Majority Rule
 

If given the choice, would you prefer to live in a state or nation where all laws, rights, and decisions of governing were determined by referendum and a simple majority vote?

I'm sure you are familiar with the term "tyranny of the majority."

There are some that believe it's a myth espoussed by a minority view.

Those folks have probably never been in the minority. ;)

I was just thinking about the logistics of this....are you talking about having (Almost) every person within a country voting for every law that is passed? I would imagine that with the internet you could potentially do this. However wouldn't that keep everyone busy voting rather then working/living?

Logistics aside, the question is whether you think direct democracy is a good idea. It seems to be populate with the folks who back "propositions" in various states.

California is a disaster due to direct democracy. In one referendum, they vote themselves huge social systems while they cut taxes in another. I'll stick with representative democracy constrained by a Constitution that is designed to check the "tyranny of the majority". I would, however like to see more use of the Internet to increase voter participation.

Well so far I was the only one with a YES vote.

But it's not really that, technically YES I would.
BUT considering the averge Joe IQ in the low single digits I really wouldn't.
I've dealt with enough people that "Think" they know it all, but really barely have a clue. Add to that the closed minded idiots and my answer really could never be YES.

Yes there are a lot of intelligent and good people, unfortunately they are in the monority.

Because people are self-interested individuals, the majority turns tyranical. It's for these reasons that a separation of powers, and check and balances occur. That why senators were elected indirectly, by state legislators (also because it kept states more sovereign from the federal government--this was eliminated and guess what happened...).

It's not a new thinking that causes people to fear the majority. Regardless of your political beliefs, look at our tax system. It is a gleaming example because a majority of the people decide who pays for what. Guess who pays for everything. Again, it doesn't matter what your political beliefs are, but look at our tax code and you will see how the majority rules.

An unrestrained majority is letting a two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.

Regards,

David

How many governments/people have taken this route and survived any length of time?

The UK is trying this now since they abolished the House of Lords for all intents and purposes. It has become a majority rule and a simple majority at that. Look at all the dumb laws they have passed in the last few years. Banning guns, sharp knives, fox hunting, etc...

What you end up with is a majority that can vote themselves bread and circuses with no checks on their power.
Like it or not our system of LIMITED government and checks and balances has worked for this long because we have kept the majority from running amok

No, democracy is a horrible idea. I'm so glad we live in a Republic.

The more I see the more I realize how right our Founding Fathers got it when they formed our government. Thats why I oppose any change to it, eliminating the electoral college etc. If we don't mess with it, it will last 1k years. If we screw with it who knows.

Agreed, and it was much less of a "democracy" at the beginning. The senate was appointed by the states' governments and the pool of voters was much more restricted (white male landowners). The founding fathers did not envision the public being directly involved in the details of government. The plan was for them to elect people who's judgement they trusted. It is amazing to read of the huge decisions that were made by a handful of people without any real input from their constituents.

I still think voting should be restricted to landowners.

I see merit in your post. :)