Tyranny of the Majority

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority

>> Mr. Simmons wrote-

>> For this reason, I don't consider it sufficient that the
>> majority have its way.
>> ----
>> D- Either the majority or the minority has its way (since
>> unanimous votes are few and far between) (pending utopia
>> wherein nobody interferes in the life, liberty or property
>> of anybody else).

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately?) the situation is
rarely so simple.

First, there may well be many majorities.  Or there may be
none.  Depends on where you draw lines.  A nontrivial Smith
set is an example of the former.  A roughly equal three-way
contest under plurality is an example of the latter.  IRV
could give an example of a situation in which there is no
majority at all, and then later there is a majority, without
anyone's preferences changing at all.  All of this shows that
a majority is not the solid, unequivocal, unambiguous notion
we learned in high school.

For reasons like this, I have little faith in the absolute
nature of majorities.  They are too often matters of
definition.  I think you're getting to something similar in
the quotes that follow.

And secondly, it's not at all clear that simply letting the
majority have its way is at all just or wise.  Slavery in the
U.S. was a majority operation.  It was legal and
constitutional under the laws of the time.  Nevertheless,
there were some citizens who were outraged.  Not to mention
the people who were classified as livestock.

And thirdly, majorities are fickle.  The will of the majority
is only defined for moments at a time.  One of the reasons
for republican government, instead of direct democracy, is
the ability to shield the legislative process from the whim
of the majority.  As circumstances shift, so do attitudes,
and with changing attitutes, majorities fade in and out of
existence.  Constitutions are specifically designed to
protect us from transitory majorities.

I'd like to comment on the rest of what you've written, but I
have to admit I can't follow all of it, and can't see how it
relates to anything on the table at the moment.

>> The current U.S.A. Congress and State legislature regimes
>> in the U.S.A. are gerrymander Tyranny of the Minority
>> regimes (taken from the gerrymander minority rule regime
>> of the English/ U.K. House of Commons dating from the
>> 1200's --- a mere 700 plus years ago) and carried over to
>> the old pre-1776 English/U.K. colonies and States in
>> 1776).

>> I note again that *democratic* p.r. methods only came
>> along in the 1840's.   Old regimes hang on long beyond the
>> time that they should have expired -- such as divine right
>> of kings (which keeps coming up in the form of so-called
>> strong leaders/ dictators in many countries -- mainly due
>> to the political fact of life that the legislative bodies
>> in many such countries are obviously evil oligarchies.).

>> Since there have been NO indirect majority rule U.S.A.
>> Congresses or State Legislatures, it is somewhat
>> stretching things to be attacking something (democracy and
>> indirect majority rule in such bodies) which has never
>> existed.

Don't you think it's a bit strange to be complaining about
how I'm attacking democracy???  Perhaps you're equating
majority rule and democracy?  They're not the same thing, you
know.