Posted 4 years ago on July 21, 2012, 4:02 p.m. EST by jph
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Our constitutional Bill of Rights notwithstanding, those who say that America is a republic, not a democracy, and that the reason we are not a democracy is because of the so-called evils of the "tyranny of the majority," are full of nonsense. America does, however, suffer from the tyranny of the minority.
First, the notion that we are not a democracy and that we are not ruled by the majority is a myth. In fact, we are both a republic and a democracy -- a democratic republic of representative democracy -- which is governed by majority vote in nearly every respect. Our representatives in Congress, state legislatures and city councils are each elected by majority vote of the people in their respective districts. Our president is elected by a majority of electoral votes and our governors and mayors are elected by majority votes.
Second, in Congress, both houses make law by majority vote, as do legislators in the states and council members in cities. And our supreme court and state supreme courts make decisions by majority vote. Of course some may say, and it is true, that there is some tyranny in the way our elected officials and judges vote, but that is usually pertaining to political points of view. But seldom, if ever, has there been widespread tyranny of the majority like some would have us believe, simply because they liken it to mob rule or a "mobaucracy." Republic or democracy, majority rule is what it's all about, or should be.
The problem: Tyranny of the minority is real
On the other hand, the tyranny of the minority is real and is practiced vigorously by political radicals and extremists who manipulate and jerk around the majority through the courts, through biased mass media intimidation of government and other entities, and through the indoctrination of students by the biased education establishment. In terms of our form of government, the tyranny of the minority has been most visible. And it has had the greatest adverse effect in the way the two-party system controls elections and government without any constitutional authority whatsoever. Indeed, the Founders, namely James Madison, made it perfectly clear that factions should not control government.
Still, factions do control government. The two-faction system nominates their own candidates, which leaves voters with two pre-selected candidates, neither of which many voters agree with, so they must choose between the lesser of evils. Neither the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party comprise a majority of voters, but together, even as opposing factions, they are an overriding majority to the exclusion of other political parties and independent candidates. The two-party system is so entrenched, it is divided by aisles in Congress and elected representatives are identified by either a "D" or an "R" next to the name of their state and their name. Moreover, because the Democratic Party is often controlled by left-wing factions and the Republic Party is often controlled by right-wing factions, both parties are loosing discontented members to independent voter status, resulting in a group of disenfranchised voters as large or larger than either major party.
The overall problems are obvious. Government is too large and dangerously powerful. Our elected representatives are corrupted by a deeply flawed system that seduces them with money and power to gain and remain in office, or seek higher office, and it has disenfranchised the overall electorate. We need to alter the system in a way that will override the practice of selective democracy by factions and moneyed interests.
What we need are nonpartisan elections and government, and more democracy. In this advancing age of communications and information technology, wherein voters are becoming more informed, we should amend the Constitution to establish direct democracy by means of secure voting networks connected to voter's homes. All elections would be conducted over the voting networks, which would allow voters to interact and to communicate with their elected representatives. There would be no need for campaign financing or lobbyists. Elected representatives would be nonpartisan, highly qualified professional government managers instead of overly ambitious professional politicians created by what has become a self-corrupting system of personal power.
To keep it honest, with no more government than we need, well-informed voters should decide matters of taxation and public policy. Individuals know what is best for them. And the collective judgment of our fellow citizens -- which could be trusted because the direct democracy voting networks would require voters to be truthfully-informed -- would know what is best for all of us. In a perilous world steeped in uncertainty, our survival may very well depend on it.
By Daniel B. Jeffs, founder The Direct Democracy Center
Not written by me, just a repost for "1sealyon" who hijacked my thread [ http://occupywallst.org/forum/too-high-to-fail-why-are-some-flowers-against-the-/ ] to argue the silly "Tyranny of the Majority" myth. I guess some people just do not want to live in a 'society',. because they are just so 'rugged' and 'individualistic',. perhaps we should push these folks out into the desert, and let them have at it? (try to live without any support from society i.e. the rest of us.)