Can Democracy have an air-tight legal definition?
mosbrooker last edited by
We the People are God
by Mike Mosbrooker
April 16, 2023
I would never disparage a person’s religion, only its bad aspects of which there are many. Religion is family. To put down any organized religion is akin to hating family itself. Any creed, is an extension of family.
I know where we need to go. OMOV. But I have no idea how to get there. Am I 100% positive that this is the silver bullet that will, in essence, fix everything? Yes.
Do I think I can convince even one person of this? Doubtful but I’m hopeful. Will I write my magnus opus that will turn people’s heads toward the promise of Democracy? God only knows.
I pray to the universal equalness of all people living today that our world does a 180 from wars, famine, greed, destruction, and hopelessness to one of promise, good will, helpfulness, teamwork, and wonder. I pray for this with no qualification, and I do not accept any trade of any kind for this turnabout to occur. It should happen at almost the snap of fingers.
Do I hope for heaven on earth or Democracy? The former for sure. But I am 100% sure that the latter is the only way to get there.
I pray to equalness (not sameness) because a person’s a person. No matter how small. This fundamental truth is the bedrock to build a grand tomorrow. The rich oil magnate is exactly one person. The beggar in Calcutta is also, exactly one person. Try as he might, the magnet will never be an iota more that 1 person in total and the beggar never less than 1.
Our 1-ness is all we need. All laws are just dictates of our society that put us on the path to truth (only possible with a foundation of Democracy) or, alternately, a collection of lies, half-truths and good intentions that have us roaring toward the ever closer cliff.
I would love to talk to anyone about this. Please reach out if interested.
Peace and have a good day!
Best, Mike Mosbrooker
SaraWolk last edited by SaraWolk
@mosbrooker said in Can Democracy have an air-tight legal definition?:
I assume OMOV is One Man, (Person) One Vote? (Defining your acronyms the first time you use them is always helpful.)
If so, I'm curious if you have heard of the Equality Criterion, which many of us believe is a stricter definition of One Person, One Vote. A few of us just published an article on it which you can read here that attempts to formally define One Person One Vote and build on the Supreme Court Ruling that stated that the "weight and worth of the citizens' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same."
I'll paste in a quote for discussion, and you can also find a more lay friendly explanation over at the Equal Vote Coalition website here and here.
"We posit that by passing the Equality Criterion, vote-splitting caused by the voting method itself can be eliminated. The Equality Criterion states that for any given vote, there is a possible opposite vote, such that if both were cast, it would not change the outcome of an election.7 The Equality Criterion ensures that if one party had the support of 51% of the voters and ran multiple candidates, and another party had the support of 49% of the electorate and ran only one candidate, the majority faction would always have some way to give all of their candidates full support and thus guarantee a win, even if the front-runners were unknown.
In 1964, Wesberry v. Sanders, (Black, 1964) The U.S. Supreme Court declared that equality of voting—one person, one vote—means that “the weight and worth of the citizens’ votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same.” Passing the Equality Criterion ensures that it’s possible for voters who disagree to cast equally weighted and opposite votes, no matter how many candidates are on their side. Approval, Score, Smith/Minimax, and STAR Voting all pass this basic and ’practicable’ criteria; Plurality and Instant Runoff Voting do not."