The civil rights movement, suffragette movement and LGB (referring to gay marriage) is a fairly decent example of this. This gives minority groups a chance to speak in a public forum and gain the sympathy/empathy of the majority so they are less likely to harm the minority. Market socialism (industrial democracy) wants cooperatives where the workers or consumers which are directly involved with specific businesses have a say in its running, away from the reach of the general population.Īlthough you may have a local majority rule, the system is structured so that the "real" majority of the general polity does not really have a say in those internal decisions (because they do not need to have a say).ģ: Also, even if it was a majority, its not tyranny Democracy is not just about voting, its also about deliberation, discussion, and negotiation (about what should be on the ballot in the first place). This is related to the age old concept of subsidiarity, where decisions which are best made locally are allowed to be made locally.Īs for proposals for democracy. We have cellular democracy, where only the people in the local area can vote on a local issue, and the rest of the population (which is the majority) does not have input. With score voting or ranked choice, "majority" becomes even more of an abstraction, since we are trying to find an "equilibrium"or "central tendency" between many different preferences and perspectives to find the solution that everyone is at least ok with.Ģ: Democracy does not have to be majoritarian and it usually is not. The 31 may win the vote, but they are not the majority. If you have 90 people and 3 candidates/ options on the ballot (with plurality voting), you can have an outcome which is 29, 30, 31. Other than the fact that it contains an appeal to emotion (why use "tyranny", why not use "primacy"?) Here are some of the problems with that line of critique.ġ: In any democracy where the ballots tend to have more than 3 options, the winners are unlikely to be a majority anyway. "What if 51% vote to do something bad to the 49%" "Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep decide whats for dinner." They use and reuse memes and thought terminating cliches like Cheers.Ī lot of anti-democracy people tend to base their entire criticism of democracy on the idea that there would tyranny of the majority. It also explains why the historic victories in November 2012 may establish that the majority has begun to understand the harm they cause to same-sex couples when they enshrine discrimination into state constitutions and statutes.Have to stop replying now. Section III describes the negative impact that the tyranny of the majority has on married same-sex couples. court cases, this section concludes that majority tyranny is a threat to minority communities and has long been recognized as a danger inherent in governments founded on democracy. 16 Section II considers the question posed by this symposium: is the tyranny of the majority a danger to minority communities or is it a myth? Using sources such as Alexis de Toqueville, the Federalist papers, and prior U.S.
Thus, the LGBTQ community is dependent on the non-LGBTQ community to decide its rights when those rights are debated at the ballot box, a bad public policy in and of itself. and describes the current laws granting and prohibiting legal rights to married or partnered same-sex couples. Section 1 explains that sexual minorities, consisting of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and queer people (LGBTQ), 15 comprise a small number of people within the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
