The Tyranny of the Majority
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/3>

      I find something a bit strange. We are constantly assured we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority simply because we have a Constitution. That is supposed to mean a simple majority of 51% can not do something unpleasant to the remaining 49%. OK. I can see that. And we require 2/3 majority of Congress and/or 3/4 of the states to make changes to the Constitution. Save I see a small problem here.
      The Constitution is in principle at least, in broad terms and acts as guidelines for laws. But then under these broad guidelines -- affirmative action for an example -- 51% can force 88% to give 12% special treatment and impose the full force of the law those who fail to do so.
      Let us step back and view the matter more carefully for a moment. And up front I will grant that a "landslide" majority is very difficult in a democracy. But let us look at at least the theory of a representative democracy.
      In theory, and please suspend cynicism for the sake of argument, our representatives are those who have been chosen for their wisdom in forming law and policy for our country. If not, for what purpose are they being elected? An election should be simply choosing the best people and the disagreement should be only over which is the best to do. There should be no question that the best person for the job has been chosen. (Again, cynicism aside.)
      Now if this is to be accepted then let us look at the US Senate (as there are 100 members and it makes percentages very easy to talk about.) Now here we have, regardless of what it is that is desired to do, the best 100 people for the job of legislating. In the best of all worlds these would be the best 100 people in the country.
      Now let us consider a law that is passed 51 to 49. Is there any rationale for saying the 49 are wrong? I have raised this point regarding Supreme Court decisions. In fact, if a person did something that four of the nine best legal minds in the country agreed with, he still goes to jail. In this regard, when 49 of the best legislative minds in the country (theory again) hold that something is wrong, why should it become law?
      Is this not the "democracy" the "tyranny of the majority" we are supposed to be protected from? If we agree with 49% of the best legislative minds in the country then why should be bound by a simple majority?
      Let us look at it more seriously. Let us say the laws against murder had a time limit and needed to be legislated again every ten years -- that they had a sunset provision. I find it hard to imagine that renewing these laws would would not get a 99% majority with the obligatory abstainer who wants the attention or is terminally bewildered. The same with theft and rape and kidnapping and a host of others in that vein.
      But when it comes to legislating every jot and tiddle of our daily lives where did this simple majority idea come from?
      It is not hard to see where it came from. First the presumption was that, like the Supreme Court, the size of such legislative bodies would be so small that (four out of seven as it started) was well over 51%. And on the other hand, the other intent was that legislation would not deal with minutia but rather deal on broad issues such as making declaring new and clever forms of theft and murder illegal also.
      Rather what we have is a legislative food fight where the last pie wins.
      I would propose a change. ALL LAWS require the equivalent of a 3/5ths or greater majority to be enacted or passed or whatever the procedure at the level of government of interest. If we are truly to avoid the tyranny of a simple majority then we certainly need a requirement for a greater majority than we have.
      For example, at the federal level, we have found that under the broad income tax amendment that once a tax upon income is permitted the determination of what is income is both arbitrary and capricious and it is permitted by the amendment. For example, it permits a simple majority to hold that only profits are income for a corporation but that every penny is income for an individual. It even permits legislation that imputes a value to something that has no value.
      Everyone has a pet peeve about income tax. It is only one of many pet peeves. Now what say that ALL provisions of income tax were required to have such support that not just 51% but 60% or even 2/3 were required to agree with the idea? At least then the laws that are passed would have more than passing fancy majority attached to them.
      On the other hand a 100% majority has been tried historically, in Poland to be specific, and it has been found to be a failure. The presumption of the "best" legislators fails when it presumes ALL legislatures are the best. But certainly if the best we can do is elect slightly over half of our representatives that are the "best" then we need to take a more serious look at our election process.
      At the root of this problem is our party system. I am not saying that more parties would be better but rather that party loyalties and party machines are the cause of imprudent votes and incompetent legislators.
      We need a better system. And the start of that better system is in changing our system of legislation so that a significant majority rather than a simple majority is required to pass any law. Granted that this may prevent many laws from being passed but if the theoretical 49% disagree with a law, what support and respect does a law have? And why should a law that 49% disagree with have any respect or compliance in the first place?
      As with the Supreme Court, should 49% disagree with a law does that make 49% criminals? Or simply thinking citizens who hold the law is wrong? What moral weight does such a law have other than a 51% majority was mustered at the time it was passed?
      At least if there were a 2/3 majority requirement for a law then the "losers" could be considered a serious minority and that would give some moral weight to the enforcement of the law.
      But when we face laws that we know were passed because Senator Foghorn's arm was twisted until he accepted the pork to get his vote we know the law has no moral weight and is a hollow as the bombast that proposed it in the first place.
      More practically, why should you MORALLY pay one penny of any of the 1993 tax increases? Simply because one freshman Congressrat voted for it on the promise of a hearing with the President in her district? I can sense an obligation from here to Sunday, but that deal does not obligate me in the least.