[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Pros and cons
Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the
accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That
is, democracy is not necessarily intended to give us "good"
government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power, and to
ensure that any bad government can be deposed and replaced peacefully.

Nonetheless, many people think that there is no system that can
ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These
advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a
majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The
opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where
particular minority groups are protected from being targeted,
majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on
every issue; therefore, majorities will usually take care to take into
account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately are part of
a minority on a future democratic decision.

While a clear improvement over tyranny, this potential threat of
coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some
countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that protect
particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally,
changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super-
majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a
minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical
matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree
to such actions.

Tyranny of the majority
When there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, but also on some
issues with only a few elite voters, majority rule often gives rise to
a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of a majority
empowered to do anything it wanted to an adversary minority. For
example, it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a
certain religion should be criminalized, and its members punished with
death.

Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special
constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a
distinction between legislation which would be handled through direct
democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would
have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less
vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority.

http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/democracy.htm

So, 2pid, as you beat your chest and talk about your love of democracy
and "the will of the people" you should consider the above.

(I'll bet $1.00 2pid sees the above paragraphs as a "socialist plot"
or some other similar lowbrow stupidity.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 8, 5:29*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
Pros and cons
Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the
accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That
is, democracy is not necessarily intended to give us "good"
government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power, and to
ensure that any bad government can be deposed and replaced peacefully.

Nonetheless, many people think that there is no system that can
ideally order society and that democracy is not morally ideal. These
advocates say that at the heart of democracy is the belief that if a
majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. The
opponents to this viewpoint say that in a liberal democracy where
particular minority groups are protected from being targeted,
majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on
every issue; therefore, majorities will usually take care to take into
account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately are part of
a minority on a future democratic decision.

While a clear improvement over tyranny, this potential threat of
coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some
countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that protect
particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally,
changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super-
majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a
minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical
matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree
to such actions.

Tyranny of the majority
When there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, but also on some
issues with only a few elite voters, majority rule often gives rise to
a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority," i.e. fear of a majority
empowered to do anything it wanted to an adversary minority. For
example, it is theoretically possible for a majority to vote that a
certain religion should be criminalized, and its members punished with
death.

Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special
constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a
distinction between legislation which would be handled through direct
democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would
have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less
vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority.

http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/democracy.htm

So, 2pid, as you beat your chest and talk about your love of democracy
and "the will of the people" you should consider the above.

(I'll bet $1.00 2pid sees the above paragraphs as a "socialist plot"
or some other similar lowbrow stupidity.)

So is this part of Obama's move to "Communism", 2pid?

Do you agree with the above or do you see it as an inconvenience? LoL.