Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by talmand | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

talmand·

Not that I'm disagreeing, but what if the minority believes that all of the nominees are over-ideological candidates?

View on HN

Then reality sets in and the majority (finally) exercises its constitutional powers to govern.

Ah, I get it, we fall back to the worst example of democracy; screw the minority.

When the minority is screwing the country, yes, screw the minority.

This is the system of governance we have. It functioned virtually without filibustering of nominees for two centuries. If you truly believe the problem here is the majority, you are far, far beyond reason.

Then we move to the next worse example; the majority defines what the minority is or is not doing.

At this point you're just trolling.

Hmmm, I thought I was giving thoughtful responses to your posts. After all, you read my first response about screwing the minority and your answer seemed to suggest your are fully willing to do so. If you're willing to accept one terrible aspect of democracy you should be willing to embrace it all. Not mildly attacking someone for pointing out your potential defects. I'm only trying to help.

Now I think I'm trolling, but it's a natural response due to your posts.

This is how any parliamentary body on the planet works. If you are concerned about this from a constitutional perspective you do exactly what the founders did: separate legislative powers into equal chambers.

If you place constitutional requirements above a majority vote on a parliamentary body then the judiciary has to step in and enforce those requirements violating the separation of powers.

What part of "you need to win elections in order to get to make the rules" is un-democratic?

I didn't say it was un-democratic. I was trying to point out that democracy can be a bad thing when the majority decides to vote themselves power to the detriment of the minority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com