Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
I'm not arguing republican or democrat on this one, I just think you guys are not understanding the system of checks and balances.
Assuming checks and balances pertained to the political affiliations inside the senate instead of the branches of goverment, you guys are taking away that checks and balances system by giving power to a minority.
You are giving power to someone who opposes the majority of the people in the country and making the majority of elected officials powerless. Thats not in the best interest of the people.
It seems lately that people want to change the meaning of majority. When a group of people make a decision based on a majority vote, it would be nice if all agreed and the vote was unanimous, but the fact is that in a majority vote, 51% = the same result as 99%. We dont let John Kerry make presidental decisions becuase he got alot of votes.
|
the checks and balances system as a whole is somewhat flawed.
say 55 of the 100 senetors are repubs. There is a democrat in the white house who, like clinton, got about 40% of the vote in a three way race but won the electoral college. The senate writes a bill and passes it 55 to 45 and sends it to the white house. the president vetos the bill. the senate can now override his veto with a 2/3 votes but can't get enough votes so the bill dies.
this is a great case of the minority ruling. the majority of the states elected a republican senator. Only 40% of the people in the country voted for the president, but that minority wins.
The checks and balances system is not in place to assure that the majority rules, it is there to make sure the process is fair and that no one branch can run roughshot over the government.