Majority Rules?

[NoSurvivors]

If 51% of people think it is okay to marry brothers and sisters, does that make it right?

[Just_essence]

When there's an almost 50-50 vote, the leader goes with the slim majority, angers the other half with many legislations, but eventually, the angry half will start to disappear as their attitude is not present in the young generation, whom grow up used to the new legislation.

[Dukasaur]

If 51% of people think it is okay to marry brothers and sisters, does that make it right?

First, this belongs in Shroedinger's, not in GD.

But to answer your question, no.

In the Baroque age there was a doctrine known as the "Divine Right of Kings". Today, when you hear about it in history class, the whole class breaks out in guffaws, thinking how ridiculous it was that those poor benighted savages thought a king had a right to absolute rule just by virtue of being a king. I think that today we have a doctrine which is equally ridiculous, and it's the "Divine Right of the Majority." People think that Night can be changed into Day just because there was a referendum and it was voted on.

Don't get me wrong: voting is a good way of settling disputes, when they are purely a matter of preference and no principles are at stake. If a bunch of people are renting a movie it's perfectly reasonable to vote on whether to watch Going My Way or Apocalypse Now. But stretching that convenience to try to change realities or base principles is wrong.

ps. I know what you're up to. Make sure you give me proper credit in your footnotes when you turn in your essay on Monday....

[NoSurvivors]

If 51% of people think it is okay to marry brothers and sisters, does that make it right?

First, this belongs in Shroedinger's, not in GD.

But to answer your question, no.

In the Baroque age there was a doctrine known as the "Divine Right of Kings". Today, when you hear about it in history class, the whole class breaks out in guffaws, thinking how ridiculous it was that those poor benighted savages thought a king had a right to absolute rule just by virtue of being a king. I think that today we have a doctrine which is equally ridiculous, and it's the "Divine Right of the Majority." People think that Night can be changed into Day just because there was a referendum and it was voted on.

Don't get me wrong: voting is a good way of settling disputes, when they are purely a matter of preference and no principles are at stake. If a bunch of people are renting a movie it's perfectly reasonable to vote on whether to watch Going My Way or Apocalypse Now. But stretching that convenience to try to change realities or base principles is wrong.

ps. I know what you're up to. Make sure you give me proper credit in your footnotes when you turn in your essay on Monday....

Lol I have no essay. (Also could a mod move it over please?) It came up in a conversation I had with phatscotty and he said there might be a few people who found this interesting (and he was right, lol). So I posted it here to see what CC thought. I don't take history, took it last year and it was fairly boring (Canadian history is kinda lame for the most part).

Anyhow I absolutely agree with you. And I'm so glad it's not just me that thinks that the voting system is flawed. The problem is, is there a better way?

[rdsrds2120]

Moving it over!

BMO

[koontz1973]

It has never been majority rules, it has always been minority rule in most countries. It would not matter if 51% of people believed it was OK to marry a brother or sister, it would only matter what the politicians think. When was the last time a full vote was ever held. I mean that everyone voted, not just the ones that want to vote.

[_sabotage_]

Is there a better way?

Yes, get two movies. Voting is bs. The government will do what it wants anyway. When the Fed was voted in, it was a hugely unpopular idea in the States. it was done on Dec 23, 1913. Those who knew it was going to take place stayed behind to vote, but most representatives had already left for Christmas. It goes into law anyways although it didn't have popular majority.

Change is difficult to enact in general. There are interest groups intent on the status quo, politicians who don't have much idea what theyre doing anyways and not willing to rock the boat. Grand change would take years of debate and unless there was overwhelming economic incentives, it would probably never happen. If there were vast economic incentives, it might pass quickly and be tagged into a more popular bill and pass unnoticed.

The maritime provinces are overwhelmingly in favor of legalizing cannabis as is BC. And yet Stephan Harper slipped tougher anti cannabis legislation into a bill. Permits for growing medical marijuana are being withdrawn and yet the will of the people seems against this.

The government is good at playing with voters if not at much else. California went pro cannabis two days before the initiative vote scheduled, luring people into the belief that the essentials of the initiative had already been enacted and therefore confusing the need to vote on it.

But besides the fact that it would be truly difficult to enact change even though the will of the people is behind something, I disagree with being able to vote against someone's rights or enacting legislation that discriminates against groups. This is done though and there is little recourse to change it. I'm a Canadian born in the states, my son was born outside of Canada and he therefore isnt canadian according a a law that was passed in 2007 and effects probably only several thousand people in the world. The high tax on tobacco is a form of discrimination as well as all the no smoking areas.

Meanwhile we enact taxes that never seem to go away even when the benefits they were meant to confer disappear. One reason I came back to Canada instead of to the States was that I felt more comfortable handing my tax dollars to a government who uses them to benefit society. After being back for a few months, I realize that something had changed in my time away. The roads suck, there are fewer public services than in the past, and it just appears much more hostile in general.

In canada we pay tax on our taxes it would seem and we get little or nothing for the money except a slow and conservative process that promotes a top heavy government and little opportunity for the population. We beg IBM to come in, shine their shoes and fire our workers just for them. We pump up the oil industry and talk about all the benefits that we are getting. Coming to my point, if you combine all the government jobs and their families with others who have key interests, then the rest of the population doesnt get much of a say anyways, but are held just as liable. I really think we should be able to vote for a proportional based solution so as not to disenfranchise young people in this country.

[Dukasaur]

I tend to agree with most of what sabotage wrote.

[BigBallinStalin]

In canada we pay tax on our taxes it would seem and we get little or nothing for the money except a slow and conservative process that promotes a top heavy government and little opportunity for the population. We beg IBM to come in, shine their shoes and fire our workers just for them. We pump up the oil industry and talk about all the benefits that we are getting. Coming to my point, if you combine all the government jobs and their families with others who have key interests, then the rest of the population doesnt get much of a say anyways, but are held just as liable. I really think we should be able to vote for a proportional based solution so as not to disenfranchise young people in this country.

What do you mean by ' proportional based solution'? How exactly would that function?

[Funkyterrance]

I think enough deformed babies would start to bring that "old time feeling" back, AKA gut response.

[_sabotage_]

Proportional based solution is a concept that would not favor a certain producer over another, or one idea over another.

The Vietnam war was considered a loss by most, but I disagree. The original fear or prompt for the war was the spread of communism and the worldwide influence of communism. It was too counteract a difference of opinion. And it was successful. The society was crushed and it took a long time for them to recover, a dire example to countries around them. Instead of allowing communism in a country which was 80% in favor of it, and give them a fair shot at it, we did everything in our power to ensure it's failure and for the most part it worked. Sure Vietnam is doing well enough today under communism, but it is a capitalist society which gets "support" from the World Bank as long as they follow the international regulations. And so it was a double success, it blocked the flow of communism and kept them on our terms.

There are around a hundred examples of this attack on ideas all resulting in coups, internal hampering, sanctions or outright war all in an effort to ensure the failure and containment of the ideas proposed. Our aggression only eases up when they play ball. But what it leaves us with is a single system of successful government that isn't based on the system at all but on others lack of ability to hamper it as effectively as we have hampered others.

It's ideological warfare. And we have the same at home. We clamp down on ideas and things we don't personally or politically like, we spread propaganda and have them stifled and then quashed and move on in a single line. I disagree with this system as new ideas are not allowed to flourish or counter ideas are not allowed to take their course unmolested and as such we don't really get any useful info about alternatives.

On a state or county level we can attempt to enact change but this is only if the larger framework of the country allows it. Washington and Colorado can step forth and claim to legalize weed, but when the US government goes to enforce their international rule through drug enforcement acts that are present in most major international treaties from the WTO to granting aid packages, they will be an a wobbly position. Obama's response to the petition to leave the two states be was not forthcoming, but we were directed to a recent interview in which he talks about preventing criminal networks and federal power over state laws and that enforcing against small recreational users wont be a priority.

Well it never was a priority; nothing he said leads me to believe it will be given a fair shot. How has it even made it this far though. I lived in Seattle from 1985-1990 as a kid, but I remember the commercials on TV the campaigns in schools, the heightened police presence, all the might and dollars of the state against drugs and yet their oppressive propaganda that has been going on for decades has somehow not worked. The might of state has been challenged by the might of the people and for this reason it will be quashed.

But this still isnt a proportional based system. A proportional system will allocate funds to the dissenting side based on proportion to be used in the dissenting direction or create avenues for the dissenting voice to have the freedom of the choice. For example, in the Iraq war, I believe there were 8 votes against it out of 500? Allocate them funds to record the atrocities, help the foreign victims, spread propaganda etc in proportion to the funds given to the other votes for the war. If there are 40% of people voting yes for legalization, then allow businesses, homes etc to legally allow for the growth and consumption within their place of business. Allocate 40% of the funds for the study and development of marijuana and allow the rehabilitation of those arrested to be conducted by 40% of those who are against its illegality.

In this form we can protect freedom, give people their say but also give people a bit more pause before they enact legislation against groups or ideas. If the funds, rights, etc go both ways, some politicians will change their votes, opposing interests will become more prominent and we could do better comparisons on the net gain/loss of any idea on society.