Common misconceptions about "pure democracy"

[filecore]

I'm just curious about what the situation would therefore be in countries like my own (the UK) which don't even have a written constitution :O does this mean that 100% of people would have to agree in a vote to change... what?  There is no constitution, ergo there can be no change?  Because CREATING a written constitution would be a pretty major thing but I'm fairly sure that there would be a few percent (ie, not 100%) who would benefit from the current setup and hence, not agree :-

[emprworm]

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.

Oh, I get it.

[Anathema]

The theory behind representative democracy is that since people can't possibly be expected to know sufficiently to make an adequate judgement about all decisions to be made, they will choose somebody who does. By ensuring that this representative only stays in office by the endorsement of the represented policy is made that coincides with the will of the people.

Simply said, in direct democracy people are expected to decide for themselves. Yet there are, and always will be, things people don't know enough about to be qualified to give judgement about.

About the US presidential election, it's different. The president is a representative indirectly elected. Whereas parliament decisions are made by a single remove, presidential elections are made by 2 removes.

As Edric said, a minority opressing a majority is still worse then the otherway around, and there's no 100% protection against either of them.

There's no reason why people can't put racist people in the electoral college, so a consequense is that a racist minority could make Adolf Hitler president of America.

[emprworm]

The theory behind representative democracy is that since people can't possibly be expected to know sufficiently to make an adequate judgement about all decisions to be made,

I disagree.  The main purpose of representative democracy is so that, in a civilization with diverse culture and people groups, all are fairly represented so that they are protected from the possibility of a mobarcy.

I like to picture the future of human democracy similar to what was in Star Wars I.  The huge federation of planets gathered together in a giant congress.  Each planet had a representative elected on that planet by its inhabitants.  THe populations of each planet were diverse, but representation in the federation was constant.  The galactic senate was composed of representatives from each planet...hence a democratic republic.  This is also the government of Star Trek.    This is democracy as it should be.

[filecore]

I like to picture the future of human democracy similar to what was in Star Wars I.

This is democracy as it should be.

Hmm, as far as I'm concerned the idea of the current system is to have a smaller and smaller subdivision so that ultimiatly everyone's voice is passed up the chain.  Look at it from the top down.  In the British system, at least, the PM makes the decisions.  BUT he is advised by MPs, who are elected by constituencies.  The constituencies are formed of council zones, which are represented by councillors.  These councillors are elected by the ordinary people of each smaller area within the council zones, and so on.  So inversely, the common man puts his case to the councillor, who takes it to the council, who debate its place against the concerns of OTHER people, and that decision is taken to the next one up...

The net effect of this is that everyone can have a say, but not every one of 12 million desires can be carried out.  So even though it doesn't work that way, those matters which the common societies of a particular area deem important (by peer consent) are carried up the chain until they reach a level where they are debated (this can be up to the Prime Ministerial level) and a solution is put forward.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but in theory every voice has the opportunity to be heard, and if what it is saying is agreed to be important, it is moved up the chain a bit more.

[danielsh]

I disagree.

[emprworm]

But then why does representative democracy so often fail to defend human rights? Where were our glorious political leaders for the Civil Rights Movement, or the Women's Rights Movement? Where were they when the abolitionists were fighting against slavery? Or when workers were fighting for their rights? It takes powerful social movements to push the government to do anything. If representative democracy is truly able to represent all citizens fairly, then why doesn't it?

does slavery still existin the U.S.?

[danielsh]

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

--Emma Goldman

We cannot attribute the abolition of slavery to the government; we have the abolitionists to thank for that. Nor can we attribute the growth of African-American rights to the government; we have the civil rights leaders to thank for that. Nor can we attribute women's suffrage to the government; we have suffragists to thank for that.

I didn't bring up homosexuality in this thread, because I have no desire to make this a part of every conversation on the forum now. However, I will say it again: homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice," or any other kind of choice; I did not suggest that the gay rights movement has the same scope or gravity as the abolition of slavery or the civil rights movement, I simply drew parallels between the two; and finally, "A witty saying proves nothing."

[Edric O]

Oh, I get it.  Put the power in the hands of the first generation, but take it out of the hands of the second.  nice way to ensure all future generations will be oppressed!!

Say goodbye to "power to the people"!  We have Edric's totalitaria!

Wait a minute, that sounds familiar... could it be because this is exactly what your Founding Fathers did?

They were a tiny group of people who made extremely important decisions for the entire nation.

And yet I never heard you say anything like "Say goodbye to 'power to the people'!  We have the Founding Fathers' totalitaria!"

thats what the germans thought when they elected hitler

The Germans did not elect Hitler. He only got 1/3 of the vote, and then became chancellor as a result of political maneuvering (he made an alliance with the conservatives).

But wait, I forgot. Under your representative democracy, it's okay for a man who only got 1/3 of the vote to win the elections!

your example was also poor.  If 100 areas of 3 people each were such that the majority of the people wanted "X", then its pretty easy that all those people need to do is move, thereby ensuring that the majority of areas have the correct vote.

If your population is 300 people, of course it's easy for them to move. But if your population is 300 million, you would have to move entire cities...

Even in a representative democracy, power is in the hands of the people, yet it offers layers of protection that pure democracy doesn't.

Yes, it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority by subjugating the majority to a tyranny of the minority. ::)

Consider a community of 10 townehomes.  THey all share the same neighborhood, same facilities, same resources (water, electricity, roads, communal laws, etc).  To determine new rules governing the community, a vote is held once a year to elect a governor.

Now, in 9 of the homes, you have decent, hard working families.  In home number 1, for instance, you have a man and his wife with 2 children.  THey are great people, extremely responsible (this is a key word I will refer to later) and work hard.  This is the same with homes #2-9.  The total amount of people living in homes 1-9 is 28.  Home #10 is another story.  Here you have a bunch of slobs. 6 youthful hemp-smoking druggie girls, 5 men, all married in a single "polygamous" gang bang marriage (one big happy family), popping out child after child.  Within 4 years, there are 29 people crammed in the house.  With every child that is popped out, a heavier tax load is placed on all the others because now they must work harder to support the additional people.  This year, there are 3 people running for "governor".  One of them, whos name is Seth, is one of the men in house #10.  His campaign promise is that "all who live in house #10 will get more community assistance!  I promise that if you live  in house #10, I will bring you better food, and a larger home." 

THe other people on the block resent that they have to work harder because of one households irresponsible behavior.  They resent that they have to be punished for living responsibly, while the mob in a single home can live irresponsibly and be rewarded.

That scenario is stupid and incredibly flawed. Why? Because you ASSUME that the minority who gets to make the decisions in a representative democracy just *happens* to be a minority of responsible, hard-working people. In other words, you argue against democracy by presenting an anecdote in which you ASSUME that the minority is right and the majority is wrong.

My example was appropriate because I did not make any moral judgements. I did not say which one of the two candidates (Ralph or George) was better. I only showed you that in your representative democracy, George can win the elections with only 1/3 of the vote.

And your counter-argument is "Yes, but George is better than Ralph". ::)

You argue that the minority is better than the majority, when in reality you have no guarantee of such a thing.

Here, let me use your own example to explain:

What if lazy bums and hard workers are spread randomly in each of the 10 houses? Or what if the responsible, hard-working majority is all crammed into a single house, while the irresponsible lazy bums are spread out in the other 9 houses?

Let's say there are 10 houses in your neighborhood. The first 9 are ugly shacks inhabited by 5 lazy slackers each. The slackers are careful not to have any children, because they're too lazy to take care of babies. The 10th house is a huge, splendid mansion, inhabited by several hard-working, responsible and honest families. All in all, there are 55 people living in the mansion.

The responsible, hard-working "mob" in the 10th house forms the majority of the population of this neighborhood. They rightfully assume that they should get the majority of votes. But here comes Emprworm with his representative voting system, and gives each house 1 vote. Now the slackers in the other 9 houses have absolute power over the workers, since the slackers have 9 votes and the workers only 1. 

FLASH FORWARD TO FUTURE, 10 YEARS

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

In Emprworm's representative democracy, homes #1-9 are deciding year after year the election.  Eventually the workers in home #10 are ruined. All their life savings are gone, their children's college fund in empty, and they must work like slaves for the minority in homes #1-9. The shacks begin to improve, the slackers live like kings even though they don't lift a single finger to work, while the mansion at #10 collapses into ruin and disrepair. The workers can barely afford basic necessities any more. They wear rags and eat the scraps from the slackers' table.

The workers are poor and miserable, while the slackers are filthy rich. Welcome to capitalism!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See the point? It's true that the majority can abuse the minority in a pure democracy. But in a representative democracy or in a dictatorship, the minority can abuse the majority, which is far worse.

[Anathema]

I disagree.

[emprworm]

Wait a minute, that sounds familiar... could it be because this is exactly what your Founding Fathers did?

They were a tiny group of people who made extremely important decisions for the entire nation.

And yet I never heard you say anything like "Say goodbye to 'power to the people'!

[emprworm]

But even this doesn't justify giving a 10% minority the same voting power as a 40% minority, because there's als a such a thing as too unproportional. Would you give a state with a population of 10 people half of the voting power of entire California?

no.

[Edric O]

Read my previous post, then read Emprworm's reply. Notice anything? The worm tries to pull his old tricks again: Whenever his arguments are utterly demolished, he changes the subject and blatantly ignores those parts of my post which he can't refute.

I'm sorry, Emprworm, but you're not weaseling your way out of this one. First I'll reply to your filthy little attempts to change the subject and run away from my arguments, then I'll go back to the points which you didn't address and expose your idiocy for all to see.

My founding fathers set up a democratic republic.  I'm not the one claiming a pure democracy is superior...YOU ARE.

This is Emprworm's first attempt to change the subject. We were talking about how the first generation imposes its will on future generations by writing the constitution. Emprworm called this "Edric's totalitaria". I pointed out that the Founding Fathers of the USA did exactly the same thing. They were a handful of rich white men who wrote a constitution that millions of Americans are supposed to obey.

So make up your mind, Emprworm: Is it good or bad for a certain generation to write a set of laws that all future generations are supposed to obey?

I'd call it a "necessary evil". You HAVE TO write a constitution, and you can't go to the future and ask your great-grandchildren what they'd like to put in it. All you can do is to give them the ability to change it when it becomes obsolete.

And your model of democracy is far from being a "pure" one.  I am beginning to think you don't even know what you are talking about.

I am beginning to think you seriously need to improve your reading skills:

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

Were you blind at the time I wrote that?

I AGREE with what my forefathers did simply because I DETEST pure democracy! ::)

Your founding fathers DETESTED a system where a tiny minority dictated its terms to the majority. It was called Absolute Monarchy. They were rebels running away from it.

Your Founding Fathers created a system that gave more power to the majority than any other system of their day.

if the population is 300 million, you would never have an entire city with a 100% vote, unless a mobarcy was developed, thus the necessity for a democratic republic.

Changing the subject again. We weren't talking about the 100% vote here - we were talking about your claim that the majority can simply MOVE if it wants to have its wishes respected in your democratic republic.

I pointed out that it would be necessary to move entire cities from one state to another in order for the majority to achieve the goal of having its voice heard.

When there is a disagreement between the minority and the majority, and one of them has to move, then the MINORITY is the one who should move. It's only reasonable; moving a hundred people is easier than moving a million.

Ever see Star Trek? Federation of planets.

Of course. The Federation is a communist society - I have every reason to like it.

Each planet has a representative.  Planets elect their representatives, regardless of planetary populace, who in turn make up the galactic congress.  This is how democracy should be.

You compare planets to states? Planets are chunks of rock situated thousands of light-years apart - states are just lines drawn on a map! Planets are natural. States are artificial.

Minorities get squashed in your system.  In your government, slavery would have never ended.

The majority gets squashed in your system. In your government, the issue of whether slavery is acceptable or not would be decided by a tiny group of a few hundred people - acting "in the name" of millions. The point is not whether that tiny minority is right or wrong about issue X; the point is that the tiny minority has tyrannical power over the majority.

And what happens if the ruling minority is FOR slavery, even while the majority is against it?

you showed the stupidity of the 2/3 majority.  If the 2/3 majority are going to be that dumb as to give an election away to the 1/3 minority, then I can promise you that I would be VERY thankful that their idiot candidate did not get elected.

2/3 of the people are morons for allowing a minority to subjugate them.

ROFLMAO. This is the cheapest, most pathetic attempt to cover your ass that I've ever seen.

Essentially, you're saying that your system is a BAD one, but if the majority is stupid enough to tolerate it, then they deserve what's coming to them.

You're saying that the people who accept to be ruled by a minority instead of the majority are idiots.

Thank you, Emprworm. I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[Edric O]

And now I'll re-post the part that Emprworm ignored:

Consider a community of 10 townehomes.  THey all share the same neighborhood, same facilities, same resources (water, electricity, roads, communal laws, etc).  To determine new rules governing the community, a vote is held once a year to elect a governor.

Now, in 9 of the homes, you have decent, hard working families.  In home number 1, for instance, you have a man and his wife with 2 children.  THey are great people, extremely responsible (this is a key word I will refer to later) and work hard.  This is the same with homes #2-9.  The total amount of people living in homes 1-9 is 28.  Home #10 is another story.  Here you have a bunch of slobs. 6 youthful hemp-smoking druggie girls, 5 men, all married in a single "polygamous" gang bang marriage (one big happy family), popping out child after child.  Within 4 years, there are 29 people crammed in the house.  With every child that is popped out, a heavier tax load is placed on all the others because now they must work harder to support the additional people.  This year, there are 3 people running for "governor".  One of them, whos name is Seth, is one of the men in house #10.  His campaign promise is that "all who live in house #10 will get more community assistance!  I promise that if you live  in house #10, I will bring you better food, and a larger home." 

THe other people on the block resent that they have to work harder because of one households irresponsible behavior.  They resent that they have to be punished for living responsibly, while the mob in a single home can live irresponsibly and be rewarded.

That scenario is stupid and incredibly flawed. Why? Because you ASSUME that the minority who gets to make the decisions in a representative democracy just *happens* to be a minority of responsible, hard-working people. In other words, you argue against democracy by presenting an anecdote in which you ASSUME that the minority is right and the majority is wrong.

My example was appropriate because I did not make any moral judgements. I did not say which one of the two candidates (Ralph or George) was better. I only showed you that in your representative democracy, George can win the elections with only 1/3 of the vote.

And your counter-argument is "Yes, but George is better than Ralph". ::)

You argue that the minority is better than the majority, when in reality you have no guarantee of such a thing.

Here, let me use your own example to explain:

What if lazy bums and hard workers are spread randomly in each of the 10 houses? Or what if the responsible, hard-working majority is all crammed into a single house, while the irresponsible lazy bums are spread out in the other 9 houses?

Let's say there are 10 houses in your neighborhood. The first 9 are ugly shacks inhabited by 5 lazy slackers each. The slackers are careful not to have any children, because they're too lazy to take care of babies. The 10th house is a huge, splendid mansion, inhabited by several hard-working, responsible and honest families. All in all, there are 55 people living in the mansion.

The responsible, hard-working "mob" in the 10th house forms the majority of the population of this neighborhood. They rightfully assume that they should get the majority of votes. But here comes Emprworm with his representative voting system, and gives each house 1 vote. Now the slackers in the other 9 houses have absolute power over the workers, since the slackers have 9 votes and the workers only 1. 

FLASH FORWARD TO FUTURE, 10 YEARS

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

In Emprworm's representative democracy, homes #1-9 are deciding year after year the election.  Eventually the workers in home #10 are ruined. All their life savings are gone, their children's college fund in empty, and they must work like slaves for the minority in homes #1-9. The shacks begin to improve, the slackers live like kings even though they don't lift a single finger to work, while the mansion at #10 collapses into ruin and disrepair. The workers can barely afford basic necessities any more. They wear rags and eat the scraps from the slackers' table.

The workers are poor and miserable, while the slackers are filthy rich. Welcome to capitalism!

See the point? It's true that the majority can abuse the minority in a pure democracy. But in a representative democracy or in a dictatorship, the minority can abuse the majority, which is far worse.

[TMA_1]

edric, you are being a bit too naive, pure democracies arent more protected from tyranny than any other form of government. All governments have ways of turning bad, and that huge lie that says democracy is somehow better is silly.

[Edric O]

Democracy has the potential of turning into tyranny. Other forms of government ARE tyrannies to begin with.

That's why democracy is better. And if you don't believe me, go live under a dictatorship government and see how that feels.

In the words of Winston Churchill:

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

[TMA_1]

hmm, england was never a democracy to begin with, he wasent talking about a pure democracy, and You know htat edric.

and not every other form of government is tyranny, that is a really general statement, expected a bit more from ya man, that kind of stuff is reserved for empr and gunwounds.lol

not even monarchies start out as tyrannies. You are being way too generalistic.

Isnt it kinda ironic that the leaders of theban and athenian democracies many times in their short lives were called tyrants? lol

Though they werent pure democracies, and have nothing really to do with the argument, it is funny. hehe

[Anathema]

Emprworms grotesque misusage of words hasn't stopped since I pointed it out, so I'll post it again.

A republic is a state that is not a monarchy. It doesn't have anything to do with being democratic or not.

The word emprworm should be using is democratic law state. The state has to listen to the will of the people but is at the same time bound to laws wich aren't changed simply by a whim. It's not a 100% waterproof system, but the other systems are as leak as cardboard boxes.

[nemafakei]

"the leaders of theban and athenian democracies many times in their short lives were called tyrants?"

Ok, here goes.

Tyrant (τυρρανος) was the name given to anyone who seized power by force. Tyrants could be very benevolent, as well as just nasty.

The demes (δημοι) of Athens were the tribes, or the constituences. Hence, democracy is power, κρατια, of the demes. Democracy in its original root is, by one token at least, far closer to Emprworm's definition.

However, in Athenian democracy, the individual citizens voted directly on issues anyway, and by this token (sorry about the pun), has more in common with Edric's one man one vote preference.

Frankly, I'm cynical about either.

[Caid Ivik]

Emprworms grotesque misusage of words hasn't stopped since I pointed it out, so I'll post it again.

A republic is a state that is not a monarchy. It doesn't have anything to do with being democratic or not.

The word emprworm should be using is democratic law state. The state has to listen to the will of the people but is at the same time bound to laws wich aren't changed simply by a whim. It's not a 100% waterproof system, but the other systems are as leak as cardboard boxes.

Republic is a name for any state. From history, even ruling system of Roman Empire was officially called "res publica imperia" (while previous was "res publica libera"), another example could be 15th century italian states, which had mostly one dux or an oligarchy, but called themselves republics, or Rzecz Pospolita Polskolitovska, de facto constitutional monarchy of polish-lithuanian union.

[Anathema]

And not just for states, like the idea of a res publica christiana, a world bound together by the same religion, Roman Catholicism.

In the used sense though, republic means everything that's not a monarchy. Like the Republic of the Netherlands in the 16th century, wich was basicly an aristocracy.

As for the Roman empire, it has always pretended to be a republic since they abolished the old kingdom, but after Octovianus assumed the title of ceasar it was de facto a monarchy.

[emprworm]

That scenario is stupid and incredibly flawed. Why? Because you ASSUME that the minority who gets to make the decisions in a representative democracy just *happens* to be a minority of responsible, hard-working people.

A scientifically accurate assumption.

[nemafakei]

"Of course, in a pure democracy, that you advocate, the power would be in the hands of the wealthy land owners.  Is that what you want?"

That is why land, a form of power, must also be democratically resolved: Edric's democratic communism has no landowners, remember.

[Edric O]

A scientifically accurate assumption.  We already know empirically that intelligence bestows itself upon the minority.  This is not disputable.  It is scientific fact.

Of course. The question is: Which minority? Keep in mind that in your American democracy, the minority that gets to elect the President (for example) is a random minority. It could be a minority of intelligent people, but it could just as well be a minority of complete morons. We have no way of knowing.

And remember that no matter how intelligent the ruling minority is, it will still look after its own interests rather than the interests of the people.

Given:  a group of people.

Fact:  There will be a minority whos average intelligence is higher than the average intelligence of the rest.

Given:  a group of people.

Fact:  There will also be a minority whos average intelligence is lower than the average intelligence of the rest.

It goes both ways, you see.

First of all a correction:  laziness produces an increase in population, according to modern anthropological sciences.  Idleness is never a reason why people do not pop out babies.  On the contrary, when there is little to live for in life, sex becomes the priority.  The immense populations of third world countries are ample proof of this concept.

Perhaps you mean poverty produces an increase in population.

I doubt you can call a 3rd worlder who works 12 hours a day in a sweatshop "lazy". The fact is that people in the 3rd world work (on average) MORE than we do. They just get paid much, much less. And they do not have adequate contraception methods.

But then again, considering your hatred and contempt for all those poorer than you, I don't expect you to understand the situation of the oppressed and impoverished. You disgust me.

But aside from that, lets continue:

in this example, the lazy bums would have more democratic power than the one mansion.  The rich elitists of the neighborhood will be faced with a difficult choice:  Since the power lies in the hands of the poor, either they do something to improve the lives of those around them, hence gain favor with them.....

or move.

Ha ha ha, nice try, Emprworm! You're trying to pull a strawman (changing the parameters of my example in order to allow you to find things wrong with it - things that you put there yourself).

I was not talking about rich elitists, I was talking about hard workers who make a decent living (they are not rich) from their own labour. In other words, I took the same characters you used in your example (the lazy bums and the hard workers) and placed them in different houses, in order to show you the inherently random and unjust nature of the system you support. In your system, a minority takes decisions for the majority. You showed a good scenario in which that minority is made up of responsible people. I showed a bad scenario in which that minority is made up of lazy capitalist slobs. Both scenarios are equally possible. The point is that the majority should rule, not the minority.

It's true that the majority can abuse the minority in a pure democracy. But in a representative democracy or in a dictatorship, the minority can abuse the majority, which is far worse.

Of course, in a pure democracy, that you advocate, the power would be in the hands of the wealthy land owners.  Is that what you want?

First of all, this is another strawman. We weren't talking about wealthy land owners - we were talking about honest hard workers.

Second of all, the wealthy land owners can never be the majority, for the same reason why capitalist employers can never be the majority: You can't have more bosses than workers. If the majority of people are wealthy land owners, then who's working their land?

And as Nema pointed out, wealthy land owners don't exist in the socialist/communist system I support, so this point is moot anyway.

its not a pure democracy.  I never criticized the concept, I only point out your contradictions.  If you hail a pure democracy as superior, then be consistent.  I never hailed a pure democracy.  I have ALWAYS endorsed controls on democracy.  I LOVE the idea of controls.  It is YOU who continually decry the "pure democracy" as the superior form of government.  Yet then you turn around and say that the first generation can make laws that subjugate all future generations.  While I do not necessarily disagree with this (nor do I agree with it), I can tell you one thing for sure:  its not pure democracy.

How many times must I repeat myself? Do you actually READ my posts at all?

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

Got it?

isn't it so funny to hear Edric waffle on this?  WHen he talks of a communist world, and I bring up the point that 'what of people who don't want communism?'  He responds by saying they can simply move.  Now he doesn't like that kind of an answer.

The difference is that you're talking about people who want to move OUT of the system (they don't like communism so they want to move out of it), while I'm talking about people who LIKE the system, who want to stay IN the system, but who also want to have their voices heard. In other words, you're talking about people who despise the system as a whole, while I'm talking about people who like the system, but want to make only one small reform in the electoral process.

And besides, what is your answer to people who don't like the capitalist system today? We live in a capitalist world. So what of the people who don't want capitalism?

When the minority doesn't like the system of the majority, they have only two options: Either try to persuade the majority to see their point of view and change the system, or move elsewhere. Anything else would be tyranny.

If 2/3 of the population defer power to 1/3 the population (for an election cycle), then that is a supreme confirmation of the theory that "the majority are idiots", hence illustrating the inferiority of a pure democracy even more.

Ok, so you're saying that only idiots would accept your system...

Couldn't have put it better myself!

thanks, Edric, for coming up with some good examples to support my view.

Well, if your view is that only idiots agree with you, then... uh, you're welcome.

Your scenario, Edric, is the best reason why a democratic republic is superior.  In your scenario, there is no forcible tyrrany.  There is only choice of deferral.  The majority freely chose to defer power (for an eleciton cycle) to the minority.  This, of course, is not tyrranny (which by defnition is compulsory)

So you're saying that the majority can choose to change the election system at any time? You're saying that, if the majority wishes it, you will accept a pure democracy? You're saying that it's up to the majority to decide whether the US system should stay as it is or whether it should change?

Thanks, Emprworm. That's all I needed to hear. You're essentially agreeing with me, in that the majority is sovereign.