Minnesota was the only state that Reagan didn’t win, so, irrelevant to Republicans. Now it’s a swing state. RIP Paul Wellstone. Republicans test strategies around the country, winning Wisconsin, keeping Florida in play, making once irrelevant Ohio into a key win for Trump.
Democrats OTOH, sacrificed their stronghold of the South for the ideal of Civil Rights. Now, you can’t get an abortion there. I would still rather fight the battle of ideas than play political games with peoples’ lives.
For those of us who think democracy should be limited, it would be a good thing by setting a precedent.
It has a low number of electoral votes which means it doesn’t matter in presidential elections. It also has no influence on political culture the way California or the Northeast does.
There was a debate before the Constitution was signed, and limiting either government or democracy was part of that. Madison’s Federalist papers offer gun rights advocates and small government proponents plenty of ammo for their arguments. Call it moot, esoteric, settled, or still up for debate, whatever, in this time, I don’t think democracy is out of control. Some government powers should curtailed, like Presidential powers, or technocrats who can draw lines on maps and get whomever they want elected, but I’m not worried about a mythical tyrannical majority.
I’m not going to bother querying One this time. I can’t imagine a reasonable answer. If there are criteria for participating in democracy, then it’s not democracy. Whatever area is being claimed by the ruling class, if you live in it, you get to vote.
This is where any logic went off the rails for me. I just take it as a typo. Surely (stop calling me…) that sentence was meant to say, “For those of us who think government should be limited…”