[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156703#msg156703 date=1455721381]
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/elec...rb1024.png

The county-by-county depiction of red vs. blue is well known to all of you.  The founders went to great lengths to protect the rights of those in the minority.  Therefore, we have the Senate, based on regional equality, and the House, based on concentrations of population.  This to me is just one of the beauties of our republic.  Those who focus solely on the power of large concentrations of population play dangerously with promoting the tyranny of the majority.

Are you really so jaded that you can only think of the term "minority" in terms of racial, gender, and other specified groups?  I was referring to those (like me in this thread, apparently) that are in the minority on a given issue.  It was, I believe, the founders effort to blunt the power of emotion in the conduct of national affairs.

Well, if the Founders meant to protect minority rights, they did a terrible job, didn't they?  I mean, I suspect that blacks, gays, the Japanese in WWIi, Muslims since 9/11 etc. (i could go on all day here) would disagree with your statement.

More importantly, this is yet another example of how a constitution created for a rural-agrarian population 225 years ago is simply no longer suited to current conditions.  I can't imagine that the Founders intended for the votes of rural people to count more than city dwellers--or are you really arguing that that's a fair and just system?

Just because something was created by the founders does not make it justified.

(Also, what WIM said while I was typing)
[/quote]

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156703#msg156703 date=1455721381]
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/elec...rb1024.png

The county-by-county depiction of red vs. blue is well known to all of you.  The founders went to great lengths to protect the rights of those in the minority.  Therefore, we have the Senate, based on regional equality, and the House, based on concentrations of population.  This to me is just one of the beauties of our republic.  Those who focus solely on the power of large concentrations of population play dangerously with promoting the tyranny of the majority.

Are you really so jaded that you can only think of the term "minority" in terms of racial, gender, and other specified groups?  I was referring to those (like me in this thread, apparently) that are in the minority on a given issue.  It was, I believe, the founders effort to blunt the power of emotion in the conduct of national affairs.

Well, if the Founders meant to protect minority rights, they did a terrible job, didn't they?  I mean, I suspect that blacks, gays, the Japanese in WWIi, Muslims since 9/11 etc. (i could go on all day here) would disagree with your statement.

More importantly, this is yet another example of how a constitution created for a rural-agrarian population 225 years ago is simply no longer suited to current conditions.  I can't imagine that the Founders intended for the votes of rural people to count more than city dwellers--or are you really arguing that that's a fair and just system?

Just because something was created by the founders does not make it justified.

(Also, what WIM said while I was typing)
[/quote]