On Democracy

I was thinking earlier, about whether the goal of Democracy is to represent the majority or the minority. The obvious, knee-jerk reaction is the majority, as if a law is beneficial to 90 percent of people but detrimental to 10 percent, most people would think that is a good law.

However, the arguments against heavier taxes for the rich also work against that. I assume that most people here are liberals though, and thus pro-taxing the rich, but another argument applies: that of emancipation. African slaves constituted only 13% of the population of the United States in 1860, and slavery was extremely beneficial to the economy of the Southern states, but very few people would say that slavery was a good thing.

So is Democracy meant to represent the majority opinions of the people? If no, what is its point?

Yes, but you conflate "want" with "benefit."

The abolition of slavery only benefited a small subsection of the population, but it was wanted by a larger subsection of the populace. It was also enacted quite legally through democracy, via constitutional amendments.

Anything the majority wants, goes, so long as it does not violate the social contract of the Constitution. That's how it's supposed to be, and, generally, that's how it works...

Pure democracy is meant to represent the majority, plain and simple.

Modern democratic systems of government however, are meant to represent the majority and protect the minority because otherwise, the result is what's known as the tyranny of the majority.

If the majority wanted to, say, make all redheads second class citizens whose votes only count for 50% of a vote, they wouldn't be allowed to do so under our system because they're oppressing the minority.

edited 21st Sep '11 4:21:45 PM by Balmung

But enacted during a time in which the Southern representatives weren't in the house, if I remember correctly.

That doesn't count as democracy.

Because at the time they were a sovereign nation of their own. (If defunct and occupied owing to the American Civil War.) Foreign nations don't get a say at our table. Simple yet heartless logic but it works.

The vast majority of law professors have discounted the "the 14th Amendment is illegal because the Deep South couldn't vote on it!" argument for a long time now.

I'm not saying it was illegal, but I am saying that calling it 'democratically enacted' is just plain wrong. The people most hurt by it weren't given a say, it's not democracy.

Obviously, it was still a good thing. Democracy isn't always right. But this topic is about democracy.

By the logic of the North, they were never a separate sovereign nation, they were "states in rebellion".

My basic point was that the rights of the minority outweigh the will of the majority, though.

^^ It was democratically enacted. The Confederate States were not part of the United States at the time of ratification. That falls under the label "Foreign countries have no say in domestic politics". You can't say it was undemocratic when the Confederate States were allowed re-admittance after the fact.

edited 21st Sep '11 4:31:09 PM by MajorTom

It was democratically enacted in the sense that the majority of the States of the Union did, in fact, ratify it without any coercion necessary.

And, of course, the Southern States were free to remain territories if they didn't want to ratify the amendment.

That's not the point! They were defeated in battle, they had no other choice! And again, they did not get a say on it, even though it effected them!

Foreign States don't have a say on our laws because our laws have no effect on them.

If you had taken a vote with every (white male) citizen of the United States (including the rebelling South) involved, I'm not sure emancipation would've won.

edited 21st Sep '11 4:34:42 PM by TheEarthSheep

Nah, the North had far more population than the South, and then you have to add the West, too.

It was guaranteed to win, Southern opposition or no. The fact that they conveniently removed their own capacity to even argue against it in the stupid manner they always did was just icing on the cake.

Sometimes people are wrong.

Thats the whole point of being progressive. You try ideas and see what works. History decides whether or not it was a good idea I guess.

I mean good lord, could you imagine if people decided NOT to try something new?

Western territories (like what would become Colorado 11 years later) had no say on slavery yet it affected them. Does that mean we should be able to petition to reinstate slavery here since we had no say? Nope. The Confederates had two choices: re-join the Union (and it was too late either way to vote on the 13th and 14th amendments) or remain a sovereign nation that would have stood no chance and had no future against the industrial North.

You are missing the point completely. The South was not part of the United States at the time, it was not undemocratic to enact change to existing territory then pass on that change to new territories later on (which in re-joining the Union they effectively were).

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Yes, but the tricky part comes in when you try to decide when the populace is wrong, and you don't get to make that decision. Ever. That's the point of Democracy.

Gah! I understand your point! I'm not trying to say that it was a bad thing, it was illegal, or that we should re-do the vote! I'm just saying that eliminating your opposition, and then effectively forcing them at gun-point to adopt your decision (like you said, they had no other choice) doesn't count as democracy. Again, I'm not saying it was wrong!

edited 21st Sep '11 4:43:02 PM by TheEarthSheep

Coercion is a necessary part of any government, even Democracies. If it is used to assist in suppressing an armed rebellion, I have absolutely no beef with that. Plus, as stated previously, the Confederate States were not part of the US. It was no different than a peace accord in a non-civil war.

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much what Tom said. The confederate states having a say in what happened would make as much sense as letting prisoners have a say with what to do with our justice system, in my opinion.

edited 21st Sep '11 4:41:21 PM by YoungMachete

The point of democracy, I think, is the peaceful transfer of power, as well as offering a legitimate way to gauge how happy your people are with you. Rulers throughout history never had a blank cheque to be complete dicks to their people; revolution was always a possibility, or if not revolution, your people defecting to the other side in the middle of a war was also possible. The people still had to put up with a lot, but there were natural consequences that would result from making your people suffer needlessly. It's just that now, there are peaceful ways available to change your ruler or seize power for yourself. Of course, in a country where the methods of doing this had a recently violent history, the guy who lost could just say "fuck that", and organize a coup or start a rebellion.

edited 21st Sep '11 7:41:00 PM by tropetown

Democracy is always in favor of the majority. If a minority are the only ones to benefit, that is because the majority wills it. The trick is to convince the majority to decide one way or another. It's interesting to think about. People talk about special interests in Washington, and an oligarchy of the rich, but at the end of the day, those things are the result of majority decision.

edited 21st Sep '11 8:08:30 PM by sketch162000

To answer OP, slavery may have benefited the South, but it was unfair to the North (representation, for instance). It was already an unpopular concept in Europe, and international slave importing was banned since near the beginning. It seriously splintered the country and forced it to come up with crazy ways to balance power and representation, and ended up polarizing the United States until it was split in two.

I would say that when a country is torn in two, democracy doesn't apply to the whole country because it's not a whole anymore. It's a matter of international tension between the two divided countries.

It's the point of a constitution to understand that certain moral axioms are based on nebulous long-term gains which a simple majority would not understand.

If you talk about limiting suffrage, for instance, it's damage to a nation as a whole and thus damaging to the majority. But only over the long-term. Such a thing isn't really well handled by our democratic system and so we've a constitution to correct that. We protect the voting rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority but in the long term, the majority benefits.