| Nem said: The point of the majority is for a decision to be made. There's no tyranny if it's the popular vote. How more legitimate can it be? If the majority can't decide without being called tyrants, who can make decisions? A council whose election is subject to all kinds of backdoor deals? The will of the people (when not falsified) is the legitimate decision. |
Thank you for not addressing a single one of my counterarguments and give me another opening for me to shoot down more of these assertions. For instance, you continue to go on with your semantics argument when I easily refuted that by altering the tyranny of the majority phrase. Let us look up the definition of ochlocracy, shall we? Ochlocracy is the rule of government mob or a mass of people, or colloquially referred to as mob rule. When people say tyranny of the majority, the majority (in the phrase, not the majority, in general) is tyrannical because of the authoritarian similarities between mob rule and an actual tyranny.
You asserted that there is no tyranny in a popular vote, but I already given you two examples of where the tyranny of the majority led to detrimental effects. Turning your eyes away from the flaws of a plain democracy does not help your argument, just so you know. The majority does not always think best for the country nor will it always not do harm to the minority. That is a legitimate (see how I'm using this word correctly?) weakness of a democracy hence why there are other systems that try to address these weaknesses. The presidential election and the electoral college (though I disagree with the winner-take-all system) is one way to address that. But hey, "It's not a true democracy! Therefore, you're against freedom and equality!" Speaking of which...
|
Afraid of what the people say? Then you don't defend democracy. Don't defend that some people's vote should be worth more than others. THAT is tyranny. Honestly, if you don't defend equality and freedom, you don't defend democracy. If you are talking about representation, the presidential election is not where that happens, nor needs to be. You got representatives on your senate. |
This is quite a feeble attempt at character assassination and also a gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying. Here is what I said: "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." Now show me where I said that some people's votes should be worth more than others. Or are you just going to retort with "Oh, I can't even..." or "How dare you..."?
To add more to my arguments, republicanism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. A republic can use many aspects of democracy as what the US does. The advantages that a republic offers is that it contains a bill of rights or a constitution. There is an established set of rules and rights that cannot be broken nor infringed while operating under a democratic system. An outright democracy lacks these necessary restrictions that disallow the majority from abusing power over the minority.
