Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> >   In a democracy such as existed in many of the Greek
> >city states (at least for a time and at least for free males), any question
> >could be put to a popular vote, the people could be appealed to at any
> >time.   In a constitutional republic (as we are supposed to have)
> >appealing every decision to the popular vote is seen as mob rule . . .

I feel that I failed to address this adequately, or, more accurately, 
express my agreement.

Consider the populations of the various republics or democracies prior to 
our Constitutional Convention of 1787. Consider the population of the USA 
at that time. The framers were appropriately afraid of a democracy, 
whereing a few thousand people could drastically upset a country of laws. 
Now contrast that with today. We are a country of approximately 300 million 
population. We have rules governing how elections may be inititated and how 
they will be conducted. For the "mass mob" effect to prevail today would 
require an overwhelming amount of organization, money and effort.

But. BUT! Our DC Whorehouse is a democracy. It is ruled by majority vote. 
And today it has very nearly become one-party rule. Yes, formal 
rules--which can be changed--help to keep things stable, but as the recent 
"nuclear option" issue illustrated, the party that controls the Senate and 
the House could, if it chose, control the vote on any issue and could, if 
it chose, change the rules. That is a far greater fear for me than for the 
masses to rise up and prevail, as could happen in a pure democracy.

Consider further that if the presidency continues to be held by the same 
party, the Congress continues to have the same power structure, and the 
president has the opportunity to place two dependably pro-Republican 
justices on the Supreme Court, that the country will be run by one party. 
The president will be very close to being a king.