Tyranny of the Majority

[imatfaal]

I have copied my question and endy's and iNow's replies off to new thread t avoid disrupting iNow's determinedly focussed thread.

 

6. I have never understood the need for the electoral college system in a simple election across the entire Nation. There probably are good reasons for it still existing; but everyone is voting for a President and each vote should have the same weight - so why not just count the votes? We cannot do that here in UK as we do not elect our head of state and our head of government is elected by the party that forms the government. But the USA seems tailor made for a simple head count - whoever gets the most votes gets the keys to the big white building on Pennsylvania Avenue

The founders wanted to limit the chance of both mob rule and rule via a small group.

 

Has been modified over the years though. A number of states have requirements that their electors vote based on who wins the popular vote.

Indeed, quite right and a laudable goal that is, too. Perhaps there is a better and more modern way to protect minorities from the aforementioned tyranny of the majority, though?

The current system clearly does not accord each US voter the same weight - if it did then Presidents could not be elected without a plurality of vote and they are (4 so far). I assume that if the preceeding is accepted then there must be a very good reason for sticking with the current system.

 

Endy and iNow have both responded with the idea that this halts the tyranny of the majority - mob-rule, ochlocracy (that is just too nice a word not to drop it in) but I am not sure that this isn't a rationalisation of tradition rather than a good reason to avoid a simple popular vote.

 

In my simple world view protection under the Constitution, Civil and Human Rights, the procedures of the bicameral house, the seperation of powers all act to protect the individual or minority from the deliberate predation of the mob, from the negligently uneven playing field, and from the vagaries of injustice meted out to those who stray from the norm.

 

I find it difficult to divorce the idea of the tyranny of the majority from the concept of oligarchy; we will accept democracy until the people chose something that the powerful elite do not agree with at which point we will do what the few rather than the many want. Sure it is always dressed up as protection of unpowerful minorities - but the record of the elected protecting the underclass is not good (recently such that the constitution / hr via the courts is the normal route).

 

An interesting link I came across

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/FaithlessElectors.html

 

As an aside - I am completely conflicted on this point as very left wing UK-subject; I am implacably opposed to the the death penalty in any circumstances YET if there was a popular vote then the death penalty would (to the best of my understanding) be re-instated by a not insignificant majority. Yet the political elite - our House of Commons and House of Lords - do not wish for a return to capital punishment so it is very very rarely debated, and when it is raised it is voted down (and I think the vote is not free from the party whip). So I see with a very real example the benefits of evading the tyranny of the majority - however, I cannot help but feel this is elitism of the most overt sort.

[Willie71]

All one has to do is look at the wealth gap, and the enforcement of laws that protect the 1% to see the system is broken. The minority are clearly in control, and when they go too far, history shows that the people revolt. We saw that here in Alberta, with a premiere being investigated on criminal charges, and the protests in the states re militarization of the police, and systemic racism.

 

There was a through the wormhole episode on this that presents a great introduction to these ideas. If one is new to this topic, it's highly recommended to watch that program. (Not directed at the OP)

 

One of the issues inherent in democracy is the problem of the uninformed public. People think they want certain things, such as being tough on crime. Common sense says this should decrease crime, but it doesn't. We end up with prisons full of people for minor offences, while the corrupt business people are out free with major offences. We see misinformation on issue after issue. How many lay people can understand the complexity of international trade, or the political dynamics in the Middle East buying Muslims are bad? How can they direct policy in an informed way? If we went with public opinion, there would be a big crater where the Middle East was, and most wouldn't lose any sleep over it. A benign dictatorship with informed consultants would be much more effective, if corruption could be controlled for. History has shown it can't be.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Willie71

[iNow]

I need some time to digest this topic and think of something relevant to share. My immediate thoughts tend toward the idea that the electoral college merely helps perpetuate the 2-party system and prevents us from having more representative options on the ballot from which to choose. There's simply not enough granularity on the tickets today, and it's "you will get either vanilla or chocolate and nothing else!!"

 

I'm unsure this is really relevant to the electoral college or tyranny of the majority discussion points, but it's where my thoughts went and it's hard to give this deeper consideration right now while sitting on conference calls...

 

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - James Madison, Federalist 51

 

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." - James Madison, Federalist 10

[fiveworlds]

Since we are on the topic did you ever just use math?

[Endy0816]

Part of what it does is also weight individual citizen votes in smaller population states more heavily than those of larger population states. I suppose you could do literally that sans Electors, but I can't imagine most would go for it, were the weighting so obvious.

 

I guess my thinking is that the more insidious side of ochlocracy is tyranny by the numbers. Not necessarily a demagogue or fanaticism holding the majority of the population in thrall.

 

and yeah, there is a crap ton of inertia involved. Pluses, minuses, Pareto efficiency, yadda, yadda, yadda, mixed in.

[fiveworlds]

Did the same for the US there are 535 people on the us congress.

Edited January 7, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

I think it is worth noting that the Founding Farthers wanted only land owners to be able to vote. At that only white male land owners. The United States was structured as a Republic and not a Democracy. That was done so each state could self govern. Land owners in rural areas wouldn't have to compete with a group of land owners in a more established place teaming up to support some fee or law that more directly impact them. South Caroline shouldn't have to work for Virginia just because Virginia had more people and thus more votes. The system made sense for its time.

Today that system doesn't work. Forget the popular vote vs the electoral college for a moment. The White House is only a third of the equation. Every state gets 2 senators equally to make up the Senate. Which means small states with 500 thousand residents like Montana get equal representation as California which has about 38 million residents. Rather than majority rule the Senate has a grosse over representation of the minority. Same applies to the House of reps as a result of gerrymandering. In the 2012 elections Republican only won 49% of the house votes yet they picked up 54% of the house seats. So it could be argued IMO that Congress is an example of tyranny of the minority.

It is a system that was meant for different times. A time when slavery was still legal and people seldom if ever traveled further than 20 miles from the place of there birth. Today people traverse states as part of their daily commutes and companies do business in all 50 states. The old system currently allows for too much manipulation. Billionaire can legally dump money into any election anywhere. A Texas billionaire can put millions into an election in North Dakota. So the system is doing nothing to protect State sovereignty.

[studiot]

 

 

Tenoz

Today that system doesn't work. Forget the popular vote vs the electoral college for a moment. The White House is only a third of the equation. Every state gets 2 senators equally to make up the Senate. Which means small states with 500 thousand residents like Montana get equal representation as California which has about 38 million residents. Rather than majority rule the Senate has a grosse over representation of the minority. Same applies to the House of reps as a result of gerrymandering. In the 2012 elections Republican only won 49% of the house votes yet they picked up 54% of the house seats. So it could be argued IMO that Congress is an example of tyranny of the minority.

 

None of that could happen if my favoured option "The no party system" was adopted.

 

This operated successfully in Britain from about AD 500 to AD 1066 as the Witan.

[John Cuthber]

I wonder if Fiveworlds would like to explain what he thinks his diagrams mean.

[Endy0816]

We would probably need to see a voting system change for US to move away from the 2 party system.

 

I don't know. Generally political systems muddle onwards with only relatively minor modification, until something major happens.

[iNow]

We would probably need to see a voting system change for US to move away from the 2 party system.

 

I don't know. Generally political systems muddle onwards with only relatively minor modification, until something major happens.

Agreed, but changed how? Less money? More transparency in where money is coming from? Truth in advertising laws? No more gerrymandering? Updated primary system? Voting for top 3 candidates ranked by preference (instead one person all or nothing)? Change the process of getting people on the ballot and make it simpler? Changed how?

[Endy0816]

 

Voting for top 3 candidates ranked by preference (instead one person all or nothing)?

 

Something along those lines.

 

Historically it went: Winner takes all Voting system --> 2 Parties

 

You get vote splitting in our present system when you introduce a 3rd party into the mix.

 

Ron( R ): 50 votes

Daisy(D): 48 votes

Susi(S): 37 votes

 

Ron wins, but all of Susi's supporters would have voted for Daisy, if Susi had not been on the ballot. The math is pretty much the why of it all.

 

Ideally in the future we run simulations prior to drafting up a Constitution.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Endy0816

[tar]

Inow,

 

I like your James Madison Federalist Papers quote,

 

 

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." - James Madison, Federalist 10

 

And this, combined with Ten Oz's point that originally only land owners and white land owners at that had voting rights, led me to consider why it might be beneficial to HAVE the elite have a little extra voting power. I got this thought, thinking about the bell curve, when it comes to intelligence, and considering that our leaders probably come from the same group of people that find themselves out more than a standard deviation from the norm in abilities like strength, intelligence, persuasiveness, charismatic behavior, persistance, judgement, trustability and so on. It might not be unlikey to find that these people would become the elite of society, over time through either outright ability or inheritance of the wealth and power that their parents accumulated.

 

Under this thinking, the elite have both a special ability to be the capable and trusted leaders, and a special responsibility to not abuse their power and use it to the detriment of others, or in the oppression of others. But, in the context of this thread, it is also wise for the elite to structure the system in such a way, that mob rule, without the guidance of the most capable and trustworthy, could not succeed in taking the society in an unworkable direction.

 

Regards, TAR

But leave the majority with the power to keep the elite from taking the place in an undisireable or unworkable direction.

[iNow]

For me, your point fails on three primary fronts.

 

One - The "elite" as you call them are not generally that way due to the virtuous qualities you cite. More often, they simply won the lottery of birth, were fortunate enough to get assistance from other powerful people, and/or scheming enough to game the system and take advantage of others.

 

Two - For similar reason as above, it's quite a stretch to assume this population is somehow better, more qualified, more capable and more trustworthy. We see exactly the opposite and this was also true for the overwhelming majority during the time of the founding fathers, the great republic of Rome, and even ancient Athens, despite how much we tend to idealize and mythologize them in the present. Perhaps some seemed better due to their enhanced access to education and nutrition and medical care, but offer that same education and nutrition and medical care to the masses and everyone will be better as a result.

 

Three - People tend to act in their own self-interest and will generally prioritize their own well-being and continued access to power and resources over the greater good of the many. There are clearly some noteworthy exemptions to this trend, but the trend is indeed what most societies seem to face.

 

Basically, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I personally find it too Pollyannish and the logic within too nonsequitur to accept it as valid. That's just me, though.

Edited February 18, 2015 by iNow

[Ten oz]

Inow,In the failed front two, you state that "we see the exact opposite", and while I can think of a few examples of airhead children, not possessing the skills and abilities of their parents (my plumber's son for instance,) I can think of many many more examples, of managers, leaders, store owners, craftsmen, scientists, movie producers, business leaders, thought leaders, military commanders, and politicians, who actually have the credentials and abilities and the ethics to be capable and trustworthy leaders. And where we see brilliance in disenfrancised individuals, we might get gang leaders, or revolutionary figures and such, but they are still the "leaders" of society from the cliche, to the classroom, to the quarterback on the field, to the college sorority leader, to the school board chairman, to the mayor and the representatives to local, state and federal government.

I think this thought could drive enough debate for its own thread. So I won't pull off topic by addressing plumbers, store owners, movie producers, and etc. As this relates to politics and your thought about an elite class we have examples : the Kennedy, Bush, Roosevelt, and Rockefeller families quickly come to mind. Within each family there has been successful leaders but there has also been terrible ones who probably could never have even been elected dog catcher if not for their pedigrees. I don't see any consistantcy in leadership ability in these dynasties.

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, the families I named each have had multiple family members who have held public office. W. Bush being amongst them but not the lone example.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

But we have already had the French revolution. "Let them eat cake" was not an acceptable answer to "the people have no bread." The elite are held these days to higher standards. But elite we still have, like the owner of the Dallas Cowboys.

 

But a basketball owner was separated from his team, "by the majority" who would not have a person both make racist remarks, and be the leader of an NBA francise. His elite position was overpowered by the majority public opinion. It actually was tyranny of the majority, as it was what he said to his girlfriend about who she should associate with, and could easily have been a statement of jealousy as a racist one. Is it "right" to remove an individual from the franchise they built, based on the opinion of the majority?

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

The royal blood idea has definitely been discounted. What with the inbreeding of the royalty in Europe causing all sorts of "challenged" characters. And I am in no way suggesting a superiority of any particular race, in terms of the genes. History has proven that expanding the gene pool results in better individuals. Although there is a tendency for certain fine characteristics to be passes on, based on the survival of the fittest.

 

I am reminded, for some reason, at this juncture of the Camir Rouge in Cambodia. They killed all the elite folk, all the scientists and leaders, all the educated and capable, because then they would have no competition, and could rule unchallenged. Such is the kind of rule a Mullah attempts to have, where they keep their people poor and uneducated, purposefully.

 

A population "without" the top 10% in capability and trustworthiness is more subject to oppression, than a population with such a "responsible" elite.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Inow,

 

I like your James Madison Federalist Papers quote,

 

 

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." - James Madison, Federalist 10

 

And this, combined with Ten Oz's point that originally only land owners and white land owners at that had voting rights, led me to consider why it might be beneficial to HAVE the elite have a little extra voting power. I got this thought, thinking about the bell curve, when it comes to intelligence, and considering that our leaders probably come from the same group of people that find themselves out more than a standard deviation from the norm in abilities like strength, intelligence, persuasiveness, charismatic behavior, persistance, judgement, trustability and so on. It might not be unlikey to find that these people would become the elite of society, over time through either outright ability or inheritance of the wealth and power that their parents accumulated.

 

Under this thinking, the elite have both a special ability to be the capable and trusted leaders, and a special responsibility to not abuse their power and use it to the detriment of others, or in the oppression of others. But, in the context of this thread, it is also wise for the elite to structure the system in such a way, that mob rule, without the guidance of the most capable and trustworthy, could not succeed in taking the society in an unworkable direction.

 

Regards, TAR

But leave the majority with the power to keep the elite from taking the place in an undisireable or unworkable direction.

The tyranny of the majority is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

 

Your solution is to only give the vote to the fastest, strongest, smartest wolf.

[imatfaal]

The tyranny of the majority is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

 

And it seems that the solution is an oligarchy of the lambs

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Your right, my logic is not completely consistent there. Perhaps I meant to say that people smarter than you can probably fool you if they want, and the probability of them being able to fool you, if they chose to fool you, goes up as the gap between your intelligence and their's increases. I think the "thought" I had, when I had the thought at 18 had another component that I did not think to mention in this context, which might give the missing consideration, that makes it a little clearer why I put it logically differently in terms of the higher intelligence's ability to fool you, and the lower intelligence's ability to be fooled by you. An untested theory I also had at the time, is that it is impossible to know what it is like to be more intelligent, or you would actually be as intelligent as is required to know what it would be like. Under this consideration, it is important to realize that just knowing someone is more intelligent than you, does not make you capable of outthinking them. Sometimes perhaps you might think you have them figured out, but they are operating in a manner that you cannot grasp. Connections are being made in their brain, ideas are being had, vetted and discarded or built upon, at a rate and in a manner you are not capable of...or else you would be that intelligent.

 

That is why I was thinking a more intelligent person could fool you any time they wanted, because they could use a method you would not think possible, or that you would not "think of".

 

Regards, TAR

 

Inow,

 

An other area where the "foolers" are given great latitude is in marketing and advertising. This extends to politics of course and the "spin" that is put on things to engender your support or disapproval. This is particularly extant behavior in internet marketing, where computers are crunching your info based on algorithms made by very intelligent people, and metrics and behavior studies compiled and parsed and figured to come up with a way to then make something appear on the page you are looing at, that will make you want to buy a widget.

 

We give these intelligent folk power over us, under the guise of "catering to our wants and needs", as if they are providing us a service by reminding us that our significant other would love a gift from their establishment. It is well know that subliminal advertising was used in the sixties, and is still used. It is so well known, that it is commonly felt by each of us, that we are not fooled by that stuff, and that we drink the soda or beer because we like the taste and effect and are thirsty. We don't consider why we drink THAT brand. And it may well be because of the image that we subconsciouly saw in the bubbles in the ad.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Oh FFS. Can someone please split this OT BS into its own thread elsewhere? This thread was supposed to be about governance among majority and minority factions, not monkey feces flinging between Tar and Overtone.

[overtone]

 

 

Oh FFS. Can someone please split this OT BS into its own thread elsewhere? This thread was supposed to be about governance among majority and minority factions, not monkey feces flinging between Tar and Overtone.

Start with post 14. For continuity in approach.

 

But it seems to me the issue of minority and majority factions is bound up with the personal attitude of feeling picked on, of feeling as though some powerful group (elite? in the US) were abusing the faction dear to oneself. And that has - in the US - led to disproportionate influence by motivated minority factions. There being no majority faction in the US (or in many other places), this takeover by well funded or strongly motivated minority factions seems like the central matter of fact, and the tyranny of the majority more of a psychological issue or illusion.

 

Majorities only remain coherent until they gain power, after all.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Spliting ~35 posts has to be some sort of record.

Tar, we'd really appreciate if you could keep your tangental ramblings to your own threads, or at least somewhere where they are on topic.

[imatfaal]

I agree, with limitations, with Overtone's last - the claim of a tyranny of the majority is oft a deliberate diversion from the actual perversion of democracy by well motivated and resourced minorities. I took in a lot of the early papers provided dealing with the early history of the now USA - but, even though I know I am being excessively difficult, I still fail to see why the democratic process must be immediately hamstrung by the assumption that we need an oligarchy who will protect some factions from others

[Ten oz]

Societies are always looking back with a modicum of confused disbelief at the errors of the past. In real time people lived with slavery and thought it acceptable. Denied women the right to vote without considering it being bias or oppressive. Adult men use to marry young teenage girls and it wasn't considered perverse. Teachers use to hit student in class and so on and so on.

 

Humans grow knowledge collectively over time. Every Individual's understand of the world is constrained by the environment they exist in. That is why the same people who wrote all men are created equal also owned slaves. Just as we look back at contradiction from the past future generation will do the same for us. However can we continue to destory our environment when the science data is so clear, why do we do so little to help starving poor nations, why is war still so often option number one, and etc.

 

I am not sure any system of government could fix the problem. Majority vs minority actually aren't that different in most societies. They are far closer to each other on most all issues that humans a hundred years from now will be with either.