Voted on by the people ..for the people...majority rule?
2007-03-22 10:58:57 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it seems like a good idea, but it isn't. Drafting laws is a tricky business, because they have to dovetail with prior laws, not violate the constitution, and be rid of adverse unintended consequences. The general public - even a large part of the educated portion - are not equipped to wade through these questions. Now before you tell me that most legislators aren't either (and I would agree to some extent!), they are more able than the general public, and are accountable for their goofs in the long run. Just because a proposed law is deemed desirable by a majority of the public, the basis of the "desirability" may be greed or vengeance, and would not be subject to debate. This would be giving the term "mob rule" a new meaning. This is one reason that our Senate is made up of two from each state, and House membership is based on a state's population. The intent is to preclude mob rule so that California and New York, for instance, can't dictate to Wyoming and Rhode Island how it's going to be. Our present system certainly isn't perfect (LBJ"s "Great Society" legislation increased the intensity of poverty rather than reduced it, for instance), but it is better than the unaccountable whim of a simple majority. Hope this helps. Have a nice day.
2007-03-22 12:18:10 · answer #1 · answered by Pete 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Majority rule is fine with me. Granted all the minorities will be crushed...but I don't care about them.
2007-03-22 19:02:09 · answer #2 · answered by null_the_living_darkness 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋