So how is that worse than a tyranny of the minority? At some point, you have to govern by the consent - and the consensus - of the governed. You can't just say "OMG tyranny of the majority" and somehow handwave all the much larger problems that stem from a small group of elites thinking that they can responsibly wield absolute power over those they govern.
Certainly not, and that's not what I advocate. "Tyranny of the majority" refers to the very real political problem whereby
unpopular minorities will be persecuted purely for being unpopular, not because of any compelling state interest, such as the banning of gay marriage purely based on "tradition."
That doesn't mean that the concept of creating laws and governance based on the preferences of the majority is somehow invalidated; only that the rule of the majority should be confined to specific interests of society as a whole (meaning things that actually
affect the state and society) as opposed to just basic popularity contests.
We already have an outfit meant to give disproportionate weight to the claims of minorities against the law; it's called the courts.
Incomplete. In a true democracy, courts would be guided by the laws...enacted by the majority. The courts are the
means by which one can seek redress through the law, but the courts themselves are not the protection we offer to minorities.
The
Constitution and the
fair application of laws is what protects against the Tyranny of the Majority. One cannot persecute unpopular minority religious sects, because of the First Amendment. You cannot persecute unpopular minority opinions, because of the First Amendment.
The Courts are the tool, but it's the Constitution that actually sets the framework under which the courts protect minorities. Without those Constitutional protections, a populist Congress could simply enact whatever oppressive law sounds best to the majority at a given moment, and the Court would be forced to use that framework.
Why do we need a Senate? What is gained by allowing the <1% of Americans who live in Montana to overrule the 54% of Americans who live in cities?
And therein lies where we do agree, crash. The Senate was implemented as a protection for minority populations
as defined by state boarders. It worked very well in preventing the larger-population (since slaves only counted as 3/5 of a person) Northern states from outlawing slavery in the Southern states, for example.
"Very well," of course, for those to whom preserving the institution of slavery was actually a goal.
The concept of
states as representative of majority or minority views is outdated. "States rights" is a concept that doesn't particularly work with regard to protecting minority views. Yes, "states rights" can hypothetically "protect" minority views like criminalizing abortion or legalizing the possession of concealed weapons or banning the recognition of gay marriage...but as it turns out, these sorts of issues are typically Constitutionally governed
anyway. The Constitutional right to privacy mandates the legality of abortion. The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms governs the ability to own weapons. The Constitutional guarantee of equal treatment before the law governs gay marriage.
The political theory is that there will be greater and more relevant consent to be governed under laws determined by yourself and your neighbors rather than a more populous region across the country. The idea has merit, and had
more when "across the country" meant more than a few hours on a plane or no time at all on the internet or by phone. But I'd argue that the relevance has decreased as the relevance of geographical location has decreased.
So long as individual states have their own legal frameworks (as opposed to a purely Federal system), I can see a reason for
something like the Senate to exist. I'm just not so convinced that the Senate is the
best solution to the problem.
One alternative solution, of course, would be to abolish the concept of state-specific laws entirely, and make all laws Federal. Another would be to change what specifically the Senate does - perhaps make the Senate only able to
block laws rather than being required to
pass them, which would allow a majorty0in-the-Senate (which could still represent a minority of the population) to
block a law, but would allow most laws to pass so long as they were enacted in the House. I'm not a political scientist,
real solutions would require more than five minutes of me thinking at work, my point is just that I'd like to see alternative considerations to the current mechanism.
I think we're getting at the same thing. I would add that the Senate sure as hell didn't do very much for Indians and slaves; was there ever a time when the Senate actually prevented "tyranny of the majority"?
Again, yes. Equal representation by state has resulted in many laws that would otherwise be passed to be blocked because of the concern of just a few states - if all votes were dependent only on raw population like under a purely democratic system, those laws would have passed.
But remember, the Senate
was never intended to protect against "minorities" as we define them today. It was intended to prevent higher-population
states from interfering with the internal processes and laws of smaller states - a very different (and I would suggest less important) definition of "Tyranny of the Majority" than, say, outlawing homosexuality would fall under.
™ Version 4.2