Aura7541 said:
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...
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. |
Ok, i see your issue. That is not something that i consider because i don't see my own country as ethnic A trying to screw Ethnic B or exterior trying to screw interior.
In an educated Country, everyone votes for the best of the country in their own view. Even if they vote selfishly that is legitimate. It is their right. It is democratic and equal. The majority wins and their decision is legitimate. If the people change their mind later, they elect someone else to change/revert that decision.
Though honestly, in my country there's countermeasures to that in the constitution. You can't make stupid laws like the examples you gave. They have to be legal.
Again, tyranny of the majority is something that can only happen in a country that probably shouldn't be a country. If your people's are actively trying to destroy each other, then you got a more fundamental problem to solve, or you know... make a better constitution that doesn't allow that without robbing people of their equality right.
I didn't say republic and democracy are mutually exclusive. Of course they are not. I said that the US is not a democracy (or at least a flawed one), wich we all know to be true and that i wish they stopped passing themselves as such. Wich they have since WW1. Or you know... actually improve the outdated 2 century old system to something more democratic so we can actually not cringe at the values of democracy being thrown in the mud.
