We live in a democracy. In many cases this means that a decision is decided by 50.0001% of the electorate (though I may be exaggerating). The presidential election of 2000 showed the problems with that. Though perhaps there is no alternative to a "simple" majority in that case. But what about in other "vores"? Would it be reasonable to require a 2/3ds or 3/4s majority before accepting a decision to add, change, or remove a law or ordinance? In a small voting group like the Toledo City Council this might not be practicul, but in the House of Representatives would this be impossible? One thing this would do would be to give a "conservative" majority against changes in temper of the electorate based on issues raised by the media. "Hot button" issues would have to overcome the natural inertia of human nature. Of course, if such a requirement became a law there would be little chance that new laws would come to the fore.
Would Something Other Than a Simple Majority Be Better?
Comments ... #
Birdy, come on! We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic.
The difference being explained in the preamble to the constitution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A democracy does not recognize the rights of the individual. It's often described as 5 wolves and a sheep sitting around the campfire deciding what's for dinner.
The way things are decided now a small majority (less than 1%) can decided an issue that would have been decided differently if a few more people hadn't had flat tires.
What, like they did with the smoking ban?
posted by starling02 on Feb 26, 2008 at 07:59:53 pm #
A democracy does not recognize the rights of the individual. It's often described as 5 wolves and a sheep sitting around the campfire deciding what's for dinner.
Exactly, Billy.
Democracy is a tyrant just like a dictator. It is just safer to handle. Like a dangerous chemical in a more stable form.
Individual rights need to be constitutionally sealed away and protected from all tyrants including democracy.
Many people now use democracy as an excuse for everything. Stealing this or that liberty? No problem, its a democracy - we're cool. Change the constitution? Sure, let's vote on it!!
The other thing I hate to hear is people talking about spreading democracy to other parts of the world as if it was the priority. Liberty needs to be spread - that's the priority, not democracy. Once liberty is in place, among several structural elements, democracy needs to be used to maintain a stable government - but it is not the priority - liberty is.
OSEB, the trouble with saying that "a small majority can decide an issue" is that you cannot identify this set of people. You can't tell me if the "deciders" are the Whites, the Blacks, the first 1% of the day, the last 1%, every other woman whose last name begins with B, etc.
The thing which turns a vote is the entire block of votes, meaning you have to consider that 50% to be part of that 50.0001%.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic.
It's not specific enough to say we live in a Republic. Iran is a Republic, the Soviet Union was a Republic. We live in a representative democracy, or a liberal democracy, or a democratic republic, or a constitutional republic, etc.
An empire masquerading as a republic collapsing under the weight of its denial.
And it was Shay's Rebellion that forced the founding fathers to write a strong constitution with a bill of rights. Reactionaries are credited with being saintly visionaries.
Billy-in a Republic, the scenario is the same, except the sheep is carrying a .44 magnum.
In what I propose above a "minority" would definitely be a "minority". There would be little argument that the "majority" prevailed, and that such a vote could have been decided differently on a different day if everyone had had a good meal. The way things are decided now a small majority (less than 1%) can decided an issue that would have been decided differently if a few more people hadn't had flat tires.
posted by oldsendbrdy on Feb 26, 2008 at 04:31:41 pm #