Thursday, January 6, 2011

Can't we just have majority rule?

From Matt Miller of The Washington Post on Jan. 6:
Quick: Which fact in Washington is more outrageous?

(1) We don't have majority rule in America, thanks to the Senate filibuster rules; or

(2) The Democrats' plan for "controversial" filibuster reform doesn't actually seek to establish majority rule in America.

It's a close call, but I'll take No. 2. Apparently making a full-throated case for majority rule is too controversial a step in the year 2011 in the world's leading democracy.

I'm having a hard time explaining this to my 13-year-old daughter. She gets that the Bill of Rights protects certain fundamental liberties against even a determined majority's thirst to trample on them.

But protecting a determined minority's desire to thwart the will of the majority on legislation of all kinds? A minority that might represent as little as 15 percent of the population?

It's not clear what theory of governance elevates the tyranny of the minority into a sacred principle.


Just a conservative girl said...

Technically speaking we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Those rules were put into place in order to protect everyone so things couldn't be rammed through without giving a hearing to members of a state. I am ok with no majority rule. It isn't healthy thing, as you said people can take advantage of force things through against the will of a substancial amount of the states.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Header PS Brush by