New ARENA as part of entertainment District

hoopsaustin said:
Many, if not most/all, of the founding fathers hated democracy. They called it mob/slob rule bc it eventually devolves into a mess if unchecked
Click to expand...
The FF did not hate democracy. The FF were scared to death of the "mouth-breathing" public. Paris in 1789 proved them correct.
 
steverocks35 said:
Well, this just isn't true at all. They didn't hate democracy, if they did they would not have established one. We would have a monarchy. It's true that they were concerned about the common folk directly making laws, which is why they established our democracy the way it is. And before people say, "OMG it's a republic, not a democracy!" Yes it's a republic and it's also a democracy. It can be both things and it is. Of course we don't have a *direct* democracy, no country does, that would be impossible logistically. What we have is an indirect democracy, where the citizens elect people to vote for their interests (presumably) and establish laws. But we also have things like ballot initiatives which are absolutely a form of direct democracy. We also have a republic, which simply means we are not a monarchy, and we use an indirect democratic system. Some countries, like North Korea, are a republic but have no form of democracy whatsoever. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Republic vs. Democracy
Click to expand...
they intentionally didn't establish a democracy ... . they established a representative republic to avoid mob rule ...
 
BoulderSooner said:
they intentionally didn't establish a democracy ... . they established a representative republic to avoid mob rule ...
Click to expand...
The two things are not mutually exclusive. It's a republic AND a democracy. I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp. There ARE republics that aren't democracies, see North Korea. Click the link in my post for more details.
 
steverocks35 said:
The two things are not mutually exclusive. It's a republic AND a democracy. I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp. There ARE republics that aren't democracies, see North Korea. Click the link in my post for more details.
Click to expand...
it is a rep republic that is based on democratic principles ..


the " democratic people's republic of Korea " or the "peoples republic of china " are not based on democratic principles ..
 
BoulderSooner said:
it is a rep republic that is based on democratic principles ..


the " democratic people's republic of Korea " or the "peoples republic of china " are not based on democratic principles ..
Click to expand...
Yet North Korea is still a republic, but not a democracy. We have a hybrid form of government. Click my link and read all about it.
 
steverocks35 said:
This conflates "direct democracy" with "democracy (which is understood as indirect democracy)." Obviously no country in the world has a *direct* democracy, but there are plenty of democracies, including the United States.
Click to expand...
this thread is off the rails .. but ..

our entire system of government was designed to protect small states and the minority of the population from the majority .. (mob rule) ..
 
BoulderSooner said:
this thread is off the rails .. but ..

our entire system of government was designed to protect small states and the minority of the population from the majority .. (mob rule) ..
Click to expand...
Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Our democracy has limitations, as all modern democracies do.
 
BoulderSooner said:
they intentionally didn't establish a democracy ... . they established a representative republic to avoid mob rule ...
Click to expand...
Sorry if I started the derailment, but try to get it back on track a bit.

This statement is why Norman and other towns have a city council to vote on progress and things that impact the community. Citizens don't need or want to be involved with which department fixes potholes, where the budget comes from for repair of potholes, and where to buy the supplies to fix the potholes. They elect government officials, like a City Council, that help make those decisions and represent the will of the people. When their conduct doesn't meet the citizen's wishes, they vote them out.

What the ORED and the "esteemed" professor are advocating for is mob rule to change the will of the people through their lawfully elected officials. It's what representative democracy is all about and they want to overturn that through mob rule. What's even worse, is whenever this goes to a vote, it will probably turn out somewhere around 1/3 of the eligible voters. This basically means a vocal extreme minority of somewhere around 15-20% of the population may have a chance to vote down the arena if the vote is allowed by the courts.

if that happens, it isn't even mob rule- it's minority rule against all principles of why there is a City Council.

The ORED and opponents had their say- at the City Council meeting. And the City Council acting for the people heard their concerns and still voted for the project.
 
TINY said:
I think the us is actually a constitutional republic with democratic principles.
Click to expand...
And those "democratic principles" are known as a "democracy!" My point exactly. :cool:. Looks like we are all on the same page. I like it when we can come to a consensus.
 
MJSooner said:
Sorry if I started the derailment, but try to get it back on track a bit.

This statement is why Norman and other towns have a city council to vote on progress and things that impact the community. Citizens don't need or want to be involved with which department fixes potholes, where the budget comes from for repair of potholes, and where to buy the supplies to fix the potholes. They elect government officials, like a City Council, that help make those decisions and represent the will of the people. When their conduct doesn't meet the citizen's wishes, they vote them out.

What the ORED and the "esteemed" professor are advocating for is mob rule to change the will of the people through their lawfully elected officials. It's what representative democracy is all about and they want to overturn that through mob rule. What's even worse, is whenever this goes to a vote, it will probably turn out somewhere around 1/3 of the eligible voters. This basically means a vocal extreme minority of somewhere around 15-20% of the population may have a chance to vote down the arena if the vote is allowed by the courts.

if that happens, it isn't even mob rule- it's minority rule against all principles of why there is a City Council.

The ORED and opponents had their say- at the City Council meeting. And the City Council acting for the people heard their concerns and still voted for the project.
Click to expand...
Question, are all ballot initiatives "mob rule?" Should ballot initiatives be outlawed? I'm genuinely curious about everyone's opinion on this. Another question, if only 40% of voters turn out to vote for a council member isn't that also minority rule? Food for thought...
 
steverocks35 said:
Question, are all ballot initiatives "mob rule?" Should ballot initiatives be outlawed? I'm genuinely curious about everyone's opinion on this. Another question, if only 40% of voters turn out to vote for a council member isn't that also minority rule? Food for thought...
Click to expand...
i am not sure there should be ballot initiatives to overturn specific council decisions .... ie a zoning case or a TIF award ...


a ballot initiative to ban ALL future TIF districts .. or something of that nature sure ....
 
BoulderSooner said:
i am not sure there should be ballot initiatives to overturn specific council decisions .... ie a zoning case or a TIF award ...


a ballot initiative to ban ALL future TIF districts .. or something of that nature sure ....
Click to expand...
Exactly.

A ballot initiative to voice a grievance against a specific case or issue, without the support of any executive official or legislative body, seems wrong. And usually ballot initiatives are usually done to vote on a much broader issue impacting a larger issue, as Boulder said, all TIF districts, or wine in stores, medical marijuana, etc. and they have the support of some governmental body, i.e. governmental representative democracy. A massive overreach, in this case, IMO. A protest on a legally approved decision.

Especially when it is one specific project where even the complaints (lost tax revenue for schools, fire, etc.) may not technically impact every Ward in Norman.

And don't even get me started on how they are "losing tax revenue" on dollars that wouldn't be spent- or taxed- if the project doesn't move forward.
 
MJSooner said:
Exactly.

A ballot initiative to voice a grievance against a specific case or issue, without the support of any executive official or legislative body, seems wrong. And usually ballot initiatives are usually done to vote on a much broader issue impacting a larger issue, as Boulder said, all TIF districts, or wine in stores, medical marijuana, etc. and they have the support of some governmental body, i.e. governmental representative democracy. A massive overreach, in this case, IMO. A protest on a legally approved decision.

Especially when it is one specific project where even the complaints (lost tax revenue for schools, fire, etc.) may not technically impact every Ward in Norman.

And don't even get me started on how they are "losing tax revenue" on dollars that wouldn't be spent- or taxed- if the project doesn't move forward.
Click to expand...
The way our country is going, ballot initiatives are the only way to get things done. It’s not ideal or even preferred, but I think we’ll see even more of them in the near future. We like to blame the government for everything, forgetting that it’s a direct reflection of the people.
 
BossFan64 said:
The way our country is going, ballot initiatives are the only way to get things done. It’s not ideal or even preferred, but I think we’ll see even more of them in the near future. We like to blame the government for everything, forgetting that it’s a direct reflection of the people.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Sooner04 said:
The FF did not hate democracy. The FF were scared to death of the "mouth-breathing" public. Paris in 1789 proved them correct.
Click to expand...
Pure democracy they sure did. They liked Landowners only having a vote too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OUHoops
Castiglione's quotes on the new arena and location
Replies
5
Views
3K
AdaSooner
AdaSooner
B
Sherri's new recruiting strategy
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
j2d2
J
Soonerman
OU Officially Announces Kruger as Head Coach!
Replies
15
Views
3K
LoveDemSooners
LoveDemSooners
Back
Top