Comments by "Robert Morgan" (@RobertMorgan) on "PowerfulJRE" channel.

  1. 39
  2. 35
  3. 35
  4. 28
  5. 23
  6. 21
  7. 17
  8. 16
  9. 13
  10. 9
  11. 7
  12. 7
  13. 7
  14. 6
  15. 6
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 5
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. The direct democracy voting idea has it's positives, but the problem is it's impossible to implement and very likely unconstitutional. There are no Federally ran national elections in the US. Every state makes their own laws regarding their elections and runs them independently, as per the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to hold elections, therefore it's solely the Right of the States. A direct democracy vote like he wants could disenfranchise millions of people if, for example, their state itself votes not to put those questions on their ballots, so no votes on the national issue get cast from that State. The State could get a court ruling that changes the issue question and basically nullifies the votes of other states. Such a system would also be strongly biased against non-populated areas and favor population centers. It's a top-down authoritarian plan disguised as freedom of choice, and with nowhere to escape to. At least with 50 states and 50 sets of laws, if you don't like what's going on where you live you have 49 other options. With big government national votes, you might end up fucked with no recourse. Additionally, what if the vote on one of the 'three issues' is affirmative yet the result is a law in violation of the Constitution? SCOTUS would still be able to strike down such a law, nationwide majority vote or not. So why have that vote, at IMMENSE polling expense, in the first place? Large groups of FAR more intelligent lawyers, scholars, and thinkers spent years crafting our Constitution, and it's been through centuries of revision, and the fact that nationwide voting on issues in a direct democratic style has not once entered into it seems like an indication that maybe it's not the best idea. Our system goes to great length to PREVENT the Tyranny of the Majority, not to empower it.
    1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1