3 ms·

Respect for minorities also needs to happen in democracies. Even if democracy in some strict sense means that majority decides, you still need to care about th

Respect for minorities also needs to happen in democracies. Even if democracy in some strict sense means that majority decides, you still need to care about the minorities to keep the system credible. Otherwise any minority will soon realize that they will never win and break out of the system.

vishnugupta 1y ago
I guess that’s called tyranny of the majority? David Graeber wrote how in Sparta everyone carrying weapons meant that they couldn’t afford to displease even a small fraction of them. So they had to resort to 100% consent and not majoritarian voting. And then goes on to assert that the majoritarian voting process works only in a system where the state apparatus has an absolute control over violence with which the disgruntled minority opinions are suppressed. I think it sort of helped to resolve some of my internal contradictions around democracy as it exists today.
PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
That's the point of a constitution: you take certain matters out of the hands of any (normal) majority. Of course, one can bicker about what the constitutional amendment process actually is, and obviously about the actual content of the constitution. But the central point remains: minority (and majority) rights are protected by a constitution that cannot be altered by a (simple) majority vote. .... the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides.
- saghm 1y ago
  > the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides Or when the majority decides this? If the system is defined to put checks on the majority power as well as the minority, there's no reason that the majority might not decide to try to push the boundaries of the system with similar incentives. I think there's a reasonable argument that this sort of boundary pushing is more responsible for the erosion of constitutional norms historically compared to when the minority wants more rights; we have headlines literally from this morning talking about how the American president claimed that he doesn't know if he needs to follow the constitution due to the mandate of his election[0]: > WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump, asked during an interview on NBC News’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” whether he believes that he needs to uphold the Constitution during his presidency, responded, “I don’t know.” > The comment came as Trump remained adamant that he wanted to ship undocumented immigrants out of the country and said it was inconceivable to hear millions of cases in court, insisting he needed the power to quickly remove people he said were murderers and drug dealers. > “I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he said. > Pressed on whether he still needs to abide by the Constitution, he said, “I don’t know.” [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc-interview-constitution-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    If a suitably-sized majority wants to amend the constitution (where "suitably sized" is defined by the constitutional amendment process), they can go ahead, always. That's why to some degree this is just pushing the issue of "tyranny of the majority" out one level - but that doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. On the other hand, electing leaders who simply decide to not follow the constitution (perhaps because they believe they have "a majority" at their backs, or perhaps not) is something entirely different.
    - saghm 1y ago
      My point is that having a majority that isn't large enough to amend the constitution is far more common than having a supermajority aligned on an issue at any given time, and there's still plenty of danger from that majority trying to erode the protections in the constitution without amending it. There hasn't really been any serious attempt at writing a new amendment to the constitution at least since the ERA was sent to the states from Congress over half a century ago despite a fairly noticeable trend of increased executive power in the same time period (after a brief dip in the immediate aftermath of Nixon). In fact Nixon getting elected in 1972 (the same year as the ERA getting passed in Congress) is the last time any presidential candidate got even 60% of the popular vote, which is still below the threshold that would be needed for a constitutional amendment, and no one has gotten even 54% percent of the vote in the past four decades. If you're trying to argue that no majority-elected president since Reagan has had any incentive at all to try to push their power beyond that specified in the constitution, then I guess that this wouldn't be a concern to you, but I don't think it's a particularly controversial take for me to argue that there has been ample incentive for at least some of these presidents to try to increase their power.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
        I don't disagree with anything you've written there. But I also don't see the US constitutional amendment process as anything particularly praiseworthy either, and do not think it is capable of being used as a way to rise to the occasion of, for example, the current president. Of course, it goes beyond the amendment process to the wider US political and social culture, and we are currently living in the midst of an experiment to see just how much power can be simply taken by a president who wants to do so. As the line goes: it's not about who is going to let me, it's about who is going to stop me. The USA does not appear to have particularly robust mechanisms in place to stop a power grab by the administration when there's something roughly approximating a majority in Congress who do no oppose it.

vishnugupta 1y ago

I guess that’s called tyranny of the majority? David Graeber wrote how in Sparta everyone carrying weapons meant that they couldn’t afford to displease even a small fraction of them. So they had to resort to 100% consent and not majoritarian voting. And then goes on to assert that the majoritarian voting process works only in a system where the state apparatus has an absolute control over violence with which the disgruntled minority opinions are suppressed. I think it sort of helped to resolve some of my internal contradictions around democracy as it exists today.

PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago

That's the point of a constitution: you take certain matters out of the hands of any (normal) majority. Of course, one can bicker about what the constitutional amendment process actually is, and obviously about the actual content of the constitution. But the central point remains: minority (and majority) rights are protected by a constitution that cannot be altered by a (simple) majority vote. .... the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides.

saghm 1y ago
> the problem comes, however, when the minority decides it wants more than the constitution provides Or when the majority decides this? If the system is defined to put checks on the majority power as well as the minority, there's no reason that the majority might not decide to try to push the boundaries of the system with similar incentives. I think there's a reasonable argument that this sort of boundary pushing is more responsible for the erosion of constitutional norms historically compared to when the minority wants more rights; we have headlines literally from this morning talking about how the American president claimed that he doesn't know if he needs to follow the constitution due to the mandate of his election[0]: > WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Donald Trump, asked during an interview on NBC News’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” whether he believes that he needs to uphold the Constitution during his presidency, responded, “I don’t know.” > The comment came as Trump remained adamant that he wanted to ship undocumented immigrants out of the country and said it was inconceivable to hear millions of cases in court, insisting he needed the power to quickly remove people he said were murderers and drug dealers. > “I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he said. > Pressed on whether he still needs to abide by the Constitution, he said, “I don’t know.” [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc-interview-constitution-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/04/trump-nbc...
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  If a suitably-sized majority wants to amend the constitution (where "suitably sized" is defined by the constitutional amendment process), they can go ahead, always. That's why to some degree this is just pushing the issue of "tyranny of the majority" out one level - but that doesn't mean it is not worthwhile. On the other hand, electing leaders who simply decide to not follow the constitution (perhaps because they believe they have "a majority" at their backs, or perhaps not) is something entirely different.
  - saghm 1y ago
    My point is that having a majority that isn't large enough to amend the constitution is far more common than having a supermajority aligned on an issue at any given time, and there's still plenty of danger from that majority trying to erode the protections in the constitution without amending it. There hasn't really been any serious attempt at writing a new amendment to the constitution at least since the ERA was sent to the states from Congress over half a century ago despite a fairly noticeable trend of increased executive power in the same time period (after a brief dip in the immediate aftermath of Nixon). In fact Nixon getting elected in 1972 (the same year as the ERA getting passed in Congress) is the last time any presidential candidate got even 60% of the popular vote, which is still below the threshold that would be needed for a constitutional amendment, and no one has gotten even 54% percent of the vote in the past four decades. If you're trying to argue that no majority-elected president since Reagan has had any incentive at all to try to push their power beyond that specified in the constitution, then I guess that this wouldn't be a concern to you, but I don't think it's a particularly controversial take for me to argue that there has been ample incentive for at least some of these presidents to try to increase their power.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
      I don't disagree with anything you've written there. But I also don't see the US constitutional amendment process as anything particularly praiseworthy either, and do not think it is capable of being used as a way to rise to the occasion of, for example, the current president. Of course, it goes beyond the amendment process to the wider US political and social culture, and we are currently living in the midst of an experiment to see just how much power can be simply taken by a president who wants to do so. As the line goes: it's not about who is going to let me, it's about who is going to stop me. The USA does not appear to have particularly robust mechanisms in place to stop a power grab by the administration when there's something roughly approximating a majority in Congress who do no oppose it.