This is how Tom Paine defined democracy: “The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more in the choice of representatives…"
The US Constitution is not democratic because some people have more votes than others. The Senate is not apportioned by the population of each state. Each state gets two votes regardless of population. California has 40 million people, North Dakota has 800 thousand, yet each has two votes in the Senate.
Liberal democracy is not based on equality, its based on competition and freedom. Competition by definition leads to inequality. Freedom means you can lobby and petition the government. Equality is not compatible with either of those.
Liberal democracy as you describe it is not democracy. You are adopting the perversion of the meaning of democracy that anti-democrats use. Don't you want an equal vote?
Democracy is about decision making and who gets to make the decisions. That's it.
There are many ways to organize democracy. Claiming that doing away with apportionment for the Senate is the only definition of democracy is patently absurd.
Making the Senate to be proportional to population is not a fundamental change. Nor would make any difference.
I want an socialist egalitarian constitution. That is the only definition of democracy. You are adopting the perversion of the meaning of democracy that anti-democrats use. Don't you want an egalitarian society?
How is the political system undemocratic?
This is how Tom Paine defined democracy: “The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more in the choice of representatives…"
The US Constitution is not democratic because some people have more votes than others. The Senate is not apportioned by the population of each state. Each state gets two votes regardless of population. California has 40 million people, North Dakota has 800 thousand, yet each has two votes in the Senate.
Liberal democracy is not based on equality, its based on competition and freedom. Competition by definition leads to inequality. Freedom means you can lobby and petition the government. Equality is not compatible with either of those.
Liberal democracy as you describe it is not democracy. You are adopting the perversion of the meaning of democracy that anti-democrats use. Don't you want an equal vote?
Democracy is about decision making and who gets to make the decisions. That's it.
There are many ways to organize democracy. Claiming that doing away with apportionment for the Senate is the only definition of democracy is patently absurd.
Making the Senate to be proportional to population is not a fundamental change. Nor would make any difference.
I want an socialist egalitarian constitution. That is the only definition of democracy. You are adopting the perversion of the meaning of democracy that anti-democrats use. Don't you want an egalitarian society?
So if you were designing a socialist egalitarian constitution would you retain the senate in its current form? If not, then why not?