making a difference

[totient]

A week and change ago, I spent three hours in MassEquality's headquarters calling residents of Angelo Puppolo's district in Springfield to ask them to call up his office and leave him voicemail saying they support equal marriage and asking him to vote no in constitutional convention. Eighteen people told me that they would, and I left messages on dozens of answering machines. I'd like to thank those eighteen people: Puppolo changed his vote and joined 150 other legislators in voting down the anti-gay-marriage amendment today. And I'd also like to thank the random guy on the street who found me outside the Diesel and convinced me to go make phone calls, and the eight or ten other people making phone calls that night, and the dozens of volunteers on other nights, and all the Mass Equality donors who paid for the calls. I don't have any of your names, and that's just fine, but I appreciate you all anyway.

Comments

[dda.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.

I seem to recall a Republic is a "representative democracy"; it is still a democracy but the people no longer vote directly; the "checks and balances" built into our system have little to do with elected legislators (witness the Republican Congress, House and President) as they have to do with the distribution of power between the branches of government. That is why it is necessary to change the State Constitution to change the status of same-sex marriage here; the Legislative branch cannot directly overrule the Judicial.

The so-called "Tyranny of the Majority" isn't prevented here; neither is the Tyranny of the Minority; the balance between those comes from the specific Constitution in place. Prohibition was clearly the Majority inflicting its belief on everyone; nothing prevented it.

Which 2/3 are you referring to?

I was under the impression that to amend the state Constitution required a 2/3 majority vote on a referendum but I could be wrong (hence the question mark). The idea is that changing the Constitution is important enough that it requires more than a majority, it requires an overwhelming one (for some definition of overwhelming).

re: 2/3

[etherial.livejournal.com]

No, that's a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Massachusetts requires Simple Majority.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
Article XLVIII, Section 4.

Re: 2/3

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Part IV, Section 5.

re: Prohibition

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Funny that you'd cite the one Constitutional Amendment that was wholly and bodily repealed as evidence for how the Majority can still be Tyrannical.

Re: Prohibition

[dda.livejournal.com]

That's the point; the Majority was pretty Tyrannical and inflicted Prohibition onto everyone until a later Majority got Tyrannical and repealed it. The majority is still being tyrannical as far as Presidential term limits; there were plenty of people who felt that Bill Clinton should have been able to run again just as there are plenty of people who feel George W. Bush should be able to run again; both are subject to the Tyranny of the Majority.

And thanks for the info on amending the State Constitution; I get confused because, let's face it, how often are either one changed?

Re: term limits

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I'm ambivalent about them myself, but I think there are legitimate non-tyrannical reasons for term limits.

Re: term limits

[dda.livejournal.com]

I think there are also Unintended Consequences to them, as there are with most things; I haven't thought about term limits enough to decide my opinion.

I would also say that whether or not one thinks something is Tyrannical has a lot to do with whether or not one agrees with it; one person's "Tyranny of the Majority" is another's "The Way Things Ought To Be."