Nem said:
Tyranny of the majority? As in opposed to Tiranny of the minority? I don't understand the concept of "tyanny of the majority". It's called Democracy! The majority SHOULD win! Thats the whole concept of every vote beeing equal. |
Minority opinions need to be protected and protection of those positions does not equate to tyranny of the minority. The majority opinion is not necessarily the 'right' or more meritable position. Your argument is ultimately an ad populum slippery slope double special. Otherwise, there will be mob rule. Past presidents in the US have won both the electoral college and popular vote, and won the electoral college, but not the popular vote. The electoral college forces candidates to listen and appeal to different demographics of the US. If the US was run by a direct democracy, those candidates would only campaign in California, New York City, Philadelphia, and *insert any other major city*. The needs of certain demographics, especially those from rural areas, will be kicked to the curb because those people will just be seen as mere scraps.
TL;DR - In a constitutional republic, both the majority and minority opinions can be addressed. In a direct democracy, only the majority opinion will be addressed. The president needs to represent the people, not the majority.
