Democracy is not mob rule

[Nomad4Ever]

It is often said that democracy is just mob rule or tyranny of the majority. That is not the case. This is nothing but a talking point to derail discussions of things like abolishing the electoral college.

Democracy, a strong democracy, is not a system which allows 51% of people to do whatever they want. The most democratic system is not one which every policy is decided by a referendum. As is often pointed out, what if 51% of people decided to oppress the 49%?

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government. Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

So the next time someone tells you that abolishing the electoral college or some other expansion of democracy is actually somehow authoritarianism, simply direct them here.

 

[Crovax]

It is often said that democracy is just mob rule or tyranny of the majority. That is not the case. This is nothing but a talking point to derail discussions of things like abolishing the electoral college.

Democracy, a strong democracy, is not a system which allows 51% of people to do whatever they want. The most democratic system is not one which every policy is decided by a referendum. As is often pointed out, what if 51% of people decided to oppress the 49%?

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government. Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

So the next time someone tells you that abolishing the electoral college or some other expansion of democracy is actually somehow authoritarianism, simply direct them here.

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

The electoral college does nothing for smaller states, just swing states. That's all it does is focus the campaign on the swing states.

 

[Craig234]

You make a good point. Democracy is not just 51% rule, it's a culture of respect for people. If it wasn't we could still have slavery today, or other increased persecutions of minorities. Sadly, the US isn't really the best representative of those Democratic values lately. We had progress, but our massive inequality and plutocracy led to the wealthy to pursue power by taking over the Republican Party, which pandered to bigotry and division to get votes.

But the loudest people criticizing democracy as 'mob rule', are the people supporting authoritarianism and discrimination. Between the people tending to be better than authoritarians, and our system of individual rights protected in the constitution and courts - another target of Republicans to destroy - democracy does pretty well usually, and better than other systems. Note how rarely critics suggest how to protect individuals better (can't think of one).

 

[Crovax]

The electoral college does nothing for smaller states, just swing states. That's all it does is focus the campaign on the swing states.

It's not perfect but it certainly does help get some smaller states, much more than a national vote would.

 

[soylentgreen]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

Why would a democracy bother going state to state in an election of a federal position?

 

[soylentgreen]

It is often said that democracy is just mob rule or tyranny of the majority. That is not the case. This is nothing but a talking point to derail discussions of things like abolishing the electoral college.

Democracy, a strong democracy, is not a system which allows 51% of people to do whatever they want. The most democratic system is not one which every policy is decided by a referendum. As is often pointed out, what if 51% of people decided to oppress the 49%?

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government. Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

So the next time someone tells you that abolishing the electoral college or some other expansion of democracy is actually somehow authoritarianism, simply direct them here.

Democracies have political parties. America does not. That could be a problem.

 

[Crovax]

Why would a democracy bother going state to state in an election of a federal position?

I would suppose that if your entire country was a small population on a small island you wouldn't need to.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

There is no inherent reason they should have more of a say than they deserve per population size.

Besides in a pure presidential popular vote situation, it would be about cities versus rural areas anyway. Rural people in Massachusetts have more in common with rural people in Colorado, then they do with people in Boston anyway.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It is often said that democracy is just mob rule or tyranny of the majority. That is not the case. This is nothing but a talking point to derail discussions of things like abolishing the electoral college.

Democracy, a strong democracy, is not a system which allows 51% of people to do whatever they want. The most democratic system is not one which every policy is decided by a referendum. As is often pointed out, what if 51% of people decided to oppress the 49%?

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government. Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

So the next time someone tells you that abolishing the electoral college or some other expansion of democracy is actually somehow authoritarianism, simply direct them here.

Pure democracy aka "mob rule" was tried 2500 years ago in Athens.
That was the first and last time.

Democracy, as it is known in the years since that failed Athenian experiment, is REPRESENTATIVE democracy, where city, county, state and congress are elected by democratic means.
The mob rule trope is yet another BIG LIE peddled by fascist Republicans.

It is becoming apparent that Republicans have latched onto the "Big Lie" methodology for nearly everything in the last forty years.
Whether it is election fraud, unfunded liabilities, mob rule, fascism being liberal, you name it and there's a Republican Big Lie about it.

 

[soylentgreen]

I would suppose that if your entire country was a small population on a small island you wouldn't need to.

A popular vote is all that is needed. Why then would size matter?

 

[grip]

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies.

 

[Crovax]

There is no inherent reason they should have more of a say than they deserve per population size.

There is and it exctactly what the OP said doesn't happen. The 51% now more than ever looks to oppress the 49%. 20 years ago and before I would have agreed that it was an baseless fear but not anymore

 

[Crovax]

A popular vote is all that is needed. Why then would size matter?

How are you going to get people 3000 miles away to vote for you if you don't go to their region and listen to the things that effect them?

 

[soylentgreen]

Pure democracy aka "mob rule" was tried 2500 years ago in Athens.
That was the first and last time.

Democracy, as it is known in the years since that failed experiment, is REPRESENTATIVE democracy, where city, county, state and congress are elected by democratic means.
The mob rule trope is yet another BIG LIE peddled by fascist Republicans.

You have just displayed a complete ignorance of the ancient greeks democracy if you think it had anything to do with a mob. They were very selective about who could be in the senate and who could not.

Democracy has worked quite well in many first world countries. Where as no one can doubt that a federation such as america is fast going down the sink hole. No big puzzle to see which one will last longer.

 

[soylentgreen]

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies.

There you are moving to another political spectrum, that of anarchism.

 

[soylentgreen]

How are you going to get people 3000 miles away to vote for you if you don't go to their region and listen to the things that effect them?

Has america not invented communication devices such a television or telephone yet? Or even the ability to write a letter?

 

[Craig234]

Here's the basic point people should understand about democracy.

Human society tends to want to be, is incentivized to be, hierarchical, with a few getting more than their share and a lot of oppressed and exploited people benefiting them.

History is filled with 'conquerors' and leaders and those they favor who help them in power, and the 'masses' they rule.

Democracy is an attempt to change that to limit the oppression by a few of the many - but in that system everyone is supposed to get 'one vote' whether rich or poor.

The thing is, people still want more than their share. So whether it's rich people who are able to use money to get more power than one vote, by funding campaigns, PACs, lobbying and more (or even in trump's case taking out a full page ad to spread his toxic opinions to promote executing innocent minority suspects), or 'small states' who are happy to get more than their share of representation by having a bias in the system, people corrupt the democracy.

Books can be written about how it's corrupted. And people thinking they get benefit from corrupting it defend the corruption. And that's really what demagogues and fascism appeal to - 'you can be part of a ruling group getting more, at the expense of people you get to screw!' If that sort of leader gets elected, democracy is in danger.

 

[Crovax]

Has america not invented communication devices such a television or telephone yet? Or even the ability to write a letter?

I would live to see democrats take you up on your advice and do a fully virtual campaign from DC.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There is and it exctactly what the OP said doesn't happen. The 51% now more than ever looks to oppress the 49%. 20 years ago and before I would have agreed that it was an baseless fear but not anymore

Good thing we have a bill of rights.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The electoral college does nothing for smaller states, just swing states. That's all it does is focus the campaign on the swing states.

That has more to do with the winner take all ‘rule’ adopted by (most of) the states than the EC system (which contains no such ‘rule’). The EC system was intentionally designed to give smaller (based on population) states a larger (disproportionate?) say in the election of the POTUS.

Using a strictly popular voting system would allow excess (beyond a plurality of) votes for one POTUS candidate in large states to entirely offset (counter?) even larger pluralities for another (typically the other) POTUS candidate in (potentially multiple) smaller states. Given that we normally have only two ‘viable’ (major political party) POTUS candidates, that would render the electorate in many (if not most) smaller states forever powerless in POTUS elections.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You have just displayed a complete ignorance of the ancient greeks democracy if you think it had anything to do with a mob. They were very selective about who could be in the senate and who could not.

Democracy has worked quite well in many first world countries. Where as no one can doubt that a federation such as america is fast going down the sink hole. No big puzzle to see which one will last longer.

Excuse me, I put "mob rule" in quotes for a reason.
And the fact is, democracy as we know it today is indeed representative democracy, where the people ELECT representatives, in parliamentary bodies all over the free world.
Pure democracy is, in most cases, limited to public referendums, such as the Scottish independence movement.
And still, if Scotland finally does win independence, they will continue to democratically elect representatives to a parliamentary body, yes?

I never made any assertions as to who the ancient Greeks decided could be in their Senate.
I was referring to the difference between Athenian democracy and the way democracy operates today, and to the fact that lies are peddled by our Republican friends about how
America is not a democracy, which is a lie purposely manufactured for the express purpose of "inoculating against" any backlash toward the theocratic fascism that they are attempting to elevate ABOVE our representative democracy in order to shackle it to a position of permanent impotence and illusion.

I look forward to hearing your rebuttals on that score.

 

[Crovax]

Good thing we have a bill of rights.

Certainly a new concept

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why would a democracy bother going state to state in an election of a federal position?

Many media markets are local or regional.

 

[Blue Dog]

Here is the catch 22.

If we are going to operate along this line of reasoning, than the filibuster serves as a positive check on 51 defeating 49.

Anyone see the problem here?