Why Do Democrats Ignore Massive Voter Suppression?

[eniwetok]

38. I know...

The new system was designed in a way that dealt with two main needs of the era... dealing with a complete failure of the Articles and states wanting to surrender the least amount of sovereignty possible. The new system met those needs of the time. But the lesson here is the Framers didn't shy from facing these problems. The Articles were to be a "perpetual union" that could not be amended without unanimous consent. It was a political straitjacket.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article13

The Article went into effect in 1781 and yet the Framers were conspiring to replace it as early as 1787. They realized it could not be reformed from within the system as they were directed to do... so they chose to overthrow it and create a stronger, more flexible system.

If we see problems with the their system... why should we shy from wanting to change it? For example Madison built class warfare into the Constitution... wanting the Senate to essentially be our House of Lords

MADISON: The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.

source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/yates.htm

Would we, today, create a system based on class warfare giving elites the power to thwart the People? Or would we find democratic ways to protect legitimate rights such as a constitutional protection to protect wealth?

Some will say that we have the amendment process. But the bar was deliberately created to be too high. Madison believed that this was necessary so people would venerate the Constitution. In Federalist 49 he wrote

In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.

Because the amendment process is state based we're left with the absurdity that states with a mere 40% of the US population can pass any amendment, yet states with as little as 4% can block any amendment. Would we create an amendment system today that was state based and not population based? Would we, today, create a system where an EC could overturn the popular vote for president?

We need to have some clear democratic principles... and one should be that of civic equality: that all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. This is the standard we've imposed on the states. But we refuse to consider it on the federal level.