3 ms·

This entirely vacuous argument is surprisingly popular. Possibly because it gets mixed up with a related, more convincing one. It can never be right to assign

This entirely vacuous argument is surprisingly popular. Possibly because it gets mixed up with a related, more convincing one. It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. If giving that power to the majority means they can only govern for the majority, then the opposite also holds true: governments elected by a minority can govern for only that minority. And that would seem to be even worse. There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. First among them is a sort of veto power: requiring (some) support from the minority for enacting laws, or the most significant laws (and constitutional changes) is very effective at protecting them. The US implements as much by requiring supermajorities for constitutional amendments, and by the non-linear apportionment of power in both houses of congress, and by the Senat's filibuster. But all that's completely different from awarding the presidency to the minority! And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana, I can find 10 scientist in a city that are each more important for the supply of food. Plus an additional 10 poets and musicians, because that's also something people need. Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism.

gfxgirl 6y ago
So from your description it sounds like you believe any work to help minorities have a voice is wrong. For example at one point redistricting was pushed by various people to help give minorities enough collective voice to have some influence. To put it another way. Let's says there are 10 seats representing 1000 people. Those 1000 people are 15% A and 85% B and spread out into 10 districts of 100 people each where no district has more than 20% A. By that, A can never get any representation where as if they let A form a group they can likely get 1 of seat of those 10 representatives and at least have a voice. That kind of thing has been done in many different ways but your post seems to suggest you think it's wrong.
nl 6y ago
Whilst I don't agree with you calling this a vacuous argument I think you do make some useful points. > It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. Agreed in principle. Although how this works in a presidential system where there is only one President, it's unclear why someone with 70 million and 1 votes should get 100% of the power and the person with 70 million gets zero. > There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. Agreed, and I think the veto and supermajority powers are good examples. > And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana I don't think they are as ridiculous as you make out. I'll let the arguments made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority stand for themselves. I'd note that many democratic countries put in place specific representation for under-represented minorities, and that isn't generally seen as awarding the presidency to the minority. > Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism. This sounds right, but it's important to note this isn't the same thing. This isn't about allowing only landowners to vote. I'd argue very very strongly against that!

gfxgirl 6y ago

So from your description it sounds like you believe any work to help minorities have a voice is wrong. For example at one point redistricting was pushed by various people to help give minorities enough collective voice to have some influence. To put it another way. Let's says there are 10 seats representing 1000 people. Those 1000 people are 15% A and 85% B and spread out into 10 districts of 100 people each where no district has more than 20% A. By that, A can never get any representation where as if they let A form a group they can likely get 1 of seat of those 10 representatives and at least have a voice. That kind of thing has been done in many different ways but your post seems to suggest you think it's wrong.

nl 6y ago

Whilst I don't agree with you calling this a vacuous argument I think you do make some useful points. > It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. Agreed in principle. Although how this works in a presidential system where there is only one President, it's unclear why someone with 70 million and 1 votes should get 100% of the power and the person with 70 million gets zero. > There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. Agreed, and I think the veto and supermajority powers are good examples. > And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana I don't think they are as ridiculous as you make out. I'll let the arguments made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority stand for themselves. I'd note that many democratic countries put in place specific representation for under-represented minorities, and that isn't generally seen as awarding the presidency to the minority. > Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism. This sounds right, but it's important to note this isn't the same thing. This isn't about allowing only landowners to vote. I'd argue very very strongly against that!