Would you support majority rules on everything?

Question

Would you support taking all major issues to the people for a majority rules vote?

What if it was definite and binding?

Answer 1

Hell no. That's the whole purpose of a a constitutional republic; to protect both from tyranny of an individual and from tyranny of the majority. Both types are equally repulsive.

Answer 2

Yes I would support it, but NOT a 50% plus one vote. I would support 100% if 67% (two thirds) of the vote would support it or be in favor of it. If we do not let the majority rule, then we will be held at the STUPIDITY of the minority. At a young age we were told that "majority rules", not majority of the congressmen rules.

Look what happened in the LAST presidential election, the majority of the people voted Democrat, but the Electoral College voted in Bush by the narrowest of margins.

Even if we have 95% of the population against a specific issue, we can be held at the mercy of the politicians and their lobbiests counterparts. I guess that is what the first few people want.

Another issue, religion but more specific -- prayers. Because some pansy athiests are beating the bush about no prayers in public school events, now the school and school districts can be fined because a team want to say a prayer before their respective match, OR hold a moment of silence out of respect for a dead classmate or alum.

BUT I guess the ones that don't want a majority rules votes would be okay with that even if their child is a start on the varsity team leading a team prayer. I guess they would also be okay with our president being put in office for another 4 years because the overall population didn't vote him in, the electorial college did. After all the last one was definate and binding.

Going back to the issues of religion, where I will end this post. Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, but it made an effort to squelch the voices of the wiccans and other non christian beliefs (including the American Indians). Even in the constitution it mentions CHRISTIAN morals and values. The majority of this country is christian in one way shape or form; whether it is Baptist, Catholic, Luthern, Methodist, etc, and until the day the athiests become the majority, they should have a say, but not the final vote.

jk

Answer 3

I don't think that would be good in all cases. However, we are currently being governed based on the will of the minority. I think that most major issues should be taken to the public for vote.
Our votes should be counted for president not as it is now where the electoral college decides. In most states the electoral college is not bound by law to vote as the people want and in all states the people have no say in who is selected for the electoral college. They are appointed by the state legislature.
I do agree with previous answer though. I feel that a majority rules type of government could result in the 3 wolves and 1 lamb voting on what is for dinner. But I guess that would be the price to pay for a truly fair form of government.

Answer 4

For policy issues, yes. I'd trust a decision made by millions of people more than I would trust a decision made by a few hundred corrupted politicians on Capitol Hill.

The people know whats in their best interest. And a system like that would get people much more involved in politics and the issues, and theyd have to learn about the issues before making a decision.

I think thats exactly what America needs. People in 24 states and over 200 communities across the country already make laws for their states and communities with ballot initiatives, and I think we should be able to do that at the Federal level as well.

Answer 5

No, the minority would be constantly oppressed by the majority. That is the main reason the United States is a republic and not a democracy, to protect individual rights from a majority rules system.

Answer 6

Most of the major populated cities in the US are LIBERAL and do not accurately reflect the views of most of our nation as a whole.

That is why the electoral college was instituted by our founding forefathers. If we used the "majority rules" concept then many of our greatest presidents would have never been elected.

Answer 7

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so that a majority of votes would win an election. But they put in checks and balances so that the majority would not have a tyranny over the minority. They were smart guys.

Answer 8

Only on 2 conditions:

1.) It would require a super majority, something like 75% or 80%. That should limit the amount of junk that gets pushed through by special interest.

2.) You would have to pass a test before voting. The test would be to prove that you know about the issue being voted on. If you don't know about the issue, you shouldn't be allowed to vote on it.

So, in theory, I think it is possible, but not likely to happen.

Answer 9

Don't you recall that old saying... whatsitcalled... "no taxation without representation?" I think this country was founded on the idea that everyone deserves a voice. That was the idea, anyways.
But I understand what you mean. It is frustrating to feel like you have two options: the republican view or the diluted republican view (dems). Thats why I decided to make the leap to green, even though it doesn't get fair representation... but it only will if enough people join, so I'm just trying to do my part. :)

Answer 10

Not a chance. Just look at how well letting majority rules pick the politicians has worked out.

Answer 11

No. In the US we have way too many uneducated people. They do not understand economics, leadership, etc. Look at the Iraq situation. We have to be there to finish the job. I am sure there are a majority of Americans who do not like it, but does that mean we should leave? No.