Common misconceptions about "pure democracy"

[Edric O]

This seems to be an exclusively American problem, but it's a widespread one. The US government seems to have succeeded in convincing a large chunk of the population that "pure democracy" is somehow bad, and that therefore the majority should bow to the wishes of a minority. This is, of course, utterly idiotic nonsense. It's a myth created for the purpose of keeping American democracy weak.

The myth states that a "pure democracy" is a system in which 50%+1 of the population could effectively enslave the rest. And the reason why this myth is utterly stupid is because it takes no notice of things like written law or human rights.

In any democracy, there are certain human rights written down as laws. The most important of these laws form the Constitution. The majority cannot take a decision that goes against the Constitution without first changing the Constitution. And this requires more than a simple majority (50%+1). In a pure democracy, you would need at least a super-majority (66%) to make changes in the Constitution. And the more important the laws you want to change, the greater the majority you need to change them. In order to change highly important laws, you would need the agreement of 75% or more of the population. This ensures that the dissatisfied minority is very small, so you can't talk about a "tyanny of the majority".

And finally, in order to change the very core of your Constitution (in order to abolish human rights and establish slavery, for example), you would need no less than a FULL CONSENSUS (100%). In other words, a person can veto any attempts to enslave him/her.

There is no tyranny in such a pure democracy.

[Edric O]

You see, in order to avoid a tyranny of the majority, what you need is a Constitution that guarantees human rights, and which can only be changed by a super-majority vote or by a full consensus.

Putting power in the hands of a minority because you're afraid of the majority is beyond idiotic. The worst tyrannies in history have been those of various minorities or even tiny groups of people who enslaved the vast majority of their country's population.

As for why the American system is flawed, consider the following example:

Let's say you have a population of 300 people, divided into 100 states of 3 people each. They use the American voting system to elect their leader. Now let's say there are two candidates, Ralph and George. George wins 2 votes in 51 states. Ralph wins all 3 votes in the other 49 states, plus 1 vote in each of the first 51 states. So the final results are:

George: 51 states

Ralph: 49 states

According to the American system, George won the elections. But let's count the actual number of votes each candidate got:

George: 2 x 51 = 102 votes

Ralph: 3 x 49 + 1 x 51 = 198 votes

Ralph didn't just win the popular vote, he won almost a 2/3 majority! And yet according to the American system, George gets to be President.

See the problem?

[VigilVirus]

Of course pure democracy is a lot better than the representative democracy of the US. Anyone who doesn't get that has allowed himself to be brainwashed into just blind love for his government.

Pure democracy is one of the best, if not the best forms of government, but it would require people participating to have a certain standard for education.

[Anathema]

I never heard anybody before describing "pure democracy" as a theoretical model ::)

The US is what we should call a district model, and the model Edric advocates a proportional model.

Another issue is that emprworm calls the US a democratic republic. Republic is a broad term that covers anything wich isn't a monarchy, simple as that. It's derived from the latin term res publica, meaning public affairs. A republic can be undemocratic, or it could be a "pure democracy".

District models are acceptable when the seperate districts should be recognised as individual bodies, such as when every state has a culture of its own. However in a nation with largely cultural unity there's no point.

Edit for DA:

Representative democracy means that people vote for candidates to represent them in parliament. The opposite would be direct democracy, advocated by Rousseau, in wich people vote directly about issues. It's commonly accepted that direct democracy only works in small groups.

[Edric O]

The fact that I support a proportional model of democracy is only part of my argument.

The other part of my argument is that putting all the power in the hands of the people will NOT result in a "tyranny of the majority" (see my first post).

"Pure democracy" would of course be a form of direct democracy - such as in communism, for example.

[emprworm]

You see, in order to avoid a tyranny of the majority, what you need is a Constitution that guarantees human rights, and which can only be changed by a super-majority vote or by a full consensus.

Putting power in the hands of a minority because you're afraid of the majority is beyond idiotic. The worst tyrannies in history have been those of various minorities or even tiny groups of people who enslaved the vast majority of their country's population.

As for why the American system is flawed, consider the following example:

Let's say you have a population of 300 people, divided into 100 states of 3 people each. They use the American voting system to elect their leader. Now let's say there are two candidates, Ralph and George. George wins 2 votes in 51 states. Ralph wins all 3 votes in the other 49 states, plus 1 vote in each of the first 51 states. So the final results are:

George: 51 states

Ralph: 49 states

According to the American system, George won the elections. But let's count the actual number of votes each candidate got:

George: 2 x 51 = 102 votes

Ralph: 3 x 49 + 1 x 51 = 198 votes

Ralph didn't just win the popular vote, he won almost a 2/3 majority! And yet according to the American system, George gets to be President.

See the problem?

no, its not a problem at all.

[Edric O]

If you had read my FIRST POST, you would know that this is not a duplicate thread. This thread is about how a "tyranny of the majority" is avoided by using written laws which guarantee human rights, as opposed to letting a minority rule over the majority. In other words, I explained that a pure democracy is NOT a tyranny of the majority.

In my second post I presented the same argument as in another thread, but that was only meant as an add-on.

Your example demonstrates that the inherent "flaw" in a pure democracy is that it caters to the intrerests of the majority. Well excuse me, but isn't that what a democracy is supposed to do?

Your point seems to be that "the majority can be wrong and/or stupid sometimes, so we should let the minority rule". That is the kind of flawed logic that can be used as an excuse for dictatorship - and it is flawed because a minority tends to be stupid and/or wrong far more often than the majority.

If China enters the EU, why should the tiny European nations have the power to dictate their own terms to the Chinese people? What right do 400 million Europeans have to tell 1 billion Chinese what to do?

As for my example, the point was to show that "states" are an arbitrary division. Unlike your example, mine did not mention any specific countries or peoples. I only presented the pure mathematical flaw with the American electoral system.

The purpose of any democracy is to ensure majority rule.

[emprworm]

If you had read my FIRST POST, you would know that this is not a duplicate thread. This thread is about how a "tyranny of the majority" is avoided by using written laws which guarantee human rights, as opposed to letting a minority rule over the majority. In other words, I explained that a pure democracy is NOT a tyranny of the majority.

how could you ever have a law that supercedes the majority???

GOtcha edric!

If the majority want to CHANGE THE LAW, how on earth can you put the law above the majority?  If the mob says "blacks are less than human" and the law says "no they aren't" then the mob simply says "well, lets change the law"

Now you have a real problem, Edric.  For if you do not allow the majority to change the law, then you are NOT advocating pure democracy.

check and mate.

[Edric O]

See, this is why you should have paid more attention in English class:

In any democracy, there are certain human rights written down as laws. The most important of these laws form the Constitution. The majority cannot take a decision that goes against the Constitution without first changing the Constitution. And this requires more than a simple majority (50%+1). In a pure democracy, you would need at least a super-majority (66%) to make changes in the Constitution. And the more important the laws you want to change, the greater the majority you need to change them. In order to change highly important laws, you would need the agreement of 75% or more of the population. This ensures that the dissatisfied minority is very small, so you can't talk about a "tyanny of the majority".

And finally, in order to change the very core of your Constitution (in order to abolish human rights and establish slavery, for example), you would need no less than a FULL CONSENSUS (100%). In other words, a person can veto any attempts to enslave him/her.

There is no tyranny in such a pure democracy.

So yeah, the majority could change the law and declare blacks subhuman... but it would have to be more than a majority - it would have to be a 100% CONSENSUS.

In other words, blacks can be declared subhuman only if all blacks agree to it, which will obviously never happen.

[SurlyPIG]

Ack...was a new topic really necessary ??? ?

[emprworm]

See, this is why you should have paid more attention in English class:

So yeah, the majority could change the law and declare blacks subhuman... but it would have to be more than a majority - it would have to be a 100% CONSENSUS.

In other words, blacks can be declared subhuman only if all blacks agree to it, which will obviously never happen.

thats not democracy, Edric.

[danielsh]

thats not democracy, Edric.

[emprworm]

Do you not read, or do you not comprehend? I'm curious to know, because it seemed clear beyond all doubt that Edric was emphasizing a "sliding scale" of support. In order to change the core of a government's nature, 100% of the vote would be needed. In order to pass a traffic law, maybe 50% (or less) would be needed.

Answer me this daniel:

[GUNWOUNDS]

"The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can ever help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population --- the intelligent ones or the fools? I think we can agree it's the fools, no matter where you go in this world, it's the fools that form the overwhelming majority."

Henrik Ibsen

Absolute... Genius......

:)

[Edric O]

Pure genius, you say? Hitler agrees. Every dictator and tyrant in history agrees.

This has been the excuse for the deaths of millions, for the enslavement of nations, for 5000 years of tyranny, oppression and exploitation. "The majority is stupid", they say. "And we are the intelligent minority who deserves to lead them."

But no matter how intelligent the minority, it always caters to its own interests. Never the interests of the people.

And that's in the rare instances when the minority actually is more intelligent. Usually, the fools at the top are much bigger fools than the fools in the masses.

Only the people have the right to lead the people.

[emprworm]

Pure genius, you say? Hitler agrees. Every dictator and tyrant in history agrees.

This has been the excuse for the deaths of millions, for the enslavement of nations, for 5000 years of tyranny, oppression and exploitation. "The majority is stupid", they say. "And we are the intelligent minority who deserves to lead them."

most people ARE stupid Edric.  That is an undeniable fact.  As I have exposed you on another thread....you do not endorse pure democracy if you have laws that trump the majority.  You are an inconsistent socialist that cannot even keep yourself from contradicting yourself from one thread to the next

[danielsh]

Yes, empr, the only reason I agree with Edric is to irritate you. I would never defend an opinion given by a person whose beliefs seem similar to mine for any other reason. You've caught me again! (Clinton, by the way, liked to find out what the ultra-conservatives thought and what the ultra-liberals thought, then pick the stance right in the middle and stick with that. I have never done such a thing.) Anyway...

The three men in your room were attempting to take one of the women's basic human rights. As I understand it, Edric is proposing a direct democracy that would allow each individual to vote, but would still have certain failsafes.

The Founding Fathers could not have established a pure democracy thanks to the conservatives of the bunch. Men like James Madison, who saw the unequal distribution of property as critical to a free state, kept a truly progressive government from being created. And, aside from some glimmers of liberalism, the Constitution was generally not an overly radical document. Too many classical ideas about the distribution of wealth and power remained. The Founding Fathers recognized that they needed a way to placate the masses' demands for a just system while protecting their own power: a republic. They were not infallible.

[Edric O]

Answer me this daniel:  if 100% of the vote is needed to change the core of government, how does the government ever come into being?  can you call it a democracy when you impose it?

Either by consensus, or by a majority vote of some sort, depending on the situation.

So yes, in the beginning, you will probably not need a consensus to establish the form of government. A majority (let's say a super-majority - 66%) will suffice.

This isn't perfect, of course, but do you have any better idea? You're afraid that the majority might impose unfair laws on the minority - but if you let a minority decide the form of government, what's to stop that minority from imposing unfair laws on the majority?

You talk about PURE democracy, yet when it comes down to it, you abandon it and start implementing "rules" that TRANSCEND the majority will of the people.  IF EVEN ONE SINGLE LAW EXISTS, THAT TRANSCENDS THE MAJORITY WILL OF THE PEOPLE, you no longer have pure democracy.

NOT IF THAT LAW IS ESTABLISHED BY THE MAJORITY ITSELF.

And who said that the majority must be a simple 50%+1 majority? More important laws demand a higher majority.

If you don't want to call this "pure" democracy, fine. Just know that this is the democracy I'm supporting.

[Edric O]

most people ARE stupid Edric.  That is an undeniable fact.

In that case, most people in minorities are also stupid, so if you don't have a democracy, the odds of having a stupid minority in charge are greater than 50%.

If most people are stupid, then it follows that most leaders are also stupid.

you do not endorse pure democracy if you have laws that trump the majority.

See the post above. This is the kind of democracy I support - you can call it whatever you like.

[emprworm]

Either by consensus, or by a majority vote of some sort, depending on the situation.

if you espouse a "PURE DEMOCRACY" then there is only one option here.

And who said that the majority must be a simple 50%+1 majority?

the definition of Democracy.

[Edric O]

if you espouse a "PURE DEMOCRACY" then there is only one option here.

You know very well what kind of democracy I defend. Call it whatever you like - pure or impure, the name makes no difference.

how nice.  ANd just who determines what laws are "more important?"  YOU or the PEOPLE?  If you truly espouse a PURE DEMOCRACY, then you will put ALL power...not some...not 99%...but ALL...into the hands of the people.  If the majority will a particular law to be NOT IMPORTANT then you have no right to say otherwise.

The people have to decide the importance of a law right from the beginning. They can't come along and say "well, we thought that law was important before, but now we want to downgrade it". Why? Because this invites chaos and defeats the purpose of having a Constitution in the first place.

And you can bet that the people will place a high importance on the laws that guarantee their rights to life and liberty. I haven't yet met anyone who said he would like to be enslaved and killed.

You, Edric, criticized a democratic republic by citing an example of 100 countries of 3 people where a leader gets 2/3 of the vote and still doesn't get elected.  You said such a thing was horrible....how dare a 2/3 majority not become policy!!    AND HERE YOU ARE, MR HYPOCRITE telling me that 2/3 of the people can decide that blacks are subhuman and it still isn't enough!  woah!  Your double standard makes me puke

There is a difference between electing a leader and violating human rights.

In my example, the 1/3 minority elected the leader, thus telling the majority what to do. In the matter of human rights, the 1/3 minority is telling the majority what NOT to do.

You do know the difference between a positive and a negative, right? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GIVING THE MINORITY THE ABILITY TO VETO THE DECISIONS OF THE MAJORITY AND GIVING THE MINORITY THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN DECISIONS ON THE MAJORITY.

Admit it, Edric, a pure democracy is horrible.  Also called a mobocracy.  Mob rule is a great way to define pure democracy.  I would never ever vote for something like that to be in place.  Who in their right mind...ESPECIALLY a minority...would EVER want to have a pure democracy as their form of government?

People who value their freedom. People who do not want to be enslaved. People who do not believe in the divine right of kings or the divine right or any other privileged minority to dictate how the majority should live.

Whatever the majority can do in a pure democracy, the MINORITY can do in all other forms of government. Tell me, Emprworm, do you feel safe knowing that a few hundred of your "representatives" have the power to decide over your life and death?

There is absolutely NO protection for minorities in a pure democracy.  None...zippo. The only way you can get that is through a representative democracy.  That way, every minority has REPRESENTATION in the culture, and in the government.

Yes, and therefore the minority can tell the majority what to do. That's not democracy any more. That is tyranny.

Do you know why people first invented democracy? Because the majority was enslaved and oppressed by privileged minorities. Because there was this minority called "the aristocracy" who could tell the majority what to do.

Do you want a return to aristocracy and feudalism, Emprworm?

What a great word, right Edric?  "Representation"....a very nice term.  Think about it.  Meditate on it....once you do, maybe you will find a new level of compassion for underpriveledged minorities.

My democratic system of "progressive voting" defends minorities. Your insane undemocratic system lets them rule over the majority.

How do you define a minority? Are blue-eyed people a minority that needs to be represented? Do women with black hair require their own special voting privileges?

You draw arbitrary borders between minorities. You say that the state of Vermont is a minority which needs to be represented in the US elections by more than its tiny population entitles it to. But why is the state of Vermont a minority, and blue-eyed Americans aren't?

Minorities should be protected, but a democracy means RULE OF THE MAJORITY.

A rule of the minority is tyranny.

I am astounded, Edric, that you do not endorse this view of representative democracy, as your precious UN embraces it fully. You are an odd chap, Edric.  Make absolutely no sense 90% of the time.

My "precious" UN? The UN is full of holes. I support the UN in principle, and I certainly see a UN-endorsed invasion as the only legitimate form of military action, but that doesn't mean I agree with the stupid way in which the UN is organized. It should use proportional democracy, it should eliminate veto power, it should change a lot of things...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Pure genius, you say? Hitler agrees. Every dictator and tyrant in history agrees.

So what?... maybe Hitler like the color orange... that doesnt mean that the color orange is evil too....

Dont judge what is wrong and right by what Hitler said and did....

I believe you gave empworm the same advice in another thread....

  ::)

[Edric O]

I believe you missed the whole point... the Hitler comment was only a side remark. What I said was:

This has been the excuse for the deaths of millions, for the enslavement of nations, for 5000 years of tyranny, oppression and exploitation. "The majority is stupid", they say. "And we are the intelligent minority who deserves to lead them."

But no matter how intelligent the minority, it always caters to its own interests. Never the interests of the people.

And that's in the rare instances when the minority actually is more intelligent. Usually, the fools at the top are much bigger fools than the fools in the masses.

Only the people have the right to lead the people.

[Edric O]

By the way, I also want to give my reply to the anti-democratic article Emprworm posted a while back (well, actually only a few hours ago):

Emprworm, your definition of a "republic" is laughable - it's taken straight out of the conservative propaganda booklet, and, as usual, it ignores the fact that the USA is not the only country in the world. It's one of the greatest lies that conservatives are trying to hammer into the minds of the American people, for the purpose of turning them into obedient sheep who follow their undemocratic leaders without question, because they've been led to believe that "democracy" is bad.

According to that ridiculous definition, constitutional monarchies such as Britain or Norway are "republics"! Tell me, does Britain look like a republic to you?

The proper term you should use is "parlamentary democracy", not "republic". But we all know how much you hate the word "democracy", don't we?

Now, I ask whoever is reading these lines to please observe the utter contempt that conservatives have for the will of the people. Emprworm isn't making an argument against "pure" democracy - he is making an argument against democracy itself. He is in fact arguing for dictatorship, using the exact same arguments as Dust Scout (remember my discussion with Dust Scout in which he supported autocracy and I defended democracy?).

A SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION

Five people are sitting in a room. Four of them are women, while the fifth one is a man, and he is their elected representative, under "republican" law. This is not a democracy, so the elected representative takes all the decisions. He decides to legalize rape. What happens next is "republicanism" in action.

A SIMPLE DEFINITION

Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy is built on the premise that people should rule themselves, as opposed to having a tyrant (or a tyrannical minority) rule over them. Democracy is freedom.

Is it "mob rule"? If you want to use that derogatory term, yes. And it's better for the mob to rule, than to be chained and enslaved.

A DISCUSSION

Of course it is possible for the majority to abuse the minority in a democratic system. But in a non-democratic system (such as your so-called "republic"), it is possible for the minority to abuse the majority, which is far worse.

The most extreme form of republican abuse is when a minority of ONE MAN can abuse the majority made up of everyone else in the country. This is tyranny at its worst. This is what Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein did.

One ridiculous conservative argument is how they cite Ancient Athens as an example of the "failure" of democracy, when in fact Ancient Athens lasted far longer than the United States or any other modern "republic"!

What your Founding Fathers wanted is irrelevant. They were not infallible living gods, so stop treating them as such. If they didn't want democracy, they were WRONG.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

No one knows what you want better than you know yourself. No one knows what you need better than you know yourself. If a "republic" is a system in which the government tells the people what they should want, then the perfect republic was the Soviet Union.

The majority is never right. Never, I tell you!

Hitler agrees. Every dictator and tyrant in history agrees.

This has been the excuse for the deaths of millions, for the enslavement of nations, for 5000 years of tyranny, oppression and exploitation. "The majority is stupid", they say. "And we are the intelligent minority who deserves to lead them."

But no matter how intelligent the minority, it always caters to its own interests. Never the interests of the people.

Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression ... attitude toward property is communistic ...

Well, that's one thing you got right! :)

Communism is the ultimate form of democracy.

And sure, democracy is not perfect. But it never claimed to be. Democracy is only better than any other form of government. And I am not the first to say it:

Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others.

- Winston Churchill

[Caid Ivik]

What is pure democracy? When all citizens are direct carriers of legislative, justice and executive? Like ancient Athenai? You are true, EdricO, such system would be perfect if we had enough education, as nowadays is legislative too extensive for a man who had not studied it. However, I still doubt it can be made in scale of state with 250 million citizens. We can turn it into millions of small towns with few thousands, but still, for larger projects you would need at least a confederation. Then I would rather choose a represantative.

System of USA is close, but with too much power in the center. Or maybe only too much focus. And also it has source of most problems, the parties.