3 ms·
This seems like an entirely hypothetical flaw in direct democracy whereas you only have to glance at the news to see that it's very non-hypothetical for our cur
by crdoconnor 9y ago
This seems like an entirely hypothetical flaw in direct democracy whereas you only have to glance at the news to see that it's very non-hypothetical for our current system of representative democracy.
I suspect the magnitude of the "tyranny of the majority effect" in a directly democratic system would be determined by the structure of the system and any checks and balances that were put in place. You could configure it correctly or you could configure it badly.
It's not exactly like representative democracy came about because reasonable people got together and agreed collectively that it was the best system for all.
It evolved as a result of elites who used to rule non-democratically giving a series of small concessions over a period of centuries, often after a lot of blood has been spilled or a mass protest movement starts to grow to revolution-y size ("ok, some of you can kick us out of office but this time it's only the ones with penises who own land").
- rayiner 9y ago> This seems like an entirely hypothetical flaw in direct democracy whereas you only have to glance at the news to see that it's very non-hypothetical for our current system of representative democracy. Not a very “hypothetical” flaw. If it was up to the majority to decide, interracial marriage likely would’ve been illegal into the 1990s: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bb8ic2qate-wa_cbgc2ifg.png http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...
- manjushri 9y agoOkay, and how does that compare to the countless equally bad or worse laws passed in representative democracy?
- crdoconnor 9y agoAsking "do you disapprove or approve?" skews the numbers higher than asking "should it be illegal or legal?"
- LyndsySimon 9y agoAbsolutely. There are tons of things that I don't "approve of", but I would never be in favor of using the force of government to force those views on others.
- rayiner 9y agoSure, but where interracial marriage is already illegal (as it was in the 1950s due to overwhelming popular disapproval) it’s unlikely to be made legal during a period when the majority of voters still disapprove of it. You’re seeing this with marijuana now.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoIf it were up to elected representatives, it probably would have been illegal into the 1990s as well. Interracial marriage was legalized by the court system applying constitutional protections of individual rights to override laws created by elected representatives.