I, Converse II ("Plus ça change...The New CPS Election Study Panel"), Zaller...) for the idea that the American public doesn't know quite what it believes or wants, and the counter-arguments I've seen mostly fall along the lines of some mysterious connection between code words in the media and voters' political preference, to the effect that they don't know what they're voting for, but somehow they're voting for what they want. Popkin calls it "low-information rationality," a term that makes me laugh out loud. I find this line of argument unconvincing. Here is a very good summary of the debate.
Obviously, establishment of an American monarchy is impossible. It may not even be desirable, though I certainly believe most of the people are not capable of governing and others have not shied away from governing for us anyway. But why not take a few steps in the right direction? If you're going to keep the electoral college, do as the founders intended and make its electors more than a formality. Restore party conventions to their former role. Return Senate elections to the legislatures or another somewhat more informed group of people.
I think about this stuff all the time, but this Miers nonsense really reinforces my concerns. A president chosen by an uninformed, ignorant electorate names an unqualified crony to one of the most important positions in the country. My benevolent philosopher king would have done better, I promise you.
To drive this home, I did a little research. For those of you reassuring yourselves that the Senate is the standing in the way of an unqualified woman that your popular majority doesn't want on the Court, this may be a little unsettling: taking into account citizen voting-age populations of the smallest 17 states and voter turnout in those states for the last 3 senatorial elections, 34 senators (about 1/3 of the Senate) represent the expressed will of just 3.9509% of the voting population (about 1/25). If you live in Ohio, Texas, California, New York, Florida, or any other large state...better hope those decisive 15 million people agree with you! Connecticut Compromise, my foot.
In short, I don't want a monarch. But I don't trust people to vote the right way either. If only Alex Hamilton had tried a little harder...
...before the 17th Amendment...
House of Representatives worked fine, too... before the 16th Amendment... does "public voting themselves largesse from the treasury" resemble current politics?
I can't remember who said this (I think that it was Plato, maybe Soccrates, or Aristotal?) I would not say this because I can't remember exactly who said it, but I feel that it makes a good point. "Democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." After thinking more about it I have no clue who said it. If someone else remembers please tell me. Maybe it was Mark Twain?
Morality is independent of majority voting, especially when half of the voters are of below-average intelligence.
Many of us here consider ourselves to be Constitutional "Originalists", and the Constitution quite clearly did not intend for all types of people to be granted the privilege of voting.