Representative Democracy Vs Majority Rule Essay

voted against a policy which is found to be the best for the general, must have

In the American form of democracy, representatives are chosen to represent the citizens, and to make decisions for them (USHistory.org, 2016). This is unique to the American democracy. In other democracies, citizens meet to discuss the policy issues and the majority rule decide the issues (USHistory.org, 2016). However, a representative democracy makes the government more manageable whereby only the elected representatives actually vote on the issues (USHistory.org,

In this book, Rousseau aims to discover why people gave up their liberty and how political authority became legitimate. In his case, sovereignty is vesting in the entire populace, who enter into the contract directly with one another. He explained, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remains as free as before.” That was the fundamental problem which Social Contract provides the solution.

Therefor although citizens may vote for a leader, they will then make decisions based on a small number of peoples view for the majority of the people. The minority ruling the majority.

The writers of the Constitution chose to have majority rule be a major part of the government so that the government would immediately reflect the desires of the people and so that minorities with crazy ideas would not be able to take over. They believed that the majority would be the most right group of people in the nation; and that the majority would decide right by conscience. In addition, the United States government is not a government based on justice, it is a government based on law. Any government based on justice would involve someone examining each specific scenario and deciding what was just. The founding fathers wanted to avoid this kind of government, as it was based on the opinion of a few people, and if these people became corrupted, they could have unlimited power. The founding fathers chose instead to enact a system of laws to which everyone would be held - even the government leaders. If the majority of people are following the teachings of the Bible, then the 'right' decided by the majority should be synonymous with the right decided by conscience; and this was the original intent of the founding fathers.

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

The U.S. government is a democracy. In other words, most American citizens do not agree with each other. Decisions that affect the nation are voted on. The U.S. government is set up so that we (the People) always have a say in decisions made, whether that is direct or indirect. It would be too difficult to have every citizen vote on each new law as it comes up, so we elect people to vote for us.

I agree with our forefathers that majority rule is the fairest way to hold any type of election . Klassen is correct in stating that when a majority gets their way, a minority does not. But again, he offers no alternative to our way of voting. He also used the word “ruled” when referring to the minority in order to make our system of voting seem as though it causes injustice. While we do live in a state that is governed by laws, I would not go so far as to say that we are a country that is “ruled.” In my opinion, the word “ruled” implies unfair, harsh treatment or injustice of some kind. I do not believe that our system of electing leaders leaves a minority to be “ruled.” I believe that

Therefore, he depends on the people to express their desires, and that the government would, in turn, bring that to life. As stated in The Social Contract, “Since no man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants” (Rousseau 53). Coming from the pre-revolution era of France, he perpetuated this very skeptical perspective on

Man experiences the same impulsion but recognizes that he is free to comply or resist (Rousseau, 33).”

With this, all peoples are equal and completely free or, to put it more eloquently, “in giving himself to all, each person gives himself to no one” (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Basic Political Writings. Hackett Pub. Co., 1987. p. 148). In this respect, Marx and Rousseau share common ground. They both believe that a community or state ruled by all needs to exist to ensure freedom for all. Marx and Rousseau agree that control that comes from above/without/utilizing force can never be rendered legitimate. Likewise to Rousseau, the core of Marx’s notion of freedom is epitomized in this phrase: “Liberty is, therefore, the right to do everything which does not harm others” (C., Tucker, Robert, and Engels, Friedrich. The Marx-Engels Reader, First Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1972. p. 40). The break between the two is most noticeable concerning Marx’s central idea that the procurement of the rights of production is the key to freedom. When human beings are estranged from their labor they are estranged from themselves, from each other, and, ultimately, made subjects because of it. Freedom necessarily means that human beings must have the right to produce freely as production is a natural extension of oneself. As we shall see, this problem is only exacerbated by civil society.

Mill’s theory is best read without his prejudices because less exceptions to the rule makes the rule more legitimate. As in, the greater the scope of his theory, the more convincing. Mill’s elitism in his selection of who can and who cannot have freedom can be put aside when analyzing “the veil” because Mill’s discrimination is the biggest downfall in his theory of

Mill is extremely clear as to why the individual should be sovereign over his or her body and mind—to counter the effects of a possible "tyranny of the majority." Mill states, "It (the majority) practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself" (63).

The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In

As the individual relinquishes all he had to the sovereign, it would suggest he was going to become a slave to the state. However, this is exactly what Rousseau was trying to avoid. This sovereign was not concerned with a simple majority; in fact Rousseau expressed distain for existing forms of civil state and their limited freedoms; “ England regards itself as free, it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of its Members of Parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.” (Rousseau, as cited in Garrard, 2012, p.33) His general will was a more a greater, almost spiritual consciousness, which Rousseau outlined, somewhat abstractly, as “a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau, 1968 p.60). The laws or constraints “never formally stated, they are everywhere the same, everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised” (Rousseau, 1968, p.60). Yes, you would give up natural liberty, but you would gain civil liberty, thus achieving freedom, however now within the constraints of the general will, a structure that