Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kane
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.
|
thats a very good post. You certainly understand the process.
I think we agree on what the system of checks and balances is, even if we think it is flawed. You are looking at it from a different perspective.
You stated:
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.
I believe that is correct. The checks and balances system has nothing to do with party affiliation.
It is not there to give minority parties the ability to overrule.