Is the Telegram Really Anti-Democratic?

I don't mean against the Democratic Party since they've proven time and again to be a Republican rag, but I mean anti-democratic with a small d. This is in response to the latest horrible editorial in today's Sunday Telegram.

The editorial indicates that the growth in mandated sections of the state budget is bankrupting the state. That's normal Republican elephant dung. It's right off the talking points. What they blame as the cause there are the politicians and the voters who elect them. Let me get this straight. The politicians and the voters that elect them? The politicians are elected by a majority of voters. That's how democracy works. You have an election and the politicians elected are those that get a majority of the votes. So attacking the politicians and the voters that elect them is a basic attack on democracy. The only cure for the voters who elect the politicians is to not allow the voters to elect the politicians.

Their basic complaint is that the voters don't elect enough Republicans. So what's their solution? They don't offer one. They complain about the voters electing politicians they don't like and then say that the problem might be fixed if the voters elected politicians the Telegram Editors do like. They just don't explain how you get there. From a democratic system that elects politicians they don't like to a system with more Republicans that they do like. All I know is that the Telegram is coming off as dismissive of democracy because they don't like the results. I suppose a system where someone they agree with appoints politicians they like might work. Unfortunately that's not democracy.