> I find most democratic decisions illegitimate
Ah, the political equivalent of solipsism. Sorry, but this isn't the forum to address such fundamental fallacies. Hard pass.
> I find most democratic decisions illegitimate
Ah, the political equivalent of solipsism. Sorry, but this isn't the forum to address such fundamental fallacies. Hard pass.
Well, that’s not our world. When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way. And unless I’ve seriously misapprehended your politics, I’m not sure why you’re advancing an argument where such a ban is just because “letting the minority prevail” would be worse.
So yeah, it’s a mistake to treat the “what” and the “how” of decision-making separately.
That's why we have constitutions. Minority rule doesn't solve that, and in fact makes it more likely that the evangelical minority will shove their religion down everyone else's throats. Thanks for underlining my point.
Constitutions are not enough. This isn't an academic question. Throughout the country's history, majorities have consistently trampled the rights of minorities. To me, majority rule looks an awful lot like rampant injustice. Minority rule looks like defense.
Majority rule is imperfect. Constitutional limitation is imperfect. Federalism is imperfect. That's why people have spent centuries trying to devise systems that use all of these tools in balance against one another, because the alternatives - autocracy or anarchy immediately turning into autocracy - are far worse.