Majority Rules

Far too often, Democracy is summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- meaning that a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme.

At first glance, the phrase “Majority Rules” is not a blatantly inaccurate description of how Democracy works. Theoretically, it is the majority who elects representatives -- “elected officials” -- and often it is the majority of elected officials who pass laws, among other things.

However, the real challenge of Democracy is NOT how to determine the will of the majority (via voting), but how to protect the minority from the unbridled expression of that will. If we were truly governed only by the doctrine of “Majority Rules”, then the majority could rule over the minority in any way it wished. Laws could be passed dictating that the minority had to serve the majority as slaves, or laws could be passed that the minority shall be killed. After all, “Majority Rules.” These examples may seem extreme, but they are the logical outcome of unlimited rule of the majority.

Another example: If “Majority Rules” then the Majority can vote to take money from the Minority. Just as absurd as enslaving or killing the minority. Oh ... wait a minute ... Lots of politicians, and possibly some actual voters, talk about raising taxes on “the rich”. Since “the rich” are NOT the majority, if we (the majority) WANT to take away their money, we should be able to. Majority Rules.

This is a complicated issue. In a way, most laws involve the majority imposing their will on the minority, such as the anti-jaywalkers imposing their will on the jaywalkers. In fact, the law routinely specifies that the majority can take money from jaywalkers, in the form of “fines”. Generally, however, the majority cannot take ALL of a jaywalker’s money, nor can the majority have jaywalkers killed. I honestly don’t know precisely what prevents the majority from having jaywalkers killed, or taking all their money. Somehow, something is limiting the majority.

It is my understanding that the government of the United States of America has various procedures and rules designed to limit the rule of the majority. Interestingly, some of these rules are vehemently opposed and sometimes even ridiculed.

Presidential Elections involve the “Electoral College”. Since American Presidents are elected by a vote of the “Electoral College” rather than by a direct vote of the people, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote but lose at the Electoral College level. The Electoral College serves to partially equalize the influence of fifty different states. Since most of the population is concentrated in a relatively few states, voters from those states -- the “majority” -- could impose their will (“rule”) over the voters from less-populous states, if only we did not have the Electoral College.

The United States Senate allows “filibusters” in which a minority of Senators can effectively block the majority of Senators. This is the entire POINT of filibusters. As a consequence, Senators from the majority often attempt the have the filibuster rules changed, so that they can “rule”.

I suppose our clearest protection from the Rule of the Majority is found in the Constitution. Even if the majority of voters pass a law, if a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then the law is voided. In recent years there have been various high-profile cases in which courts decided that the will of the majority was in conflict with the Constitution, including things like gun control. I suppose the Constitution is one of the factors that keeps jaywalkers from being executed.

Though it is a complicated issue, I am personally much more comfortable with Majority Rule when it involves answering some specific question that needs to be answered. For example, when two or more candidates are vying for an office, it makes perfect sense to decide via a vote of the people. I am much less comfortable with the majority deciding on rules that everyone must live by, such as “no jaywalking” or “Eat three servings of vegetables every day.” The issue of what I eat every day is NOT a question that needs to be addressed by a vote of the people, whereas the question of who shall serve as President of the United States IS a question that needs to be addressed.

I am a big fan of Democracy, but not so much of the phrase “Majority Rules”. It’s far too easy to forget about protecting the minority from the will of the majority. Perhaps a better phrase would be “Majority decides questions that need to be decided, while protecting the minority” -- but that does not roll off the tongue very well.

Truth is complicated.

LATER: At the sister site to this blog, truthiscomplicated.wordpress.com, the blogger jonolan (from “Reflections From A Murky Pond” at blog.jonolan.net) has correctly and succinctly commented that America was created as a Republic rather than a Democracy, for the reasons stated above. The entry above will continue to be valid if future readers substitute the phrase “our American systems of government” anytime the word “Democracy” appears.

I am grateful to jonolan for pointing this out, and recommend his blog!