By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aura7541 on 21 May 2018
Edit Thread
Nem said:
Aura7541 said:

Just because the electoral college is not a 100% democratic system doesn't mean that it's a bad system. Sure, I would like to have the system changed a bit such as winner of the state automatically receives 2 electoral votes (senators) with the rest divvied up proportionally (representatives). However, the electoral college was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. This is especially true when a large proportion of the population comes from urban areas that tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Voters in rural states such as Montana or the Dakotas have more "impact" in the general election, but it is so that their concerns aren't drowned out from sheer numbers.

And before you retort with "how about the tyranny of the minority!?", it is harder to win the electoral college if you don't get the majority or plurality of the popular vote. Yes, there have been a few presidents who won the electoral college without winning the popular vote, but it is not a common occurrence which would contradict the claim of "tyranny of the minority". And the presidents who won the general election without winning the popular vote did so because they appealed to enough groups of people rather than being over-reliant on one. For instance, Trump won over the working class as well as winning a higher proportion of the black, Hispanic, and Asian vote than Mitt Romney.

Tyranny of the majority is a nonsensical idea. If it's what the majority wants, by definition isn't tyranny. Tyranny is to opress the people. If the people are in a majority agreement it isn't tyranny. It's a ridiculous concept.

The fact that a rule was created to devalue the vote of some is what makes it non-democratic. The essence of democracy is that everyone has an equal voice, no matter the gender and the race aslong as they are mature enough age wise to exert it. Equality is the essence of democracy. Egalite, fraternite, liberte.

How terrible is the idea, that since one party gets more votes in an area that area should be worth less? It's a corrupt way gain power. The will of the people is what democracy is. If you corrupt that with these ridiculous sub rules to influence the results, it's no longer democracy. 

If you're refuting the idea of tyranny of the majority through pedantic semantics, then you don't have an argument to begin with. Okay, so what if I change it to the technically correct term, ochlocracy of the majority? How about you use that semantics argument again and see what happens.

50.1% is technically a majority and what the 50.1% wants may not be best for the other 49.9%. In fact, the majority may work to harm the minority which would lead to an unstable society and government. This is especially true if the majority shifts frequently. In addition, arguments against an outright democracy are valid as there are concerns of people voting along collectivist lines. The reason why voters from rural states have a higher proportion of "voting power" is because it prevents urban voters from smothering them via large numbers. A democracy also allows the majority ethnic group to throw its weight around minority ethnic groups whereas it is more difficult in a republic system. In addition, democracy only considers the equality of voice into consideration, but not the collective intelligence of mass into consideration. The disregard of the collective intelligence can lead to detrimental effects such as the religious fundamentalism in Pakistan or the sterilization of women with so-called 'mental defects' or of 'mixed race' in Sweden during the 1900s. I mean, feel free to repeat that slogan, but if you think that's viable substitute for a valid argument, meh.

All I am seeing from your arguments is you explain why you personally prefer democracy. However, you have not adequately explained why democracy is a better system than a republic. For example, I already explained why rural states in the US have proportionally higher voting power, but from you, it's just "No, it's bad! It's corrupt! It's not democracy, therefore it's bad!"