Because if the minority ruled, the majority would be pissed off. Letting the majority rule minimizes the number of people unhappy. Also, it's easier to beat up 1 person when you have a a hundred friends rather than the other way around.
2006-07-23 18:55:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by crazy_sherm 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Economically speaking...The wants of a man are unlimited...
It is practically impossible to satisfy each and every single individual...Hence the least you can do is satisfy the wants of the majority...
With a majority ruling...It can be argued that the ruling party represents the majority and thus should be more acceptable and less prone to default criticism.
Ofcourse this does not constitute the manipulation of the minority...Infact with the backing of the majority one can take wise decisions regarding the minority expecting minimum backlash ..something which would not be possible incase of the minority doing the same with the majority.
However there should be proportionate representation in council in case of the presence of several minorities..
2006-07-24 03:21:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ponka Pooch 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The expressions of majority has to find favour for ruling. Otherwise, decisions cannot satisfy the interests. Do you want an autocratic rule, a monarchy, communism or Democracy - what is the alternative?
Instead suggest for more eminent, selfless and patriotic individuals to come forward to contest elections.
VR
2006-07-24 02:33:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by sarayu 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the majority ruled Bush would have never won the 2000 elections.
2006-07-24 02:11:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by ms_fantastico 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with old dude. We have no part in Majority/ minority matters any more. or elections for that matter. I am re-writing Walden and Civill disobedience( by Thoreau) but i m spinning it up to this century. If that man had to live to see through too much of it,he most certainly learned the functions and hidden adjendas of the money hungry mongers . Our government has been slipping "passive Evolutionary laws ( Black's Not Bouviers') on us so long we are a defacto Govt' in a dejure land of the free. and no one opposes. thats why they take you to court in a court room mostLly controled by that federal district and its provost marshaL Folks ,look at the two majority leaders in the House aND SENATE. They R both under investigation and write themselves out from under it. WE HAVE GOLD FRINGED FLAGS IN OUR COURTS PEOPLE. That is a military Flag. we are seperate in two classes of citizenry here, A state resident under our constitutions common law. Or Equitable law under the federal corporations that are ruled under the UCC(.these citizens are called US CiTIZENS )Uniform Commercial Code. All states (most all ) are now mandated by that doccument tom re-write the charter, its no longer by and forthe people. but IT BY LAW MUST FIRST MAKE PROFIT FOR ITS INTEREST Holders, thats why Jailing 78% of the mental health consumers has become a GSP. Gross State Product and in stead of sinking $ in the system we will wait for Big Brotha to bail us with our 124.50 per day to store our shining ones away . we are under martial law folks. look it up in the Library Of Congress. Black's v Bouviers' law/ Just look up the differnce in one word .. Ownership, you dont even own your vehicle unless you pay for it in Gold bullion DeanCpoetry
2006-07-24 03:36:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
because when it comes to settling it in a gang rumble, theres a good statistical probability that the gang with the most member wins.
2006-07-24 01:55:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by bourne 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually they don't....the lawmakers do and even though we elect ours, they can do whatever they please, make any deal they want, and impose their will on us once elected! All we can do is wait until another election!
2006-07-24 01:55:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by old dude 5
·
0⤊
0⤋