Majority Rules

Mindcrime · Guru

Majority Rules

Date: Wed Mar 9 8:43 AM, 2005

I think 51% is not enough at all. Especially when you consider that there is probably, at LEAST, a 3% margin of error on any given poll, that's enough to make someone else a winner. When you also consider that there are always a few people who will change their minds, there isn't a clear winner at all.

Even though the 'winner take all' majority seems to be a fundamental part of democracy, I have to say that, on some level, I disagree with it. I'd say that 2/3 or 3/4 would be a more appropriate majority, but is it possible to get that many people all agreeing to any one thing? Dubious.

I also agree that giving a 51% 'majority' the same weight as a 99% one is definitely undermining the idea of democracy. I think some other solution should be found, but as with most idealists, I just know there should be a change, I don't know what should be done about it.

alwayswatching · Guru

If 54% of the population holds a certain belief a good share of the 46% will jump on the bandwagon. Is this right, no. It is however a reality.

I often find myself on the 46% side, does this make me wrong? I don’t think so. It does make me work harder to share why I think that way. It may not change minds, but it might enlighten some.

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

I have to disagree. For example, in the recent presidential election, nearly half the country was against Bush and half for him. If a poll were taken today, I'd be willing to bet it would come out about the same. 3 years from now, when he leaves office, it will not have changed much. So the slight 51% majority is still discounting the 49% minority. I think our system is grossly unfair.

If someone owes you $100, and they pay you $50.01, can they say they've paid off the majority of their debt? Or would you see it more like half the debt?

If you were told that you would keep the majority of your teeth into old age, would you expect to have all upper dentures by age 35?

'Majorities' imply a great imbalance, such as 90-95%. A majority is not a skin-of-your-teeth victory. I think the winners, even in a near-landslide, still have a responsibility to give serious consideration to the remaining voices of opposition, and to incorporate their values into a compromising decision.

p.s. A mandate reflects a clear will of the people. Bush does not have a mandate.

Date: Thu Mar 10 5:00 PM, 2005

Dear PaperTigress:

I think I love you!

One sound mind is all I ask for. You're it.

Date: Tue Mar 15 6:05 PM, 2005

Wow, great thread!

In the UK, you need 2/3 majority for major things in the Parliament, like changes and additions to the constitution. That way, since usually the ruling parties are only a bit over 50 %, they can't decide on their own but need the agreement of at least part of the opposition. In Australia, they have varying degrees of a Proportional Representation in their voting system. This is meant to be a more equitable system, but minor parties can get more power than they deserve.

I guess I would just hope that people would have a social responsibility to respect a sizable minority. I'm not sure you can make it law, but it seems to be the ethical thing to do. I think the 51% has a social obligation to reevaluate the views of 49% and perhaps come up with a compromise that is more inclusive.

Date: Sun May 22 9:57 AM, 2005

Have we had enough yet? Are the real subjects thoroughly buried now?

Date: Sun May 22 3:55 PM, 2005

Mindcrime says--

"Anyone have a favorite superstition?" And, "If you are a politician in a Democratic society, isn't an easy way to get elected to oppress 49% of the people to get 51% of the vote?"

Sounds familiar. Can you guys sing a few bars?

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

Anonymous, what the Hell are you talking about?

alwayswatching · Guru

No, it's the water.

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

ok , our president was voted in according to the laws and regulations of our great country , if any one does not like that which ever side you voted for - it does not matter . next time work harder to get a candidate you approve of elected .

if you did not vote , you have not earned the right to bitch.

our president has stated , [unlike other presidents who were unable to choose and follow a path to a goal], that he will not follow whims and vageries of polls and popular trends. his goals and paths are clearly stated , his goals and paths were clearly stated before the election ..... enough of us liked what we heard and voted for what we wanted , all legal all good.

i think this is a good thing - i dont want a disco president that follows the latest trend like a teenage girl. and i dont want a politician that changes direction after the election , we dont have either .

Date: Mon May 30 12:10 PM, 2005

"that follows the latest trend like a teenage girl."

What's that? I'm a teenage girl that follows NO TRENDS--I SET THEM. This masculine anti-political talk offends me! It is also poitically incorrect! Are you also making a comment about my abilities because of my femaninity? Silly older male! Poor Boy. Clean it up.

Vera

kspeer · Senior Member

Vera, try setting a spelling trend!

Mindcrime · Guru

Then Mike can try a grammar trend? spaces before periods and commas, misplaced, ellipsis, and what's with all the hyphens? Leave our typing abilities out of it and stick to the point.

Vera makes a good argument, because something conservatives are great at is stereotyping and lumping people into groups. It's how they dismiss people, by catagorizing and labeling them.

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

that was not a personal attack on any individual teenage girl , most teenage girls will one day be older and wiser women educated by life experience and i believe that if you ask any wiser woman with a few more birthdays under her belt , she will agree that her decisions as a teenage girl would not have been as good as her decisions as an older wiser woman .

i would also think honast older wiser men would say similar things about their teenage selves . i know i would .

"I'm a teenage girl that follows NO TRENDS--I SET THEM. " if you want to have a good laugh in the future , write this down and store it somewhere ....where you wont see it for many years or until you have a teenage daughter ....

i dont think many people would accuse myself of being politicly correct .... but color me clean .

Paper Tigress · Veteran Member

mike of the mountain wrote:

that was not a personal attack on any individual teenage girl , most teenage girls will one day be older and wiser women educated by life experience and i believe that if you ask any wiser woman with a few more birthdays under her belt , she will agree that her decisions as a teenage girl would not have been as good as her decisions as an older wiser woman .

So your position is the older you are, the wiser? One of your 'wisdom' should know that equasion doesn't work. I know very wise people younger than me, and I know ten times as many fools older than me. Also, do you mean to imply that males are wiser than females?

Whether rules were broken or not, I still say the winner has a certain responsibility to the loser's point of view.

Date: Thu Jun 2 7:02 AM, 2005

Bush was elected into a presidential position, he's our 'leader.' It's his job to make life better for ALL Americans, yes? How can the president be doing his job if he ignores half the people?

Phantom

Date: Thu Jun 2 7:04 AM, 2005

You are absolutely correct Paul M. Thank you also for the other comments you are leaving anonymously. Your political insight is telling your tale.

Date: Thu Jun 2 12:28 PM, 2005

RE: If Majority Rules, why do these environmentalist wacko's get credibility?

NuclearLou · Senior Member

RE: Majority Rules

Date: Thu Jun 2 3:13 PM, 2005

Anonymous wrote:

If Majority rules, why do these bleeding heart, liberal, environmentalist wacko's get so much credibility when their opinion is based on junk science?? Those people have destroyed industry in this country...

Your regurgitated Limbaugh-esque rhetoric is easy to see through. Most environmentalist science is right on. The people you accuse of destroying industry are trying to prevent industry from destroying our planet's resources. Obviously a balance is needed.

alwayswatching · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

If Majority rules, why do these bleeding heart, liberal, environmentalist wacko's get so much credibility when their opinion is based on junk science?? Those people have destroyed industry in this country. Now they want to close CWM in Model City, which is one of Niagara County's largest PRIVATE employers!!! Their opinion is based on "feel good" statements that if you take away the emotional distraught, you will find they have no credibility in the real world of scientific fact!! I guess these people are decendents of the "Flat Earth" science era that was distroyed by my Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci.

Now that's something I've never been called before, has a nice ring doesn't it? I don't like feel good statements myself, but to each his own. Just for the record, Industry has destroyed itself, now they need to clean up after themselves. Show me some of your "real" science, I haven't looked at a comic book in years.

NuclearLou · Senior Member

EVERYONE PLEASE read AW's comment from above. When I did I almost you-know-what myself -- it was so funny and good! Excuse me for a moment-------(he wipes tears)

AW, these are the kind of remarks that were flung at me over at the Big Time University Ball Blog years ago. This poster has even mentioned the exact site in previous bash post. AWYOU are too much! I really liked your answer.

(Hey Scott, is this Blog-Forum Searchable?) I was going to fire off a rant about science and logic and anonymity and such, but I just couldn't cause I was laughing so hard! THANKS. WHAT a slam dunk>>!

I've been pot-shot-at just like this before and it has a certain "tempo & ring" to it, if you'll notice. There's the repeat of the old--

"Your regurgitated Limbaugh-esque rhetoric is easy to see through."

That's been used before right here on this board by the same (perhaps) poster--I'm a Limbaugh now??? LOL!

SEE THROUGH? MMmmm, now that's not a good image of me to leave here on a family site:*). (Notice photo on left?) Me, in see through? Yuck. Everyone open your eyes now. Please.

Alrighty then--so forty five minutes ago, etc.. Did I say LOL? Thanks to the poster. No, really, thanks. I certainly needed that laugh. Honest to God it was funny to read again. You know how many times I've even listened to himBaugh-ful? I ONLY Listen to Scott's Show! And maybe a little TRad-IO - On Lockport's WLVL 1340 on your AM Dial...when I'm looking either for ice cream scoops, chicken coops or basketball hoops. Cheap. Got any? How bout U anonymous?

"Most environmentalist science is right on." YOU Go figure that one out as it is off the wall in a very "special" way. I can explain on the side..

Then goes on to make even less sense...right out of the guerilla handbook--talk about .Mil I-C, or an rwRep (think about em). Either that, or just a _________(you choose a word use newer dictionary <&*)~

"The people you accuse of destroying industry are trying to prevent industry from destroying our planet's resources."

And here the poor devil is using another one--wow, I spent almost the whole night, I mean minute trying to figure out THAT 'BaffleGab." Remember that word, BaffleGab. It's important and very descriptive. Gab meaning absolutely Nothing, and, are you Baffled yet?. I was until this. Go talk about "see through>" I LOVE THIS POSTER. "Please Sir, may I have some more?"

"Obviously a balance is needed."

No, I don't think I'm going to give you that balance. But I certainly hope that you get it for yourself... (call this # 285-1904 NF, or, 837-6705 Amherst.)

(I just HAD to :&*)

Lou, Lou, laughing. Thanks again to anonymous (your slip is showing :0~)

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 23:53, 2005-06-02

Date: Thu Jun 2 7:40 PM, 2005

Take a breath, wipe your eyes (and apparently your pants) and re-read the thread before you get all self-congratulatory and happy and stuff.

The poster that referred to Limbaugh made that comment in your defense against someone else. But please don't let that fact stop your obvious overwhelming bliss.

NuclearLou · Senior Member

OKOK, anonymous. Ouch. Now I cry :&*(

Lately dodged a few bashes so I was cruising through the board "on guard," saw it and posted. A few bugs in the cruise control's all. Guilty as charged for speeding. Still one a dem odd'er' posts filled with anonymity, ambiguity, bad sentences and spelling (like mine) and some more of that general "BaffleGab." And oh hoot, I got sucked into another one of those black-hole-of-a-dicxschunary-reconstruction threads.

"Limbaugh-esque" has been used here before another time on board--similar bash (you go find it) post.

Not use to ANY or much 'd' lately except AW.

Question though--Why would this poster want anyone to think that they are Italian (see Columbus and Vespucci)>? This is also the second use of a specific ethnic reference that this poster has used on the board. There was a post before about getting home to the Ital. wife and kids or some such warm fuzzy niblet that was left for us pidgeons... This person IS NOT Not Italian, I think Laughvian.

All good Eyetalys would sign their name. Even bad ones.

See ya'll next fall - maybe, maybe not

-- Edited by NuclearLou at 23:51, 2005-06-02