- Reaction score
FJAG said:You've always been an strong advocate for democracy and the peoples' rights. Can you honestly disagree with Kagan's opening statement.
I trust that I continue in such advocacy. As to Kagan's opening statement: No. I can't disagree with her observations. But I can disagree with her prescription.
I do agree that mucking around with boundaries by parties is antithetical to democracy. The scientist in me would sooner select polls by grid squares. But I'm told that that would be anti-democratic as well.
Failing the grid square system my preference would be for an impartial third party to make the allotments. Or perhaps some sort of lottery system like the draft registration number. Or perhaps something else.
The problem is trying to find a system with which everyone agrees, or finding that benevolent dictator who will impartially resolve all issues. I don't find the courts to be necessarily benevolent nor impartial.
I am no big fan of the party system. Nor am I a big fan of adverserial politics. But, as with democracy, I have difficulty finding anything better. I would sooner the parties, those free associations of individuals (at least theoretically), fight it out among themselves, than have a third party given absolute authority over the decisions.
Perhaps one way to describe my view of democracy is that it promotes peace through allowing all parties to continue beating dead horses until they all become exhausted and move on to other horses. Trying to impose order on energized opponents seems to me to be unlikely to resolve much of anything and is more likely to result in people resorting to direct action outside the confines of any constitutional or institutional norms.