# How Democratic Is the American Constitution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711 "2003-12-18T07:20:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/41 "2003-12-20T23:21:28Z")
**2sense** I think you need to expand on the idea that super mahority rule represents minority rule. Especially where you contend that inaction is action. In the restricted realm of “actions which will engage the government’s monopoly of force” I don’t think this is true. Especially if you further restrict the realm to “those principles which are to be applied to such decisions”. In other words, it seems a perfectly acceptable policy to require a super majority for some types of decisions (you suggested that this might be acceptable in Texas). You see, you are wrong that power is already given to the government and the only question is how do we exercise it. This is tru in the context of the powers which are given to the government, but we require a larger consensus to change those powers. It contributes to stability by ensuring that major decisions have wide approval. Majority rule by democracy is not the same thing as minority rule by constitution. the minority can not enact limitations on the Majorities rights. Also, you will have to explain this “One person’s liberty is another’s tyranny.” It seems silly on the face of it. Perhaps you are using different definitions of liberty in the two haves of that sentence. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/42 "2003-12-20T23:58:23Z")
I’d also like to note, that you are in fact asking for new powers for the government. Specifically you are asking that populous states not _have_ to consult less populous states before enacting new laws. No one has offered proof that majorities will enslave minorities, but you have not offered evidence that your system would prevent this. Why would Alaska remain in the union if the Senate and President were elected by national majorities? Also, I assume you are opposed to representitives being elected indistricts? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/43 "2003-12-21T00:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > \*\* > I wasn’t trying to insult you. As I said, I think you are pretty reasonable. I used “mindless” in contrast to “thoughtful”. I can’t count how many times posters have used the “Tyranny of the Majority” in response to my support of majoritarianism. Yet these responses like yours typically don’t go any farther than that. If you care to argue the point then fine. I would ask why you prefer the Tyranny of the Minority. \*\* I prefer a system that protects the rights of indivduals from the majority as well as from the minority. A straight democratic system does not offer such protection for the minority. You believe that the ultimate importance is that every vote is equal regardless of the consequences. If the majority wants to vote away the rights of the minority, well, that’s the will of the majority so everyone else can suck it up. I believe that certain rights must be protected from the majority and the minority. Are there disagreements about what is tyranny, what is freedom, as well as other questions? Certainly. Which is why we have a system of checks and balances instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket. We have a system that’s suppose to protect the indivdual instead of placating the majority. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/44 "2003-12-21T01:03:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spectrum \* > The Constitution strikes a perfect balance between protecting the governing – NOT RULING – power of the majority with rights which protect the freedoms and safety of minorities. Well, it strikes _a_ balance. Other democratic nations have found slightly different formulae that give their governments necessary power while granting their citizens necessary freedoms, with the definition of the word “necessary” varying somewhat from place to place. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/45 "2003-12-21T03:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > - Originally posted by JRDelirious\* > \*\*…and come to think of it, we ARE all close to a position of (nominal) “equality”. We’re all “equally” stuck within the less-than-absolutely-democratic structure. \*\* We are all in the same boat but that doesn’t make us equal. Some of us are quite happy to be here and as long as a significant minority maintains that position the rest of us are stuck here too. The system is prejudiced in their favor. > [@](#): > > **And even in the ultra-democratic state, those of us with money and connections and skills at “gaming” the system could still get an advantage over those without.** ## I agree that perfect equality will never be acheived. How is that relevent to this discussion? > [@](#): > > - Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour\* > \*\*Might I recommend a book on the subject? The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria is a very good book on the subject of limited government. > > In effect, on this issue, he makes the argument that democracy and freedom do not always go hand in hand, and oftentimes actually oppose one another. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is inconcievable for anyone to think that a problem could actually be caused by more democracy.\*\* If you read this thread you can find plenty of people who think more democracy will cause problems. Almost everyone other than me seems to be taking that position. It would be nice to see any of them provide some evidence for their claims. I would agree that democracy and freedom are not always the same thing. “Liberty” is a very broad concept. Depending on how it is defined it can be made to contradict anything at all including other definitions of freedom. > [@](#): > > \*\*Mob rule is the idea that, at any given moment in time, that 50% + 1 of the population is infallible on any and all issues. \*\* Ah, I see. Silly me! I thought it had to do with the elitist notion that the reigns of government had to be kept from the “lower orders” because they are unworthy to direct the government. There is the famous quote from Gouverneur Morris, _“The mob begin to think and to reason. Poor reptiles! it is with them a vernal morning; they are struggling to cast off their winter’s slough, they bask in the sunshine, and ere noon they will bite, depend upon it.”_ Can you cite your definition? As for the idea that the majority is fallible, of course they are. So is the minority. \*\* > [@](#): > > Any restraint on this idea would be a restraint on democracy. Some restraints are good. Most are bad. But to abolish them all would mean catastrophe.\*\* From the first paragraph I have indicated my acceptance of practical limitations upon democracy. > [@](#): > > **The American Constitution was, and still is, a very democratic document, though it could be more democratic.** “Democratic” is also a relative term. The Constitution was democratic compared to the monarchy of France but not compared to some of the state constitutions of the day. \*\* > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, more democratic is not always a good thing, as liberty can be sacrificed in the process.\*\* It is hard to argue with this generality. Would you care to address the specifics that have already been raised in this thread? > [@](#): > > **Hitler was the democratically elected chancellor of Germany.** ## [No He Wasn’t](http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spectrum \* > **So it would have been principled and practical to put the legitimacy of Jim Crowe laws to a vote in the South in the 1950s? What would have protected blacks?** Why the need to ask hypothetical questions? What protected blacks in the real world back when Jim Crow was instituted? Nothing. There was a fine constitutional amendment ratified after the Civil War that was supposed to prevent the disenfranchisement of blacks yet they were denied the vote anyways. Minority rule didn’t protect them so what value is it in pointing out that majority rule wouldn’t either? I have made no claim that majority rule will create some utopia. > [@](#): > > **To let a nation that was majority male vote about female reproductive rights? What would have protected women?** Can ony women protect women’s rights? What protects them right now? 2 females out of nine Supreme Court Justices? Hillary Clinton or one of the other handful of Congresswomen? You have lost me. > [@](#): > > **In your worldview, only the opinions espoused by a majority of individuals – even if they’re only 50% plus 1 in a population of 300,000,000 – deserve consideration. That’s nonsense.** Since you don’t understand my worldview why don’t allow me explain my beliefs and I will continue to return the favor? I believe that every opinion deserves consideration though I don’t know a way to allow that to happen. There is only so much time to do the considering. > [@](#): > > **If that’s your philosophy, then you have no understanding of how politics works, the danger of political power and the need to protect those who differ in opinion or demographics from the majority position.** You are right in that I don’t understand how your philosophy proposes to protect the minority. If you would care to explain I will try to point out those problems I see with your reasoning. > [@](#): > > **You also seem to have a stupid hang up on the Articles of Confederation – which, if you haven’t yet gotten to that chapter in your textbook, failed miserably.** I have discussed the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in order to correct some historical innaccuracies posted by others. What happened back then is not directly relevent to the discussion at hand but we fight ignorance where we find it. Because of my fascination with the period I know a bit about it which puts me in a position to pass information along to others. If you are arguing from a high school history text then you find yourself at an extreme disadvantage. The standard survey of the years of the Confederation is Merrill Jensen’s _The New Nation_. In its preface he discusses his intention in writing the book to dispel the misconceptions surrounding government under the Articles: _'The picture is one of stagnation, ineptitude, bankruptcy, corruption, and disintegration. Such a picture is at worst false and at best grossly distorted. It is therefor important to attempt a history which makes an effort to examine the sources, which is concerned with the nature of political and economic problems rather than proving that one side or another in the innumerable political battles of the period was “right” or “wrong.” Nothing is to be gained by following a “chaos and patriots to the rescue interpretation.” ’_ > [@](#): > > **So yes, we had a bloodless coup d’etat. Thank your lucky stars we did.** Actually it wasn’t entirely bloodless though it was far from extreme for the times. See the Quorum Riot in Philadelphia or the tumults in Delaware between Whigs and Tories even though both sides supported the Constitution. And I’ll make my own decision about whether to be grateful for the Constitution, thank you very much. I have seen no evidence that we would be any worse of if the convention of 1787 had broken up in animosity as it so nearly did. > [@](#): > > **Pure democracy is no different than mob rule. How do mobs treat people different from them?** What definition of “mob rule” are you using? Are you talking about rioting? If so how is rioting the same thing as voting? > [@](#): > > **The Constitution strikes a perfect balance between protecting the governing – NOT RULING – power of the majority with rights which protect the freedoms and safety of minorities.** Just because you say so doesn’t make it so. How about you provide some evidence? As for “govern” and “rule” I don’t understand what semantic distinction are you trying to make. > [@](#): > > **What you are proposing is not only stupid and untenable, it is morally abhorrent. Which tends to sum up the positions you take on every issue.** ## Again, you are entitled to your opinion but it proves nothing. Back up your words if you wish me to take your positions seriously. Even more to follow. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/46 "2003-12-21T04:07:24Z")
**2Sense** : I honestly wouldn’t have a problem if we held a nationaly referendum to re-ratify the constitution by popular vote. I’m not exactly sure how you see it happening, but I assume it would be ratify/non-ratify vote of the document as a whole, not each article individually. In that case, I have no doubts that it would pass handily. Do you think it wouldn’t? Now, let’s suppose that happened. Would you still have a problem with things like the EC or supermajority vote needed to ratify amendments? That is to say, does your principle that majority rule is paramount allow the majority to pass legislation that limits strict one-man-one vote, majority rules? ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/47 "2003-12-21T05:22:42Z")
I misspoke. The Nazis came into government through a democratic process. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/48 "2003-12-21T05:44:59Z")
Well, we would also have to take into account the non voters. If 23% of the registered voters show up to vote how does a majority of them represent the “will of the people”? If we allow a simple majority of the voters to scrap the constitution, how can we be assured that such a result is really the “will of the people”? It seems that one man one vote is just too simplistic. IOW I understand the “principle” you are espousing, but not the practicality. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/49 "2003-12-21T08:09:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > \*\*As for the idea that the majority is fallible, of course they are. So is the minority. \*\* The key difference, though, is that a minority says “The majority should be killed!” they get written off as nutcases, whereas when the majority says “The minority should be killed!”, oftentimes members of that minority are, indeed, killed. I have to admit I’m getting tired of this continued feigned stupidity whenever you’re confronted with the term “mob rule.” To spell it out: if you don’t ever want minorities or constitutions to thwart the will of the majority, then it follows that you prefer the majority be able to do pretty much whatever it wants. Inevitably, there will be moments of crisis when the immediate reflexive action is absolutely the _worst_ thing to do. Without some well-defined limits on what even 51% of the population can do, a great deal of perfectly legal misery is going to be inflicted when none of it was necessary. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/50 "2003-12-21T08:17:21Z")
The purpose of the Constitution is to ensure individual liberties first, and democracy only where it doesn’t intrude on that concept. Democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself. ---
**Author:** ![constantine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@constantine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constantine)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/51 "2003-12-21T20:56:49Z")
Actually, there is a whole other problem with majority voting, which I can’t believe I forgot to mention before. According to Arrow’s theorem, (or at least according to my oversimplified paraphrase of it) in many circumstances, it is not clear that "majority view"is even a meaningful concept. Imagine three people trying to decide what kind of restaurant to go to: Abe prefers Chinese food, his second choice is Mexican, and his third choice is Italian. Betty preffers Mexican, but her second choice is Italian, and her third choice is Chinese. Cynthia loves Italian, would be ok with Chinese, but hates Mexican. So, they decide to vote between Chinese and Mexican, and then vote between the winner of the first vote, and Italian. On the first vote, Abe and Cynthia vote for Chinese over Mexican, so Chinese wins. On the second vote, between Chinese and Italian, Betty and Cynthia vote for Italian. So Italian is the winner. Is Italian the majority will? Well, no, because actually two of the votes, Betty and Cynthia, would both prefer Mexican over Italian. Now in fact, the outcome is determined by the order of the voting. If the first vote was between Chinese and Italian, then Mexican would wind up winning on the second vote. In other words, in this case, each of the members of the group has a distinct rank order of preferences, but the group as a whole does not. This gives rise to what the academics call “cycling” the group prefers Chinese over Mexican, Mexican over Italian AND Italian over Chinese. In this kind of situation (which comes up more often then one might think at first glance) what looks like majority rule is actually control by the person setting the agenda of voting. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/52 "2003-12-22T08:54:55Z")
…mmmmm… agenda… ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/53 "2003-12-23T00:22:17Z")
> [@](#): > > - Originally posted by pervert\* > \*\*2sense I think you need to expand on the idea that super mahority rule represents minority rule. Especially where you contend that inaction is action. In the restricted realm of “actions which will engage the government’s monopoly of force” I don’t think this is true. Especially if you further restrict the realm to “those principles which are to be applied to such decisions”. In other words, it seems a perfectly acceptable policy to require a super majority for some types of decisions (you suggested that this might be acceptable in Texas). \*\* When a policy is raised there are those who favor it and those who do not. If a supermajority of 3/5 or 2/3 or whatever is required to enact that policy then when more than half but less than the required proportion favor it what do you have? A majority favor the policy and a minority opposes it but it doesn’t get enacted. I call that “minority rule”. The government is following the policy favored by the few rather than by the many. I don’t understand why this wouldn’t apply to “actions which will engage the government’s monopoly of force”. > [@](#): > > **You see, you are wrong that power is already given to the government and the only question is how do we exercise it. This is tru in the context of the powers which are given to the government, but we require a larger consensus to change those powers.** I don’t see this as granting more power just altering the manner in which the decision to use the power is made. \*\* > [@](#): > > It contributes to stability by ensuring that major decisions have wide approval.\*\* Protecting the _status quo_ does add stability… to a point. A monarchy is more stable than a democracy… to a point. At some point though the majority gets frustrated with the law and they break it. There is no way to elect new leadership in a monarchy so when the majority gets frustrated they have to assassinate the king or revolt against him. Too much stability leads to instability. And there are other considerations after all such as liberty and justice. And how does requiring supermajorities give major decisions wide approval? Is deciding not to free slaves less important of a decision than freeing slaves? Are they not both answering the same question and thus of equal importance? > [@](#): > > **Majority rule by democracy is not the same thing as minority rule by constitution. the minority can not enact limitations on the Majorities rights.** I agree they aren’t the same thing. I have already given an example of how a minority can curtail rights when I asked, “What if the Supreme Court overturned Brown v the Board of Education and reaffirmed the concept that blacks had no rights a white man was bound to respect?” And the minority doesn’t need to pass a law to deny civil rights. Simply preventing the majority from enacting a gay marriage law would, IMO, be denying a group of civil rights they ought to enjoy. > [@](#): > > **Also, you will have to explain this “One person’s liberty is another’s tyranny.” It seems silly on the face of it. Perhaps you are using different definitions of liberty in the two haves of that sentence.** I am pointing out that “liberty” is a relative concept. It means different things to different people. Some would not agree that homosexuals should be free to marry so to them a gay marriage law might be tyranny whereas I consider it liberty. Some consider abortion on demand total freedom and others complete tyranny. A more pertinent example is our lives under the Constitution. I call it tyranny but others see it as liberty. > [@](#): > > \*\*No one has offered proof that majorities will enslave minorities, but you have not offered evidence that your system would prevent this. \*\* I have offered no proof because there is none to offer. Majoritarianism will not guarantee liberty. I never claimed that it would. I am not promoting utopia just pointing out some features of our current system that don’t seem justifiable to me. > [@](#): > > **Why would Alaska remain in the union if the Senate and President were elected by national majorities?** The state would remain in the Union because states are not allowed to seceed. That was settled back in the 1860s. > [@](#): > > **Also, I assume you are opposed to representitives being elected indistricts?** ## I believe that large, multimember districts or even one single election district would be more democratic, yes. I’m not sure we need to discuss that in this context. > [@](#): > > - Originally posted by MGibson\* > **I prefer a system that protects the rights of indivduals from the majority as well as from the minority. A straight democratic system does not offer such protection for the minority. You believe that the ultimate importance is that every vote is equal regardless of the consequences.** ## I believe the government itself should take that position, yes. Now, I can understand a willingness to give up some democracy for guarantees of rights. That’s eminently practical. But I don’t agree that minority rule does protect rights. This is the real world. There are no guarantees. If you care to argue that our system protects minorities, by all means. Looking at America’s abysmal record on civil rights this should be interesting. You believe that certain rights must be protected from the majority and the minority. I would ask how you think this can occur. > [@](#): > > - Originally posted by John Mace\* > \*\*I honestly wouldn’t have a problem if we held a nationaly referendum to re-ratify the constitution by popular vote. I’m not exactly sure how you see it happening, but I assume it would be ratify/non-ratify vote of the document as a whole, not each article individually. In that case, I have no doubts that it would pass handily. Do you think it wouldn’t? \*\* I would think that if the constitution failed to gain majority support, say every fifth congressional election, then a constitutional convention would be called. I have no doubt that it would pass handily though [some don’t agree](http://www.constitution.org/col/half4constitution.htm). > [@](#): > > \*\*Now, let’s suppose that happened. Would you still have a problem with things like the EC or supermajority vote needed to ratify amendments? ## \*\* Certainly I would. “Enactment and Amendment” was the begining of my complaint not its entirety. My objections to other unnecessarily antidemocratic features wouldn’t disappear. But I would consider that a significant difference. If the Constitution were put upon a democratic footing that would legitimize our government for me. More… ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/54 "2003-12-23T01:52:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > **When a policy is raised there are those who favor it and those who do not. If a supermajority of 3/5 or 2/3 or whatever is required to enact that policy then when more than half but less than the required proportion favor it what do you have? A majority favor the policy and a minority opposes it but it doesn’t get enacted. I call that “minority rule”. The government is following the policy favored by the few rather than by the many. I don’t understand why this wouldn’t apply to “actions which will engage the government’s monopoly of force”.** I think you have misplaced you logic book. Failure to perform an action is not the same as performing another action. Remember, again, we are not talking about simple laws. We are not talking about whether we should drive on the right or left side of the road. We are talking about whether the congress should be able to pass out royal titles. We are talking about whether or not congress should be able to ban newspapers (or just the ones which disparage the constitution, perhaps). > [@](#): > > \*\*I don’t see this as granting more power just altering the manner in which the decision to use the power is made. \*\* Which is certainly a new power. If congress no longer had to form consesus (consesi?) across states (to get ellected for instance) what prevents them from passing wildly unfair laws? You haven’t mentioned any so far. \*\* Protecting the _status quo_ does add stability… to a point. A monarchy is more stable than a democracy… to a point. At some point though the majority gets frustrated with the law and they break it. There is no way to elect new leadership in a monarchy so when the majority gets frustrated they have to assassinate the king or revolt against him. Too much stability leads to instability. And there are other considerations after all such as liberty and justice. > [@](#): > > **And how does requiring supermajorities give major decisions wide approval?** Well, more people have to agree with the decision. That’s what wide approval means. > [@](#): > > **Is deciding not to free slaves less important of a decision than freeing slaves? Are they not both answering the same question and thus of equal importance?** No, of course not. They are not even part of the same question. Deciding not to free slaves is deciding to enslave someone. Deciding to free them is deciding that no one should be a slave. Deciding to use force in a specific instance is always less important than deciding what sort of instances are amenable to the use of force. > [@](#): > > **I have already given an example of how a minority can curtail rights when I asked, “What if the Supreme Court overturned Brown v the Board of Education and reaffirmed the concept that blacks had no rights a white man was bound to respect?”.** Not the same thing at all. Judicial activism is another thread, but your example does not even address how a minority of voters could impose tyranny on a majority. Your example of gay rights is acutally a case of the majority imposing its views on the minority. A view which is soon to be overturned by the courts based on constitutional thinking. > [@](#): > > **I am pointing out that “liberty” is a relative concept. It means different things to different people. Some would not agree that homosexuals should be free to marry so to them a gay marriage law might be tyranny whereas I consider it liberty. Some consider abortion on demand total freedom and others complete tyranny.** You have completely perverted the concepts of liberty and tyranny. Congratulations! I hereby grant you the rarely coveted Perverted Pendant! Preventing you from imposing your will is tyranny. Imposing you will on others is liberty. Priceless. I’m not even going to touch the “abysmal” human rights record of the US. Constitutional Republic is **NOT** rule by minority. It is rule by the consent of the people. In the case of the US it also includes government by the majority. Can you name the congressmen, senators, judges or presidents who were unable to get elected because of our “undemocratic” system? Can you name a policy which the majority wants but which is denied by the constitution? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/55 "2003-12-23T02:54:14Z")
> [@](#): > > 2Sense wrote: > I would think that if the constitution failed to gain majority support, say every fifth congressional election, then a constitutional convention would be called. I have no doubt that it would pass handily though some don’t agree. I read the linked article but couldn’t access the actual survey. It would be interesting to see how the question was phrased. If we did have a regularly scheduled Constitutional Convention, people might learn real quick that the changes enacted will seldom match up with the changes they wanted. > [@](#): > > Certainly I would. “Enactment and Amendment” was the begining of my complaint not its entirety. My objections to other unnecessarily antidemocratic features wouldn’t disappear. But I would consider that a significant difference. If the Constitution were put upon a democratic footing that would legitimize our government for me. I see what you’re getting at, but since there is simply no mechanism for a popular vote to take place on the constitution (other than by enacting an amendment to allow or require it), it’s really just an academic exercise. Interesting, but unfortunately of no practical value. Even if a Constitutional Convention were to be called (as per Article V), there wouldn’t be a popular vote on the end result-- there is still the requirement of 3/4 of the states to ratify changes. ---
**Author:** ![jadagul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jadagul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jadagul)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/56 "2003-12-23T03:16:50Z")
I’m going to take a fairly radical position, and ask the exact opposite question to see if I can shed a light on some of the differences. Why do we want democracy? And what’s so hot about equality? I’ve heard two different definitions of ‘democracy’–not on this thread, just in general. The first–the one used here–is that democracy is the system in which the majority gets its way. The second definition has to do with the granting of rights: a democracy is a system in which individuals are guaranteed protection from certain forms of state coercion, and given a voice in how the state apparatus is to be used. This idea of ‘rights’ gets to the crux of the issues discussed here. 2sense argues that there is no objective definition of ‘tyrrany’ or ‘oppression,’ so we should settle for a system in which as few as possible consider themselves ‘oppressed’ (if I misstate another’s position, I apologize; feel free to correct me). From a certain point of view, this makes some sense; if you believe there are no objective standards of acceptable conduct, this position is wholly coherent. However, there are some principles virtually required for any sort of interaction; the most important of these is that _it is wrong to initiate force against another, to coerce him into a position that is not his_. This would seem to be the premise behind the argument that everyone ought to be represented in a state–that someone not represented is being coerced into a power structure he does not accept (that is, he is bound by a set of rules he did not choose to be bound by, instead he’s being forced to accept them). This would seem to indicate that everyone needs an equal voice in shaping these rules. The problem comes in when we stop and realize that a straight majority system doesn’t actually eliminate coercion–what about the minority? Isn’t it being coerced now? Rather than prohibiting coercion, the system merely ensures an equal distribution of coercion–everyone has an equal opportunity to force his beliefs on others. Thus, a homophobe has as much right to force his beliefs on a homosexual as a homosexual has to force his on the homophobe: approximately 1 in 300,000,000. But what if you could create another system? One in which coercion as a whole was minimized? That would seem to be even better, and that’s the purpose of constitutional checks. We say that it’s _wrong_ to force someone to profess a belief he does not hold, to worship a god in whom he does not believe, to do something merely because another wishes it. The most blatant forms of coercion are addressed by criminal statutes; these laws say that an individual may not initiate violence against another; against his life (murder), against his liberty (rape, fraud, enslavement), against his property (theft). People disagree about exactly how this coercion should be defined, and what penalties should apply; that’s why the laws are changeable. On the whole, though, these laws are fairly clear and prohibit violence by one individual against another. But there is another, more insidious form of coercion: by the group or the state against individuals. People don’t always see the acts as the same: when another citizen extorts money from me at gunpoint, it’s a mugging. When the federal government does it, it’s a 1040. On the whole, though, we recognize that an act that would be immoral if done by an individual is still immoral if a bunch of those individuals do it together. Thus, we create a government to protect individuals from each other, but we give those individuals _rights_ to protect them from the government. It’s wrong for one person to kill an innocent, so we ban murder; it’s wrong for the government to kill an innocent, so we give the right to a fair trial and ban cruel punishment. It’s wrong for one person to take random people’s money, so we ban theft; it’s wrong for a group of people to take random people’s money, so we create the due process clause (quoting from memory, so inexact, but roughly “no state shall deny an individual the right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law”). It’s wrong for one person to force me to do something by threat of violence, so we outlaw slavery and extortion; it’s wrong for several people to do this, so we once again have the due process clause. Additionally, we have several _specific_ ways in which force against individuals is particularly frowned upon; thus the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of religion. These are just specific examples of ways it’s unjust to initiate force against others. Now, for why this isn’t minority rule. [Absolute] majority rule, presumably, is when the majority can make whatever rules it wants and enforce them on the minority. Minority rule, similarly, is when a designated minority can make rules and force them on the majority (I say a designated minority because flexible minority rule–in which 40% can pass a law, for instance–creates total chaos because 40% will pass the bill, then a different 40% will repeal it). I would say that true democracy–in the second sense I defined it–fits neither of these definitions. Rather than giving any proportion of the population–1 person, a third, half, 3/4–the power to force its will on the remainder, it says there are certain ways in which _no_ group may force its will on the remainder. It’s true that amendments can be repealed, but that’s not the purpose of the rule; the limitations on governmental power embodied in the bill of rights were supposed to be so obvious they didn’t really need stating, and certainly weren’t expected to be changed. They were supposed to be perpetual limits on government power. This, then, is the distinction made by the ‘invocation of the monopoly of force’ that you asked about, 2sense. Those of us who incline toward the constitutionally-guaranteed-rights model say that it’s fine for the majority to make whatever rules it thinks are just, so long as these don’t violate the rights of the minority. Thus, I have no problem with a simple majority for decision-making. I also have no problem with an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a government that requires unanimity; as long as that government is not allowed to initiate violence, and to coerce innocents, I really don’t care how it makes its decisions. Now, I can say this more freely than others, because I subscribe to a broader definition of rights than others. Suffice it to say that there’s nothing wrong with a simple majority driving government in all spheres proper for government action. The limits on majority rule only serve to mark out places where _no_ man may make rules for another. They are not instances of minority rule; they are instances where rule as a whole is inappropriate. I conclude with Robert Nozick’s Tale of the Slave, which is about simple majority rule (taken from Anarchy, State, and Utopia, copyright 1974, pp290-292 in my book, in the chapter Demoktesis): “1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on. 2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time. 3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on. 4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own. 5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. HE further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking. 6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on. … 7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. Then they go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers. 8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. Thgis has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself ot letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.) 9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome. The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of the slave?” ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/57 "2003-12-23T05:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\*I misspoke. The Nazis came into government through a democratic process. \*\* ## I disagree. I don’t consider winning seats with blood and terror to be democratic. If Germany had had a functioning democracy it’s unlikely the Nazi terror campaigns would have been allowed and the Holocaust might have been avoided. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*The purpose of the Constitution is to ensure individual liberties first, and democracy only where it doesn’t intrude on that concept. Democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself. \*\* ## You are entitled to your opinion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by constantine \* > **According to Arrow’s theorem, (or at least according to my oversimplified paraphrase of it) in many circumstances, it is not clear that "majority view"is even a meaningful concept.** ## The Impossibility Theorem creates uncertainty in elections and referendums when there are multiple choices but in politics secondary preferences come more the merrier. They create fertile ground for compromise. Left to their own devices Abe, Betty, and Cynthia can find someplace to eat without undue conflict. Cynthia, for instance, is the only one that actively hates one resturant so she might be willing to give backrubs to keep from eating there. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pervert \* > \*\*I think you have misplaced you logic book. Failure to perform an action is not the same as performing another action. \*\* I don’t understand what you are saying here. I am talking about only one action. Either the government takes an action or it does not. There is only one decision: whether to take the action or not. > [@](#): > > **Remember, again, we are not talking about simple laws…** I think you are taking too much for granted. Who is to say which law is “simple” and which is not? You? Me? Them? Why should I have less than an equal say over which laws are considered ordinary? > [@](#): > > **Which is certainly a new power.** There is a key. It opens a door. First it’s our key and either of us can use it. Now it’s your key and only you can use it. Is it more powerful? No. It only opens the same door. _You_ are more powerful. You are the Doorwarden. Congratulations. > [@](#): > > **If congress no longer had to form consesus (consesi?) across states (to get ellected for instance) what prevents them from passing wildly unfair laws? You haven’t mentioned any so far.** Indeed I have said that nothing prevents them. I have offered no guarantees only questioned the reliance on minority rule. Y’all are the ones saying you can keep us safe. > [@](#): > > **Well, more people have to agree with the decision. That’s what wide approval means.** No. Because deciding NOT to follow a policy is a decision as well. NOT passing a bill is a decision. There is no need for wide approval for that decision either. If you require supermajorities the policy can be decided by the minority. > [@](#): > > **No, of course not. They are not even part of the same question.** The question is: “Should slaves be freed?” > [@](#): > > \*\*You have completely perverted the concepts of liberty and tyranny. Congratulations! I hereby grant you the rarely coveted Perverted Pendant! Preventing you from imposing your will is tyranny. Imposing you will on others is liberty. Priceless. \*\* My point was that there are different ideas of what constitutes liberty and tyranny. Will you take our divergent views as evidence? > [@](#): > > \*\*Constitutional Republic is **NOT** rule by minority. It is rule by the consent of the people. \*\* When have the people consented to this Republic? > [@](#): > > \*\*In the case of the US it also includes government by the majority. Can you name the congressmen, senators, judges or presidents who were unable to get elected because of our “undemocratic” system? Can you name a policy which the majority wants but which is denied by the constitution? \*\* ## I believe a majority want to ban flag burning and “partial birth” abortion. As for an issue I agree with, every poll I have seen going back to the 1950s shows that a majority wants to abolish the Electoral College. Twice within the last quarter century constitutional amendments to move to a direct vote have passed the House but died in the Senate. In both 1979 and 1989 a majority of Senators voted for it but neither bill could reach the required supermajority. ( The latter bill didn’t even acheive cloture. ) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*I read the linked article but couldn’t access the actual survey. It would be interesting to see how the question was phrased. If we did have a regularly scheduled Constitutional Convention, people might learn real quick that the changes enacted will seldom match up with the changes they wanted. \*\* I read it in context back in the day and we commented on it here in GD. IIRC we seemed to agree they were leading people to their conclusion a bit. But it was a while back. My memory could be faulty. The public education is my main hope for democracy. I think people are unresponsive to government because it is unresponsive to them. > [@](#): > > \*\*I see what you’re getting at, but since there is simply no mechanism for a popular vote to take place on the constitution (other than by enacting an amendment to allow or require it), it’s really just an academic exercise. Interesting, but unfortunately of no practical value. Even if a Constitutional Convention were to be called (as per Article V), there wouldn’t be a popular vote on the end result-- there is still the requirement of 3/4 of the states to ratify changes. \*\* ## Well, as far as that goes, there is the possibility at least of assuming constituent powers. That is- the Constitution specified itself how it would be ratified. You could argue from precedent that federal conventions do have the power to decide how their work should be ratified and they could just state that it become put to a plebiscite. More… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/58 "2003-12-23T05:47:38Z")
Sure, tyranny is liberty. Ignorance is strength, too. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/59 "2003-12-23T06:05:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > **If Germany had had a functioning democracy it’s unlikely the Nazi terror campaigns would have been allowed and the Holocaust might have been avoided.** And yet you suggest that “democracy” provides no guarantees. How exactly would majority rule have prevented this? > [@](#): > > **I don’t understand what you are saying here. I am talking about only one action. Either the government takes an action or it does not. There is only one decision: whether to take the action or not.** Exactly my point. Prevention of an action of force is not tyranny. Tyranny is when a behavior is forced on others. Or when a choice is forced on others. Voting for government action (in the sense that requires super majorities) means voting for (or against) using force against others. So, preventing one group (even the majority so long as it is not the super majority) from using force is the opposite of tyranny. Your opinion to the contrary is (as I said) a very good perversion of the term. > [@](#): > > \*\*I think you are taking too much for granted. Who is to say which law is “simple” and which is not? You? Me? Them? \*\* The super majority. You are arguing effectively that 51 percent of the people should be able to enact changes which 75% of the people do not want. How is that not tyranny even in your perverted version of the term? Just so I’m clear on that last paragraph, let me use your logic for a second. A decision not to do something is still a decision. The mechanisms for changing the constitution have been in place since the begining. We could elect a convention and re write the whole thing. We could change any particular part by amendment at any time. However, under the current rules, this requires a super majority. Since the super majority has not done this, I claim that the super majority does not want this. Therefore, you are asking that 51% of the population be able to overturn the decision made by 75%. > [@](#): > > **There is a key. It opens a door. First it’s our key and either of us can use it. Now it’s your key and only you can use it. Is it more powerful? No. It only opens the same door. _You_ are more powerful. You are the Doorwarden. Congratulations.** Yes, except we are not talking about keys and doors. We are talking about bariers in general. If the current situation is a key, then a better analogy would be to chainsaws and dynamite. Let’s say there is a door in a wall. It keeps out evil The ten of us have a key and it takes 7 keys to open the door. What you are asking for is tools the 5 of us could use to completely destroy the wall. > [@](#): > > **My point was that there are different ideas of what constitutes liberty and tyranny. Will you take our divergent views as evidence?** Only if you forget about things like dictionaries, common usage, and reason. We can disagree that a particular tends towards tyranny or not. But to call the constitution tyranny perverts the term beyond all reason. Sorry, but it does. > [@](#): > > **I believe a majority want to ban flag burning and “partial birth” abortion.** Exactly. Both examples of initiating the use of force. Both examples of imposing the will of the some(polls might disagree on how many in each camp) on others. Especially, these are invasions of the right to free speech and to be secure in one’s person. Rights which the super majority (as I explained above) have maintained as important. The minority was not able to enforce any opinion except that this is one opinion not to be enforced. I know its complicated, but there is a HUGE difference between this situation and minority rule. See **jadagul** ’s post above for a description which is less snotty. I can’t seem to resist. > [@](#): > > \*\*As for an issue I agree with, every poll I have seen going back to the 1950s shows that a majority wants to abolish the Electoral College. \*\* Precisely. The majority can be wrong too ([You knew I was going to link to this eventually](http://www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_links.htm) ). So, in the interest of stability we leave decisions concerning the powers that the govenrment has up to a super majority. Only if the _vast_ majority disagree with the system do we change it. Meanwhile, with very few exceptions, the popular candidate for president has always been elected. Can you make the same claim? Especially given your “no guarantees” statement? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711/60 "2003-12-23T06:06:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*Sure, tyranny is liberty. > > Ignorance is strength, too. \*\* Don’t forget war is peace. Love is hate. etc. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-democratic-is-the-american-constitution/219711.md?page=4)