Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by caltour:
One of the great weaknesses of our form of government is that it is a "winner takes all" system. There is virtually no representation for those individual voters who don't vote with the majority. Minority parties are locked out of power. And only a minority of the population votes. Any group that can round up tens of millions of dollars, or (just a few) tens of millions of votes, can control almost everything.



This statement is not accurate. The entire basis of the court systems was put into place to guarantee a voice to minorities to pursue issues that they felt were patently unfair.


No. The judicial system was never designed to be a guarantor of democratic representation for the minority. It is a forum for testing the constitutionality of legislation, for enforcing laws (that were put into place by majority-elected legislators), and for resolving civil disputes. As I recall from law school, there is no cause of action for "political unfairness."

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The filibuster is a great example of how the minority has a huge voice in the federal legislative branch, not to mention the Senate's power to block federal appointments to the judicial appointee's when necessary.


The filibuster is widely recognized as an extremely limited and often ineffective antidote to majority domination in our system. It is a very crude tool for obstruction, and not a true "seat at the table" of power. As a practical matter, it is rarely used, because not only does it require extraordinary committment and dedication of resources, it can be quickly ended by a supermajority vote. And recent attempts by the Republicans to kill it altogether reveal that it is a weak substitute for real power.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Sure when one party has a lock on two of the three branches of the federal system, things may seem to be unfair, but the fact is that the American people voted these particular people into office willingly.


Yes, a MAJORITY of votes were cast for those elected representatives (except for Bush in 2000, of course). How does this support your argument that minorities have real representation in our federal government?

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The minorities DO have a voice, so long as they are united.


If the "minority" of voters were united, they would likely be a majority, wouldn't they? It is pretty rare for a candidate to win an absolute majority. Often the vote is split between several candidates, and the winner receives less than half of all the votes.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Look at how much lobbying power the AIDS advocates have, considering they represent an extremely small segment of the population as a whole, because they are well organized and well connected. I admire their tenacity in pursuing the causes they are dedicated to, as I do for any other organized group of people, Christians included.


I'm not arguing that there are no groups that have some influence except for majority voters. If no "minority" groups had any influence at all, democracy would have failed long ago. Thanks for pointing out an example of a "minority" group that has managed to have some political success (not much, but some), but it truly is an exception and not the rule.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
I would not say the churches themselves are hugely wealthy.


Where did you get this opinion? The megachurches have multi-million dollar budgets, and a call from the pulpit can readily raise more. They are a huge source of "soft" money and a major financial supporter of right-wing causes. I have never heard anyone deny this before.