2006-08-21 08:05:57 · 24 answers · asked by kasar777 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Not always. It is really according to the "setting." An example of when it is not a good idea: gradeschoolers getting into a fight because all of the other kids think it is a good idea, or: using the democratic system to systematically "rule" over an issue.
2006-08-21 08:15:12 · answer #1 · answered by educated guess 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. In a perfect world only the Smart Majority would rule. In our imperfect world the majority contains it's share of stupid people. Yet the minority contains the same ratio of stupid people so in order to keep everyone except the Democrats complacent, the majority should always be correct. Of course in response to that the Democrats have decided to use the filibuster so no decision can be reached.
2006-08-21 08:13:32 · answer #2 · answered by cirestan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes – Majority should rule. We only think it shouldn’t when we are in the minority on an issue…
Besides, you can usually only have one majority on an issue, but you can have many minority views and if that is the case – which view do you take? How can you justify alienating everyone else? Better than that, how long do you ignore the majority on the issue before they remember they are the majority and do whatever it takes to get their voice heard.
2006-08-21 08:46:06 · answer #3 · answered by mother pearl 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in this country (US) the majority doesn't rule. We are a constitutional republic. That means that the rights of the minorities are protected, which is as it should be.
2006-08-21 08:17:13 · answer #4 · answered by happytraveler 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Majority should always rule.
2006-08-21 08:12:38 · answer #5 · answered by lovemymom 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The majority should rule or have more say but, the minority should get some consideration in any matters that will affect them too.
2006-08-21 08:12:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The men who wrote the constitution created a country based on law, not rule of the majority (mob). They all knew, that as soon as politicians and the needy masses realized they could use the voting process to get elected (politicians) by promising the needy masses free stuff, then the wountry could be doomed.
Think about it. Our constitution is founded on individual liberty. Individuals are minorities. If you protect the freedom of one, you protect the freedom of all. If you check your history, as we have become more Democratic with majority rule, we have become more polarized and political. Why? Because all of have to defend ourselves against others who are trying to force their agenda's on us: rich vs poor, business vs workers, church vs state, believers vs non-believers, old vs young, pro-life vs abortion, democrats vs republicans, whites vs blacks vs Hispanics vs ????
So no, the majority should elect competent people to maintain the law, not elect politicians who make give Santa Claus promises to decrease the wealth or infringe upon the minority.
2006-08-21 09:49:16 · answer #7 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate the idea because most people are so ignorant and stupid, however, the data indicates that many people with different viewpoints make the most accurate decisions, so it's still the best system. I just think it would be improved by a a better education system and far, far less TV, music and internet surfing.
2006-08-21 08:13:54 · answer #8 · answered by Irritable 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-08-21 08:13:10 · answer #9 · answered by dpcard 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is the closest we have to a completely fair system for decisions. But there can be issues if the people involved do not know enough to make good decisions
2006-08-21 08:14:45 · answer #10 · answered by admiralgill 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋