3 ms·

I struggle a lot with the idea of the tyranny of the 51%, though. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson's politics, but I really like a point he frequently makes in his

I struggle a lot with the idea of the tyranny of the 51%, though. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson's politics, but I really like a point he frequently makes in his columns: everyone loves the idea of a jury of one's own peers until they realize that their peers are all idiots. Same goes for democracy. It sounds great, until 51% of people start making dumb decisions about how you should run your life. Example: a slightly larger majority of my town than that wanted a slightly better deal of waste management, so they voted for a town-wide contract. Now I'm forced to pay for a recycling program that is so inconvenient I pay to use a different one anyway. Enough people (that it will probably happen) are now pushing for a measure to make it as convenient as it used to be, but raise taxes to pay for all the abuse that ruined things. I don't want better voting, I want the ability to opt out and be left alone.

Proziam 8y ago
This isn't actually that complex a problem. 51% don't get to make decisions, 66% do. The correct answer is almost always "no" so making it more difficult to get to a "yes" from the decision making body is (within reason) a good thing. This has the added benefit of forcing people to take a good hard look at what they propose because it has to make sense to everyone to have a chance to pass.
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  Yeah I absolutely love the solution of requiring a supermajority. I wish it was required in most instances and that we actually required it when it is already required by the Constitution in practice. In the US Constitution it's only used to convict, override or expel people who were elected by simple majority (or in some case,s less, though I like the idea of the electoral college not giving all power to a couple of states), and for ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments. Of course, even though alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, you can apparently prohibit anything else by having it "scheduled". And when was the last time the President waited for Congress's permission for our foreign relations, be they treaties or war?

Proziam 8y ago

This isn't actually that complex a problem. 51% don't get to make decisions, 66% do. The correct answer is almost always "no" so making it more difficult to get to a "yes" from the decision making body is (within reason) a good thing. This has the added benefit of forcing people to take a good hard look at what they propose because it has to make sense to everyone to have a chance to pass.

TallGuyShort 8y ago
Yeah I absolutely love the solution of requiring a supermajority. I wish it was required in most instances and that we actually required it when it is already required by the Constitution in practice. In the US Constitution it's only used to convict, override or expel people who were elected by simple majority (or in some case,s less, though I like the idea of the electoral college not giving all power to a couple of states), and for ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments. Of course, even though alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, you can apparently prohibit anything else by having it "scheduled". And when was the last time the President waited for Congress's permission for our foreign relations, be they treaties or war?