3 ms·

> The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. You are defining democracy differently from how I would define it. The essence for me is majority rul

> The essence of Democracy is not that the majority wins. You are defining democracy differently from how I would define it. The essence for me is majority rule. > The essence of democracy [...] is the losers agree to go gracefully and wait for the next vote for their next chance at victory I'd label that as constitutional government rather than democracy.

jerf 16y ago
51% rule does not work if 49% pick up the guns when they lose and start shooting. If you are fortunate enough to live in a well-civilized country, you are fortunate enough to live in a society that has internalized the fact that it's ultimately not good for anybody to do that. A casual glance around the world will show how not-inevitable that is. It's not two different definitions; it's the engineering mechanics whereby "majority rule" actually works, actually occurs, instead of... something else. (Multiple different sorts of something elses... I don't mean that I have one particular one in mind. But presumably some sort of something else that doesn't involve majority rule.)
- count 16y ago
  If that 49% never 'wins', they have absolutely no incentive to continue their union with the 51% majority. It would make no sense for them to do so - why always stick around the with the husband who beats you? Sure, it's not thrown down time after the first defeat, but when every single issue time and time again comes down to such a huge split, when does it make sense to just end it and have the 2 groups separate?
  - tomelders 16y ago
    That's an excellent point well made. The logic of democracy is trumped by the logic of real life. However, in this issue I don't think we're talking about a 49-51% split. This is a very powerful minority imposing their will of a largely silent majority. Your logic still stands though: At what point do we break our union. Anonymous's action indicate to me that we may well have reached that point.

jerf 16y ago

51% rule does not work if 49% pick up the guns when they lose and start shooting. If you are fortunate enough to live in a well-civilized country, you are fortunate enough to live in a society that has internalized the fact that it's ultimately not good for anybody to do that. A casual glance around the world will show how not-inevitable that is. It's not two different definitions; it's the engineering mechanics whereby "majority rule" actually works, actually occurs, instead of... something else. (Multiple different sorts of something elses... I don't mean that I have one particular one in mind. But presumably some sort of something else that doesn't involve majority rule.)

count 16y ago
If that 49% never 'wins', they have absolutely no incentive to continue their union with the 51% majority. It would make no sense for them to do so - why always stick around the with the husband who beats you? Sure, it's not thrown down time after the first defeat, but when every single issue time and time again comes down to such a huge split, when does it make sense to just end it and have the 2 groups separate?
- tomelders 16y ago
  That's an excellent point well made. The logic of democracy is trumped by the logic of real life. However, in this issue I don't think we're talking about a 49-51% split. This is a very powerful minority imposing their will of a largely silent majority. Your logic still stands though: At what point do we break our union. Anonymous's action indicate to me that we may well have reached that point.