0
What else can I help you with?
Why does Madison reject pure democracy in favor of representative democracy?
Many people had argued against the new Constitution claiming that the US would be too large to govern as a democracy (republic) and had too many groups, or “factions,” as political parties were then called. While Madison acknowledged that there were many differing factions, he also indicated that a democratic form of government, using the ideal of majority rule, would tame the factions and cause them to work together as much as possible. He claimed that the republican form of government created by the new Constitution would allow all the factions the room and venues to express themselves and to influence the workings of government by getting their members elected and/or appointed to offices. Minority groups would be protected because the factions would have to negotiate their differences. In this way, the republic would create a system of government in which the majority would rule but the ideas of the minority would have to be taken into consideration. Numerous factions would also mean that no one group would be able to take complete control of the government and this would give rise to what Madison called “politics,” namely, the art of governing.
What are some disadvantages to a democracy?
The "tyranny of the majority" is the fear that a democratic government, reflecting the majority view, can take action that oppresses a particular minority. Theoretically, the majority could only be a majority of those who vote and not a majority of the citizens. In those cases, one minority tyrannizes another minority in the name of the majority. It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. Several de facto dictatorships also have compulsory, but not free and fair, voting in order to try to increase the legitimacy of the regime. Possible examples include: * those potentially subject to conscription are a minority. * several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols in public schools. Opponents see this as a violation of rights to freedom of religion. Supporters see it as following from the separation of state and religious activities. * prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the majority is prepared to accept. * recreational drug use is also typically legalized (or at least tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of unjustifiable criminalisation. * society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago; in some democracies they still are, reflecting the religious or sexual mores of the majority. * the Athenian democracy and the early United States had slavery. * the majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. * in prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the population, and may not have the power to use the state to initiate redistribution when a majority of the electorate opposes such designs. When the poor form a distinct underclass, the majority may use the democratic process to, in effect, withdraw the protection of the state. * An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933 . Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so the rise of Hitler cannot be considered irrelevant. However, his regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the social democratic Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies. Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution protecting the rights of all citizens in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions. Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority. A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. All the possible problems mentioned above can also occur in nondemocracies with the added problem that a minority can oppress the majority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and mass murder by the government.. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.
What is excessive democracy?
It can be argued that pure democracy, the vote of each citizen on every issue affecting everyone, is excessive. Except for in small groups, there has never been a pure democracy governing a state. Ancient Athens was not a pure democracy as non-land holders and women could not vote, yet it was the closest any nation had ever come to it. The problems of a pure democracy become evident as a majority can vote to restrict or eliminate rights of a minority, evident with passage of "Jim Crow" laws following the US Civil War restricting rights of freed men, not all former slaves. Another problem would be the ability to consult each and every citizen in the passage of laws for each and every law, slowing the process greatly. A representative democracy, or republic, speeds this ability, and with checks and balances built in, protects the rights of individuals and minorities.
Why did the framers create repubilcan and democratic democracies instead of direct democracy?
"How" is easier to answer, but since you asked the "why" I'll try my best to explain why. At the time of James Madison and in creating the Constitution for our Democracy we live in now, there was no way of knowing just how it would (230+ years old) translate to today's government. To quote Robert Dahl from "A Preface to Democracy" he begs the question whether or not Madison would have foreseen the problems that A Democracy has created for us (there are many, you can look them up). His answer: "I highly doubt it". They established a form of republican Democracy as the framework because (as explained thoroughly in The Federalist #10) a direct democracy creates, among many other things, tyranny of the majority. So, to answer your question, we can only try and assess and analyze why. But, there are some facts and viewpoints that should be taken into consideration.
How does American democracy differ from the theory of democratic government?
America is a Democratic-Republic, not a Democracy. If we had a true Democracy, we the people would vote on EVERY issue (every law, every bill, everything). Instead, we elect leaders to make those decisions. If we had a true Democracy, nothing would ever get done because getting 200 million people to the polls on a weekly or daily basis would cost so much money and we would never agree on anything. Easy, the US is a Republic not a true Democracy. The Theory of a Democratic Government is that everyone eligible to vote on an issue has to vote on said issue before it is resolved. You can't grant anyone else your vote. Also, the majority wins all and makes the rules. The minority has no rights and no protection under a true Democracy.
What are the responsibility of the majority in the system of majority rules and rights?
There is no such thing given the context of the question. There are either rights, shared by minority and majority alike; or there is no rights but what the majority would grant to the minority - therefore they (the majority) have no responsibilities to the minority at all.
What are some responsibilities of majority rule?
There is no such thing given the context of the question. There are either rights, shared by minority and majority alike; or there is no rights but what the majority would grant to the minority - therefore they (the majority) have no responsibilities to the minority at all.
What does Majority rule with minority rights mean when associated with the US government?
Majority rule means a numerical majority of the voting populace holds the power to make decisions binding on everyone. Minority rights are rights guaranteed to minorities that cannot be removed or modified, even by a vote of the majority.
Do people think the direct democracy would work in us?
No I don't. The way our government is set up now is meant to protect the minority. If it was a direct democracy, the majority would continually have control, and the minority would eventually become fed up to the point that they revolted.
What is it that makes the rights of the minority most insecure according to Madison?
In Federalist Paper No. 10 James Madison wrote about how a republican government should be structured to protect the rights of the minority. He noted that the majority often has a tendency to abuse its powers leading to the "tyranny of the majority." Madison argued that this tyranny of the majority often leads to the minority having their rights infringed upon. He believed that in order for the rights of the minority to be secure the structure of the government should be so that it would protect these rights from the majority.Madison suggested three ways to protect the rights of the minority. First the government should be large enough that no one faction can become a majority and overpower the minority. Second the government should have a separation of powers so that each branch can act as a check on the other branches. Finally the government should have a system of representation so that the minority can have their views and interests represented in the government.These three aspects of a republican government are what Madison believed would protect the rights of the minority the most. By having a large government the majority cannot easily overpower the minority. By having a separation of powers each branch can act as a check on the other branches and preserve the rights of the minority. And by having a system of representation the minority can have their voices heard in the government. These three aspects according to Madison are what make the rights of the minority most secure.
What type of government would be the greatest threat to free speech?
Almost any dictatorship, but that includes any democracy where a simple majority rules ... they tend to take rights away from the minority. It happened in Germany and shows signs of happening here.
How is James Madison biased against the majority?
James Madison is often perceived as biased against the majority because of his emphasis on protecting minority rights in his political philosophy. He believed that a pure democracy could lead to the tyranny of the majority, where the rights and interests of minorities would be disregarded. Madison's advocacy for a system of government that included checks and balances and a representative form of democracy was aimed at preventing such tyranny and ensuring that all voices were heard and protected.
Can a government based on majority vote protect the rights of those who are not part of the majority?
In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that minority rights can be protected under a system of majority rule. Minority groups would be protected because the factions (political parties) would have to negotiate their differences. In this way, the republic would create a system of government in which the majority would rule but the ideas of the minority would have to be taken into consideration. Numerous factions would also mean that no one group would be able to take complete control of the government and this would give rise to what Madison called “politics,” namely, the art of governing.
The anti-federalist james winthrop argued that a bill of rights was necessary in the constitution because?
it would secure the minority against the usurpation and tyranny of the majority.
What does Trail of Tears have to do with democracy?
The Trail of Tears is a very good example of Democracy. Democracy is the ability of the Majority to take away the rights of the Minority (Thomas Jefferson, and others). The Majority (Americans) wanted the lands, gold, and other resources of the Minority (Native Americans) so they voted in a President (Andrew Jackson) who would give it to them. If the United States was a Republic (like it is supposed to be) then Article 6 of the US Constitution (which makes Treaties part of the constitution; the Supreme Law of the Land (quoting Article 6)) - then the previous Treaties with those tribes would have prevented them from taking the lands; by forcing the USA to the terms of those treaties.
Why did the founders fear democracy?
The Framers of the Constitution feared that the use of tyranny by the majority could create problems. In other words, the majority could use their power to take away the rights of the minority, as an act of tyranny.
Why did the framers find it necessary to include in the bill of rights?
They were afraid that the majority would ride roughshod over the minority; so they decided that some rights, even though they were inalienable natural rights, needed to be explicitly guaranteed.
