The Hypocrisy of the Majority

I really didn't think I had much to say lately. Seems like idiocy is running wild and there is going to be no end in sight. Still, as I was holding my baby boy, a thought turned into a thread, which turned into my topic of today: The Majority.

What really does that mean nowadays? The standard definition of "majority" as defined by Webster is " a number greater than half of a total ". Seems simple enough. Six out of ten would be a simple majority.

In terms of governance it's enough to pass most laws and measures (unless a state mandates a super majority for amendments or certain measures) and to elect our officials.

It is how our country has functioned for over two hundred years. There are always going to be flaws in any system, but on the whole I believe it can be argued that our poor are better off than Somalia's poor. Our health care system is better than Canada's. Our disenfranchised have a clearer voice than those in Cuba or Venezuela.

Although I will argue with you that any district which gives Nancy Pelosi 73% of the popular vote is clearly mentally challenged, it was well within their right to elect who they saw fit to protect their interests.

Okay...back to my line of thought on the Majority...

Example One: Our glorious leader received 53% of the popular vote or 69,492,376 votes by those either living, fictional or dead. His opposition received 46% or 59,946,378.

This is not by any way a clear cut, super majority (we did not reach 60% +) and would indicate that you could almost flip a coin as many times and get the same result. There is no "mandate for change". There is just a simple majority who believed the Republicans had screwed up just one too many times.

Example Two: California Proposition 8 of 2008. The infamous same sex marriage bill. Yes votes= 6,322,732 or 52.2% No Votes= 5,796,637 or 47.8

Again, pretty much a coin flip. No clear mandate there either but a simple majority overturned the previous court ruling outlawing same sex marriage.

In both cases "The Majority" had spoken......

Quoted after the presidential election by Time Magazine:

"Barack Obama Elected President with Mandate for Change"

"...when historians analyze the 2008 campaign, they're going to remember that the two-term Republican President had 20% approval ratings, that the economy was in meltdown, and that Americans didn't want another Republican President. They'll also remember that Obama was a change candidate in a change election."

Well, kinda. Let's look at the House of Representatives for an example. Of the 435 seats up for grabs, a grand total of 23 incumbents were defeated. Factor in the 13 open seats and that makes 39 total incumbents out the door. Of those 39 total newbies, the Dems took all 13 open seat elections and added 8 more through defeating incumbents. Their popular vote percentage was 53.04% versus 44.16% for the Republicans.

From an incumbent standpoint, however, only 9% were voted out. Is that change when 90% of the pigs at the trough are still feeding?

Is that "change" when only 53% voted Democrat in the House and Presidential elections?

Judging by Time, and other gleeful lefties it sure is:

“Good morning, Republicans! Welcome to the wilderness. We saved you a seat right over here, next to us. Looks like we'll have a lot of time to talk in the next four years.”
—libertarian blogger Katherine Mangu-Ward on Reason’s Hit & Run blog.

Stay with me now because here is the kicker......

From the Sacramento Bee.com:

"It's time. The 4 percent difference between the people that voted yes and people that voted no are not enough to change the state constitution."
-Tina Reynolds, Sacramento community activist


"Those amendments applied universally to all Californians. This is a situation where you are removing rights from a particular group of citizens, a class of individuals the court has said is entitled to constitutional protection. That is a structural change."
-Joel Franklin, a constitutional law professor at Monterey College of Law

Two anti Prop 8 quotes from liberals who believe that the 4% voting difference does not speak for the "majority" of voting people.

If 7% and 9% are mandates for change, even though they are not "super majorities", than the 4% number must be looked at in the same light. You cannot just pick and choose "mandates" because they suit your political needs or beliefs. There needs to be a consistency in the line of reasoning. With the left, so far it doesn't exist.

Aside: Because of the many difficult angles of Prop 8, this blogger's belief is that the people will decide and that the majority must abide by it's decision. It is not in the hands of the Supreme Court, and should it be overturned by the people- it is for the good of the people because the majority has spoken.

Anyway..you know the joke, and what a voice! We need more of this and less of the other crap that drags down this world!



Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent
Uploaded by dwarthy


Regards,
the Cap'n