Sentences with phrase «majority tyranny»

Like all majoritarian systems, the Condorcet Paradox and the issue of majority tyranny will still be things to look out for.

Moving towards simply needing a majority of the population to have power could make majority tyranny worse, since separated powers wouldn't slow down the process or stop bills that hurt a minority with disproportionate power in one part of government.

I don't think moving a body like the Australian House of representatives to this system alone would decrease friction and risk more majority tyranny, but moving both houses at once might.

@jim Re Re majority tyranny.

Regardless, it's not apparent that any institutions can stop majority tyranny in the long run, and certainly having disproportionate representation isn't perfect.

Not exact matches

by We wholeheartedly endorse peaceful revolution, but unfortunately, history tells us that when tyrannies force the majority of the middle class into poverty in any country, violent revolution will result.

Our system was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

One of the primary reasons that our government was set up as a Democratic Republic (as opposed to a pure democracy) was to «protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority».

The decline starts with tyranny of the majority.

It must also help to divide the material interests of people, so as to help prevent democracy from degenerating into a tyranny of the majority (its abiding deformation).

The voters in CA will not matter if this is determined to be a matter of civil rights, in which case the «tyranny of the majority» will be overturned.

Fearing «the tyranny of the majority» as much as they feared any tyranny, the framers recognized the need to check the democratic principle by the republican principle of representative government.

This used to be called the tyranny of the majority.

Our country was designed to be inclusive and defend individuals from the «tyranny of the majority»... that's why we have the bill of rights.

Civilization can only last until the majority is miserable, and then in breaks down into tyranny and bondage.

Please do not forget that the reason that Christianity is the majority religion in the United States is because it was founded by Christians fleeing the tyranny and persecution of the Church.

The greatest of these is that local communities, including congregations, often embody the tyranny of the majority.

How, in such a system, can the tyranny of the majority be checked?

(6) A major problem with which we American Protestants have struggled has been the tyranny of the majority especially in local communities and states.

We are a republic where individual freedoms can not be trumped by the tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of the majority sucks.

Otherwise it is overly subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Under the pretext of «patients» rights» and a supposed obligation of doctors to adhere to the medical moral consensus — a tyranny of the majority, if you will — Emanuel and Stahl would prohibit doctors from conscientiously objecting to performing requested procedures on moral grounds.

The laws of our country protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Nonetheless, we may also hold that so far as public policy is concerned in a pluralistic society, justice is best served by a Madisonian approach that thwarts the tyranny of the majority.

Tocqueville thought that one crucial check against the potential tyranny of the majority was the power of religion in forming mores.

Truly, Muslim nations like Iran or even Pakistan, lately, have brought a new spin to the idea of «tyranny of the majority».

Nance, why is it you guys on the Left always think that having an insurance policy against government tyranny is a stupid idea, when the majority of peoples throughout the world are THIS VERY DAY being oppressed by their governments, and have absolutely no way to defend themselves against false imprisonment, torture, and overall tyranny.

Tocqueville had warned of the tyranny of the majority, and later events had displayed the dangers of ideology and soi - disant expert rule.

You better learn what our founders thought about the tyranny of the majority.

But one still looks in vain among the writings of liberation theologians to find discussions of the indispensable institutions of democratic (republican) government, such as guarantees of rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority or divisions of responsibilities and functions that avoid dangerous concentrations of power.

Obvious - «tyranny of the majority can happen under the law.

It seems you're in favor of tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers were so concerned about.

to protect against the tyranny of the majority; to prevent the welcoming of mass - destruction so as to enter «salvation»; basically, so as not to be subject to the shims of mere men who would impose their beliefs because they are, in their view, what «god wants.»

Sounds like the tyranny of the majority, why not put other religious symbols in the public buildings, all the religions that wish to display them?

The only way to prevent the rise of a demagogue is to provide checks and balances that ensure that there can be no Tyranny of the Majority.

@gerrit From your link: «Ochlocracy, or Mob Rule, is often incorrectly equated with Tyranny of the Majority, but differs because Ochlocracy involves illegal action and does not necessitate a majorityMajority, but differs because Ochlocracy involves illegal action and does not necessitate a majoritymajority.»

And finally, as stated, the typical argument against direct democracy is the issue of tyranny of the majority.

As such, Thompson postulated Plato's warning that democracy frequently leads to tyranny of the majority, where ill - informed populations hamstring the political system, now seems increasingly prescient:

Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority,... Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense.»

It is possible, just impractical and can lead to tyranny of the majority.

Good answer, because it addresses OPs concerns about the tyranny of the majority with examples of how governments keep that tryanny in check by preventing infringement on people's rights.

Inasmuch a democracy is the tyranny of the majority, a republic restrains the will of the majority through a set of restrictive laws intended to limit government power.

The intention is to balance the scales against what is referred to as the «tyranny of the majority»

Some (okay, I'd be hard pressed to name one, but not impossible) actually truly sympathize with the Founding Fathers» original idea, one of the strongest among which was to escape the tyranny of the majority in political decisions - especially as espoused by James Madison.

It is called the tyranny of the majority.

For those in the minority, voting is act of defiance against the cruelest tyrant of all — the tyranny of the majority.

They saw a danger in tyranny of the majority.

I probably cover Lakewood's morally and fiscally bankrupt schools too often, but this Ocean County school district that enrolls almost entirely Latino and Black low - income students pushes all my education reform buttons: tyranny of the majority (in this case the ultra-Orthodox residents who control the municipal government and the school board); lack of accountability; lack of school choice for poor kids of color but anything goes (at public expense) for children of the ruling class; discrimination against minority special education students.

However well democracy avoids dictatorships, it offers no guarantees against the tyranny of the majority.