What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Alternatives to Majority Rule approach to democracy?

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
23,618
Reaction score
4,144
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I argued with a friend that democracy is not limited to "majority rule"
but my friend insisted that was the definition. I said democracy means
rule by the people which can be based on consensus, or majority rule,
or 3/4 or 2/3 or any number of ways or standards on policy decisions.

Someone else asked what other alternatives are there to majority rule?

I listed some below.

Please add suggestions or comments on what you would recommend for govt reforms:

1. the Green Party supports Proportional Representation by Party, which a Libertarian friend suggested could be used to replace the Electoral College system of majority taking all

2. The Greens also support Consensus Decision making within their ranks, which I believe should be offered on all levels NOTE: by Combining 1 and 2, then people can be assured of party representation WITHIN a mediation process to reach consensus between groups on policy decisions

3. The Peace and Justice progressives have pushed for a PEACE department, where I suggested ADDING this to the Justice dept to create a Dept of Peace and Justice that includes the option of MEDIATION and consensus for people who believe in that standard

4. Other Libertarians support a Grand Jury system run directly by the people to bring complaints against govt abuses

5. OSHA has a system of issuing citations and holding hearings to resolve violations against a standard health and safety code: I support developing a civilian council or commission, modeled after the OSHA process, but based on standards of civil and Constitutional ethics www.ethics-commission.net

6. Christians and Restorative Justice believers advocate for consensus based decisions on corrections and restitution so this restores justice and working relations after wrongful damages.

7. I believe combining the Restorative Justice approach with Restitution for corporate and govt abuses, taxpayers can be reimbursed by investing credits into agreed solutions and reforms, while the wrongdoers are held to settlement plans to pay off the debts currently charged to taxpayers

8. Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in using Conventions of States to vote on Amendments before authorizing govt to regulate anything, and do not believe in using Courts to make laws as Liberals do. I believe we can use the same Convention concept to hold conferences between Parties to decide what policies belong to govt, at which levels, or what programs should be funded and provided by Party or by State to accommodate citizens.

9. The President and VP used to be elected from the top 2 candidates, allowing multiple parties: I suggest dividing the Executive into TWO unconnected administrations for Internal/Domestic policies between States vs External/Security issues between nations, and allow parties/leaders to govern only areas that suit their beliefs, while setting up a national council for people to represent themselves by party to APPROVE what duties to delegate where.

10. The Cooperative system of democratizing districts would allow all Parties to set up their own agreed system of making decisions for their members. This is the closest I have found to allowing "isocracy" or equal empowerment of all people to represent themselves and make their own decisions by their own systems.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
46,003
Reaction score
26,420
Points
2,615
I argued with a friend that democracy is not limited to "majority rule"
but my friend insisted that was the definition. I said democracy means
rule by the people which can be based on consensus, or majority rule,
or 3/4 or 2/3 or any number of ways or standards on policy decisions.

Someone else asked what other alternatives are there to majority rule?

I listed some below.

Please add suggestions or comments on what you would recommend for govt reforms:

1. the Green Party supports Proportional Representation by Party, which a Libertarian friend suggested could be used to replace the Electoral College system of majority taking all

2. The Greens also support Consensus Decision making within their ranks, which I believe should be offered on all levels NOTE: by Combining 1 and 2, then people can be assured of party representation WITHIN a mediation process to reach consensus between groups on policy decisions

3. The Peace and Justice progressives have pushed for a PEACE department, where I suggested ADDING this to the Justice dept to create a Dept of Peace and Justice that includes the option of MEDIATION and consensus for people who believe in that standard

4. Other Libertarians support a Grand Jury system run directly by the people to bring complaints against govt abuses

5. OSHA has a system of issuing citations and holding hearings to resolve violations against a standard health and safety code: I support developing a civilian council or commission, modeled after the OSHA process, but based on standards of civil and Constitutional ethics www.ethics-commission.net

6. Christians and Restorative Justice believers advocate for consensus based decisions on corrections and restitution so this restores justice and working relations after wrongful damages.

7. I believe combining the Restorative Justice approach with Restitution for corporate and govt abuses, taxpayers can be reimbursed by investing credits into agreed solutions and reforms, while the wrongdoers are held to settlement plans to pay off the debts currently charged to taxpayers

8. Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in using Conventions of States to vote on Amendments before authorizing govt to regulate anything, and do not believe in using Courts to make laws as Liberals do. I believe we can use the same Convention concept to hold conferences between Parties to decide what policies belong to govt, at which levels, or what programs should be funded and provided by Party or by State to accommodate citizens.

9. The President and VP used to be elected from the top 2 candidates, allowing multiple parties: I suggest dividing the Executive into TWO unconnected administrations for Internal/Domestic policies between States vs External/Security issues between nations, and allow parties/leaders to govern only areas that suit their beliefs, while setting up a national council for people to represent themselves by party to APPROVE what duties to delegate where.

10. The Cooperative system of democratizing districts would allow all Parties to set up their own agreed system of making decisions for their members. This is the closest I have found to allowing "isocracy" or equal empowerment of all people to represent themselves and make their own decisions by their own systems.


our constitutional republic seems to be a pretty good system if we got the partys out of it,,

the partys are what screwing things up
 

Natural Citizen

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
21,007
Reaction score
17,678
Points
2,445
I argued with a friend that democracy is not limited to "majority rule"
but my friend insisted that was the definition. I said democracy means
rule by the people which can be based on consensus, or majority rule,
or 3/4 or 2/3 or any number of ways or standards on policy decisions.

Someone else asked what other alternatives are there to majority rule?

I listed some below.

Please add suggestions or comments on what you would recommend for govt reforms:

1. the Green Party supports Proportional Representation by Party, which a Libertarian friend suggested could be used to replace the Electoral College system of majority taking all

2. The Greens also support Consensus Decision making within their ranks, which I believe should be offered on all levels NOTE: by Combining 1 and 2, then people can be assured of party representation WITHIN a mediation process to reach consensus between groups on policy decisions

3. The Peace and Justice progressives have pushed for a PEACE department, where I suggested ADDING this to the Justice dept to create a Dept of Peace and Justice that includes the option of MEDIATION and consensus for people who believe in that standard

4. Other Libertarians support a Grand Jury system run directly by the people to bring complaints against govt abuses

5. OSHA has a system of issuing citations and holding hearings to resolve violations against a standard health and safety code: I support developing a civilian council or commission, modeled after the OSHA process, but based on standards of civil and Constitutional ethics www.ethics-commission.net

6. Christians and Restorative Justice believers advocate for consensus based decisions on corrections and restitution so this restores justice and working relations after wrongful damages.

7. I believe combining the Restorative Justice approach with Restitution for corporate and govt abuses, taxpayers can be reimbursed by investing credits into agreed solutions and reforms, while the wrongdoers are held to settlement plans to pay off the debts currently charged to taxpayers

8. Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in using Conventions of States to vote on Amendments before authorizing govt to regulate anything, and do not believe in using Courts to make laws as Liberals do. I believe we can use the same Convention concept to hold conferences between Parties to decide what policies belong to govt, at which levels, or what programs should be funded and provided by Party or by State to accommodate citizens.

9. The President and VP used to be elected from the top 2 candidates, allowing multiple parties: I suggest dividing the Executive into TWO unconnected administrations for Internal/Domestic policies between States vs External/Security issues between nations, and allow parties/leaders to govern only areas that suit their beliefs, while setting up a national council for people to represent themselves by party to APPROVE what duties to delegate where.

10. The Cooperative system of democratizing districts would allow all Parties to set up their own agreed system of making decisions for their members. This is the closest I have found to allowing "isocracy" or equal empowerment of all people to represent themselves and make their own decisions by their own systems.

You have to distinguish between "a Democracy'' and ''democracy'' for a clear understanding of ''our Republic.''

Here's a thorough explanation in one of my postings around here, emily.

I'll hyperlink the text so you can see the thread...


Actually America is a compound Republic. That being a combination of a central and state Republics, with the state Republics holding the majority of power over the 'strictly limited' federal Republic.

Each American government, Federal and State, is a Republic. Such a form of government is expressly guaranteed to each State by the United States Constitution. (See Article IV, Section 4.)

This makes the American system a combination, of Republics. A ''compound Republic'' as noted in The Federalist number 51 by Madison.

"Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." (See Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)

Now. Placing that aside.

"A Democracy'' is a form of government premised on the idea of a rule by omnipotent majority scenario, while ''democracy'' itself is merely a popular type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people.

More clearly, "a Democracy" and "a Republic" are dissimilar forms of government. Not only are they dissimilar forms of government, they are antithetical forms of government. Grasping this is critical to comprehension and discussion of the fundamental principles involved.

So it's important to distinguish the double meaning of the term. It is critical to distinguish form of government versus popular type of government.

In ''a Democracy'', The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

"A Republic", on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The definition of ''a Republic'' is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution, adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment, with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
 
Last edited:

EvilCat Breath

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
65,540
Reaction score
41,067
Points
2,645
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Restorative justice can be cured with an immediate application of the death penalty.
 

Natural Citizen

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
21,007
Reaction score
17,678
Points
2,445
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

No, that's "a Democracy" Rule by omnipotent Majority is a feature of "a Democracy"


Democracy itself is a feature of ''a Republic''

''A Democracy'' and ''a Republic'' are antithetical forms of government.

"Democracy'' is not a feature of "a Democracy". The Main feature of "a Democracy' is rule by omnipotent Majority.

"Democracy'' itself is only a feature of "a Replublic"

"a Democracy" and ''democracy'' are antithetical. But for some reason they get applied interchangeably. This is a mistake.

The problem is that if one repeats a lie often enough people start accepting it as truth. Which why the talking heads keep repeating the lie.
 
Last edited:

Natural Citizen

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
21,007
Reaction score
17,678
Points
2,445
The shortcoming is that people don't seem to realize the double meaning of the term.

And the talking heads on the idiot box take advantage of it. All of them do it. They all say "our Democracy"

What they're actually promoting when they do that is a form of government that is blatantly antithetical to that of "our Republic''
 

LuckyDuck

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
4,456
Points
995
our constitutional republic seems to be a pretty good system if we got the partys out of it,,

the partys are what screwing things up
Yes. Our founding fathers never envisioned actual political parties, but in hindsight, that's the only way it could have gone as groups of people with opposing views, get together and form organizations with similar interests.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
23,618
Reaction score
4,144
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
our constitutional republic seems to be a pretty good system if we got the partys out of it,,

the partys are what screwing things up
Great progressive hunter

So isn't holding each Party responsible for its own costs consequences, terms and conditions of member policies,
a good way to keep Parties out of Govt?

What do you think of the idea of separating Parties from Govt?

Either through separate representation by party?

Or how about recognizing Political Parties as other forms of Religious Organizations
where they can only regulate and mandate for their own members voluntarily
but cannot establish beliefs through Govt to impose on anyone else involuntarily?
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
46,003
Reaction score
26,420
Points
2,615
Yes. Our founding fathers never envisioned actual political parties, but in hindsight, that's the only way it could have gone as groups of people with opposing views, get together and form organizations with similar interests.
george washington warned us of them,, and they shouldnt be allowed because the elected are required to represent their constituents not a political party,,
 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
13,158
Points
2,445
Location
The Full Moon
A related and unfortunately inescapable problem with our modern American governing system has to do with the size of our U.S. population. Even if our elected politicians were not corrupt and our justice system did not depend on the financial worth of the accused, there's just too many of us spread out too far and wide for us to be compassionately governed, for individual liberty to actually mean what it's supposed to and for every American to have a meaningful voice in their government.

That being said, a second fatal flaw in our system is any political party whatsoever. They must go.

A third fatal flaw is the way in which individual Americans identify first as from whatever state they are from and as Americans a distant second. We are all Americans. And while layer after layer of local, state and federal governments and laws should afford us protection from the evil FED as was mentioned above, what all those layers of government authority really do is crush the individual American under endless limitations on their individual freedom.

Our Founding Fathers never intended every American to vote, or rather to actually elect their own leaders. They wanted to establish something historically unique; an matchlessly free nation under God. However, that doesn't mean they were ignorant of human nature. They saw what was going down in France at the time and it taught them to righteously fear the mob and certain ideologies which might drive it.

While I believe to this day that our Founders truly meant what they wrote about inalienable rights I'm not sure we've actually seen inalienable rights or experienced them in our lifetimes. I mean, just think about it for a sec . . . if a company such as Wal Mart can remove your "inalienable" rights at the door or any old small town beat cop can rip them away from you in an instant then those rights of ours are neither inalienable nor God given.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
46,003
Reaction score
26,420
Points
2,615
Great progressive hunter

So isn't holding each Party responsible for its own costs consequences, terms and conditions of member policies,
a good way to keep Parties out of Govt?

What do you think of the idea of separating Parties from Govt?

Either through separate representation by party?

Or how about recognizing Political Parties as other forms of Religious Organizations
where they can only regulate and mandate for their own members voluntarily
but cannot establish beliefs through Govt to impose on anyone else involuntarily?
I think all political action groups should be banned from federal politics,,
that includes the parties,,
 

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
6,208
Points
938
I argued with a friend that democracy is not limited to "majority rule"
but my friend insisted that was the definition. I said democracy means
rule by the people which can be based on consensus, or majority rule,
or 3/4 or 2/3 or any number of ways or standards on policy decisions.

Someone else asked what other alternatives are there to majority rule?

I listed some below.

Please add suggestions or comments on what you would recommend for govt reforms:

1. the Green Party supports Proportional Representation by Party, which a Libertarian friend suggested could be used to replace the Electoral College system of majority taking all

2. The Greens also support Consensus Decision making within their ranks, which I believe should be offered on all levels NOTE: by Combining 1 and 2, then people can be assured of party representation WITHIN a mediation process to reach consensus between groups on policy decisions

3. The Peace and Justice progressives have pushed for a PEACE department, where I suggested ADDING this to the Justice dept to create a Dept of Peace and Justice that includes the option of MEDIATION and consensus for people who believe in that standard

4. Other Libertarians support a Grand Jury system run directly by the people to bring complaints against govt abuses

5. OSHA has a system of issuing citations and holding hearings to resolve violations against a standard health and safety code: I support developing a civilian council or commission, modeled after the OSHA process, but based on standards of civil and Constitutional ethics www.ethics-commission.net

6. Christians and Restorative Justice believers advocate for consensus based decisions on corrections and restitution so this restores justice and working relations after wrongful damages.

7. I believe combining the Restorative Justice approach with Restitution for corporate and govt abuses, taxpayers can be reimbursed by investing credits into agreed solutions and reforms, while the wrongdoers are held to settlement plans to pay off the debts currently charged to taxpayers

8. Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in using Conventions of States to vote on Amendments before authorizing govt to regulate anything, and do not believe in using Courts to make laws as Liberals do. I believe we can use the same Convention concept to hold conferences between Parties to decide what policies belong to govt, at which levels, or what programs should be funded and provided by Party or by State to accommodate citizens.

9. The President and VP used to be elected from the top 2 candidates, allowing multiple parties: I suggest dividing the Executive into TWO unconnected administrations for Internal/Domestic policies between States vs External/Security issues between nations, and allow parties/leaders to govern only areas that suit their beliefs, while setting up a national council for people to represent themselves by party to APPROVE what duties to delegate where.

10. The Cooperative system of democratizing districts would allow all Parties to set up their own agreed system of making decisions for their members. This is the closest I have found to allowing "isocracy" or equal empowerment of all people to represent themselves and make their own decisions by their own systems.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you have arrived on exactly how government should be run. How do you expect to implement those changes given the current environment?
 

Missouri_Mike

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
21,442
Reaction score
12,249
Points
1,405
A related and unfortunately inescapable problem with our modern American governing system has to do with the size of our U.S. population. Even if our elected politicians were not corrupt and our justice system did not depend on the financial worth of the accused, there's just too many of us spread out too far and wide for us to be compassionately governed, for individual liberty to actually mean what it's supposed to and for every American to have a meaningful voice in their government.

That being said, a second fatal flaw in our system is any political party whatsoever. They must go.

A third fatal flaw is the way in which individual Americans identify first as from whatever state they are from and as Americans a distant second. We are all Americans. And while layer after layer of local, state and federal governments and laws should afford us protection from the evil FED as was mentioned above, what all those layers of government authority really do is crush the individual American under endless limitations on their individual freedom.

Our Founding Fathers never intended every American to vote, or rather to actually elect their own leaders. They wanted to establish something historically unique; an matchlessly free nation under God. However, that doesn't mean they were ignorant of human nature. They saw what was going down in France at the time and it taught them to righteously fear the mob and certain ideologies which might drive it.

While I believe to this day that our Founders truly meant what they wrote about inalienable rights I'm not sure we've actually seen inalienable rights or experienced them in our lifetimes. I mean, just think about it for a sec . . . if a company such as Wal Mart can remove your "inalienable" rights at the door or any old small town beat cop can rip them away from you in an instant then those rights of ours are neither inalienable nor God given.
Sounds to me like we would both agree stripping the federal government to the bare minimum is a great idea. Like the founders intended.
 

Missouri_Mike

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
21,442
Reaction score
12,249
Points
1,405
We should probably try a convention of the states before things get much worse. Strip the feds of about 80% of their power and ridiculous departments of whatever horse shit.
 

Missouri_Mike

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
21,442
Reaction score
12,249
Points
1,405
Oh yes, and get rid of the fed. Go back to the gold standard.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
46,003
Reaction score
26,420
Points
2,615
We should probably try a convention of the states before things get much worse. Strip the feds of about 80% of their power and ridiculous departments of whatever horse shit.
dont need a CoS for most of that,, all the states have to do is stop taking payoffs and take back their 10th A powers,,
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
60,369
Reaction score
22,913
Points
2,260
Location
Western Va.
The error people make about so-called "majority rule" is that they leave out the fact that we elect these people to represent us. We hope that politicians do the right thing and when they don't we can kick them out every 3 and 4 and 6 years. Why don't we? That's the puzzling part.
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
4,319
Reaction score
1,241
Points
140
There are different types of Democracy. I would say that if people have the right to vote then that is the basis of a democracy. The people then delegate that power and that is were there are different ways that the government is run in various countries and political ideology in the form of parties.

From there it depends on who has the power to run the government. It it in the legislature or Parliament or in the executive branch and even the judicial system has a role. It is a mixture of all three or maybe one branch has more power.

the word democracy in its basic meaning mean the people have a say. They can vote for their leaders. They vote for how the government is formed. And the key is how easy is it to get rid of someone deemed corrupt. Liberal democracies generally value the needs of the citizen over the state. It does make things harder to achieve a consensus but majority rule is valid when you have people who are fickle.
 

B. Kidd

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
38,524
Reaction score
21,611
Points
1,905
Location
Western Lands
The shortcoming is that people don't seem to realize the double meaning of the term.

And the talking heads on the idiot box take advantage of it. All of them do it. They all say "our Democracy"

What they're actually promoting when they do that is a form of government that is blatantly antithetical to that of "our Republic''

The Dimm's stole the Republiic last election and we are farther away from being a Democracy than we've ever been!!
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
53,171
Reaction score
24,029
Points
2,300
I argued with a friend that democracy is not limited to "majority rule"
but my friend insisted that was the definition. I said democracy means
rule by the people which can be based on consensus, or majority rule,
or 3/4 or 2/3 or any number of ways or standards on policy decisions.

Someone else asked what other alternatives are there to majority rule?

I listed some below.

Please add suggestions or comments on what you would recommend for govt reforms:

1. the Green Party supports Proportional Representation by Party, which a Libertarian friend suggested could be used to replace the Electoral College system of majority taking all

2. The Greens also support Consensus Decision making within their ranks, which I believe should be offered on all levels NOTE: by Combining 1 and 2, then people can be assured of party representation WITHIN a mediation process to reach consensus between groups on policy decisions

3. The Peace and Justice progressives have pushed for a PEACE department, where I suggested ADDING this to the Justice dept to create a Dept of Peace and Justice that includes the option of MEDIATION and consensus for people who believe in that standard

4. Other Libertarians support a Grand Jury system run directly by the people to bring complaints against govt abuses

5. OSHA has a system of issuing citations and holding hearings to resolve violations against a standard health and safety code: I support developing a civilian council or commission, modeled after the OSHA process, but based on standards of civil and Constitutional ethics www.ethics-commission.net

6. Christians and Restorative Justice believers advocate for consensus based decisions on corrections and restitution so this restores justice and working relations after wrongful damages.

7. I believe combining the Restorative Justice approach with Restitution for corporate and govt abuses, taxpayers can be reimbursed by investing credits into agreed solutions and reforms, while the wrongdoers are held to settlement plans to pay off the debts currently charged to taxpayers

8. Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in using Conventions of States to vote on Amendments before authorizing govt to regulate anything, and do not believe in using Courts to make laws as Liberals do. I believe we can use the same Convention concept to hold conferences between Parties to decide what policies belong to govt, at which levels, or what programs should be funded and provided by Party or by State to accommodate citizens.

9. The President and VP used to be elected from the top 2 candidates, allowing multiple parties: I suggest dividing the Executive into TWO unconnected administrations for Internal/Domestic policies between States vs External/Security issues between nations, and allow parties/leaders to govern only areas that suit their beliefs, while setting up a national council for people to represent themselves by party to APPROVE what duties to delegate where.

10. The Cooperative system of democratizing districts would allow all Parties to set up their own agreed system of making decisions for their members. This is the closest I have found to allowing "isocracy" or equal empowerment of all people to represent themselves and make their own decisions by their own systems.
Why are Republicans whining about majority rule?

Because they know they don't HAVE the majority.

They want minority rule
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top