![](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125592499/578355366.jpg)
The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own interests at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.
TOP STORIESOf course they do. Which is why a democracy won’t cut it. As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances.
A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.That led, most notably, to the bicameral structure of our legislative branch. We have a House of Representatives, where the number of members is greater for more populous states (which obviously favors those states), and the Senate, where every state from Rhode Island and Alaska to California and New York have exactly two representatives (which keeps less-populated states from being steamrolled).Being a republic, we also don’t pick our president through a direct, majority-take-all vote. We have an Electoral College.
And a lot of liberals don’t like that.Their attacks on the College are nothing new, but the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 renewed their fury. After all, as they never tire of pointing out, Mrs. Clinton captured more of the popular vote than Donald Trump did. They see the Electoral College as an impediment to their political victories, therefore it’s got to go.The latest attack comes via new lawsuits filed in federal courts in four states (Massachusetts, California, South Carolina and Texas).
“Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. Citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election.I doubt Mr. Boies and his fellow attorneys are really ignorant of why we have an Electoral College. But it’s important that the rest of us know.“The Electoral College is a very carefully considered structure the Framers of the Constitution set up to balance the competing interests of large and small states,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission.
“It prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers (the big cities), ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country — the places that progressives and media elites consider flyover country.”Most people who watch the election returns know that a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes to win. That’s because there are 538 votes altogether. As the website for the National Archives notes, “Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.”In short, the Founders were looking out for the people in “flyover country” long before there were airplanes to fly over them.Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or any number of other states with smaller populations?The people in “flyover country” don’t get enough attention as it is, but without the Electoral College, they’d be completely at the mercy of the majority.And let’s face it — that’s often not a great place to be. As the Austrian political philosopher Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn dryly observed in his book “Leftism,” the crucifixion of Jesus was “a democratic event.”What the wolves want matters, but so does what the sheep wants.
The Electoral College ensures that no one winds up on the menu. Ed Feulner is founder of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).
![Tyranny of the majority electoral college Tyranny of the majority electoral college](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125592499/414826111.jpg)
Welcome to r/LibertarianWelcome to r/Libertarian, a subreddit to discuss libertarianism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to libertarians. Rules1A: Follow reddit's sitewide rulesModerators will remove any content which violates'It was just a joke!'
Is not a valid excuse.1B: Off Topic PostsModerators may remove posts which have nothing to do with the discussion of libertarianism, economics, politics, philosophy, or current events.1C: No Inappropriate ContentModerators may remove posts or comments containing pornography, gore, or other shocking content1D:The post will be auto-removed if it is a meme or image.Note: ALL direct image posts are considered meme content. No exceptions.
True 'Democracy' is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner options.In a Constitutional Republic the majority is limited in any area in which they can violate the civil rights of any minority (or just one person). And they should be.This is also why Proposition 8 in California (putting gay marriage up to a popular vote where it lost due to major money from the Mormons and other religions) should never have happened.
![Majority Majority](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125592499/546358858.jpg)
We DO NOT put basic civil rights to a vote, because 'the majority' has no basic right to decide how others live their lives (so long as nobody else is harmed). Democracy isn't particularly popular here, but keep in mind. No form of government is inherently evil. One could imagine a 'good' dictator, or a 'good' majority. What IS dangerous is the fact that people die. And no matter how 'good' those who hold the will of the sovereign are, it is dangerous to have it held (and therefore able to be changed) by one entity.
Be it king or majority, or group of elected officials.this is why the judicial branch of the US government is so important. It is a non democratic, transcendent set of laws that are very difficult to be changed. So in a way, no person holds the will of the sovereign in that branch, although of course laws and judges aren't perfect.
It is when freedom is restricted by a democracy rather than by a dictator. As Mel Gibson said in the Patriot, 'What care I if I'm ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or three thousand tyrants one mile away.' So, when the majority restricts dangerous activities that it does not like (guns, marijuana use, prostitution, gambling) while allowing more dangerous activities that it does like (driving, alcohol use) it is an example of tyranny of the majority. Another example of tyranny of the majority would be anti-smoking laws in bars and restaurants.
Because the majority does not like smoking, it imposes laws on all bars and restaurants to get smoking regulations the way the majority likes them rather than letting each individual owner decide. Think of it this way - the purpose of government/rule of law should be to protect individual (aka minority) rights. Without a set rule of law decisions would be left to mob rule and individual rights (like a right to fair trail for example) would be susceptible to be circumvented by said mob (think of the old angry mobs). Another example would be if the majority of people just decided to take an individual's money or property just because there is more in the mob than there is of that minority (whether it be an individual or a smaller group of people). The entire reason that a restricted form of government is favored over pure anarchy is because ideally a fair rule of law would be designed so that individuals are free to pursue their own endeavors and are not bound to merely protecting their own rights and property alone. Well, they're not telling others how to live.
If someone wanted to form some type of gated socialist commune, that'd be libertarian in nature, as long as it was voluntary. The second it became coercive, they'd be violating someone's rights.But then again no one said that libertarians had to be a part of the non-libertarian society.Except the majority will always vote to expand government, and politicians will always be happy to pander to them. Thus, forcing libertarians to live in a non-libertarian society. So the answer is to tell people how to live.
That's exactly what you are advocating and it doesn't seem much different from non-libertarians telling libertarians how to live. There's the rub. Either by forming a libertarian society, or a non-libertarian society, you are effectively telling the other group what they can or can not do, which is to me is not libertarian. You are basically saying that people have to be libertarian.
That's why it seems to me that it would be impossible to establish a libertarian society without all of its members being libertarian. The majority is never right. That's one of those social myths that every free and intelligent man must fight.
Who are the majority in a country, anyway, the wise or the foolish? Why, the fools are! They have an overwhelming majority the world over! But I'll be damned if it then follows that they should govern the intelligent people!. Henrik Ibsen, 'An Enemy of the People', 1882video on the tyranny of the majority:'The omnipotence of the majority appears to me such a great peril for the American republic's that the dangerous means used to limit it seem to me even a good'.
![](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125592499/578355366.jpg)