[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156703#msg156703 date=1455721381]

The county-by-county depiction of red vs. blue is well known to all of you.  The founders went to great lengths to protect the rights of those in the minority.  Therefore, we have the Senate, based on regional equality, and the House, based on concentrations of population.  This to me is just one of the beauties of our republic.  Those who focus solely on the power of large concentrations of population play dangerously with promoting the tyranny of the majority.

Well, some of the founders did. Madison and Hamilton, for instance, thought the Senate was pretty stupid.

And of course appealing to a purported tyranny of the majority is an easy principle -- but it's worth asking: when? why? for what purposes? for instance, preventing the tyranny of the majority from shutting down speech is very desirable. That's why the Bill of Rights is a good thing. Making sure corn farmers get their ethanol subsidies? Well, I've cherry-picked (corn picked?) favorable examples, but there needs to be some differentiation.

I would guess most advanced economies have a parliamentary system that are much more oriented to the majority. While I prefer living in the U.S. to other countries, I didn't perceive a tyrannical hellscape travelling through them. Why? I don't mean this facetiously; appealing to the Founders is all well and good, but it's not as if they came down from the mountain with the tablets. It was a product of many compromises, and a particular time and place. We shouldn't treat their words as holy writ, unalterable and unquestionable.
[/quote]

WIM I don't think ethynol subsidies are the best example you might use to highlight misuse of the principle of tyranny of the majority.  It is, however, an excellent example of how the centralization of power in the government distorts and perverts the will of the majority.  It is a perfect case of how rent-seeking has grown so powerful and undermined the good of the country.  I strongly recommend Charles Murray's book "By the People" for an articulate delineation of the outlaw nature of our government (Federal, state and local).

Much of this does ultimately devolve from the growth of political parties and their overwhelming power in our country.  Someone referenced George Washington's farewell address in this regard and I wholeheartedly agree.  The fact that the threat posed by factions was so crystal clear to him so long ago suggests he and his counterparts had insights to the dynamics of democracy that we now think we are too advanced and sophisticated to respect and regard.  The notion that the Constitution is outdated and that we should pick and choose which of its fundamental principles should be kept and which ones should be updated to meet our preferred current priorities is just the trap into which de Toqueville said would be our undoing. 

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156703#msg156703 date=1455721381]

The county-by-county depiction of red vs. blue is well known to all of you.  The founders went to great lengths to protect the rights of those in the minority.  Therefore, we have the Senate, based on regional equality, and the House, based on concentrations of population.  This to me is just one of the beauties of our republic.  Those who focus solely on the power of large concentrations of population play dangerously with promoting the tyranny of the majority.

Well, some of the founders did. Madison and Hamilton, for instance, thought the Senate was pretty stupid.

And of course appealing to a purported tyranny of the majority is an easy principle -- but it's worth asking: when? why? for what purposes? for instance, preventing the tyranny of the majority from shutting down speech is very desirable. That's why the Bill of Rights is a good thing. Making sure corn farmers get their ethanol subsidies? Well, I've cherry-picked (corn picked?) favorable examples, but there needs to be some differentiation.

I would guess most advanced economies have a parliamentary system that are much more oriented to the majority. While I prefer living in the U.S. to other countries, I didn't perceive a tyrannical hellscape travelling through them. Why? I don't mean this facetiously; appealing to the Founders is all well and good, but it's not as if they came down from the mountain with the tablets. It was a product of many compromises, and a particular time and place. We shouldn't treat their words as holy writ, unalterable and unquestionable.
[/quote]

WIM I don't think ethynol subsidies are the best example you might use to highlight misuse of the principle of tyranny of the majority.  It is, however, an excellent example of how the centralization of power in the government distorts and perverts the will of the majority.  It is a perfect case of how rent-seeking has grown so powerful and undermined the good of the country.  I strongly recommend Charles Murray's book "By the People" for an articulate delineation of the outlaw nature of our government (Federal, state and local).

Much of this does ultimately devolve from the growth of political parties and their overwhelming power in our country.  Someone referenced George Washington's farewell address in this regard and I wholeheartedly agree.  The fact that the threat posed by factions was so crystal clear to him so long ago suggests he and his counterparts had insights to the dynamics of democracy that we now think we are too advanced and sophisticated to respect and regard.  The notion that the Constitution is outdated and that we should pick and choose which of its fundamental principles should be kept and which ones should be updated to meet our preferred current priorities is just the trap into which de Toqueville said would be our undoing.