Democracy is not Majorocracy

Democracy means the rule of the demos, a Greek word meaning 'the people'. It is the rule of the people. Majorocracy is (as far as I am aware) a term coined by the English political philosopher John Stuart Mill. Majorocracy simply means the rule of the majority. What is the difference?

In any good democracy, the laws are not simply the whims of the majority. Whoever has the greatest strength of votes and therefore the loudest voice does not simply drown out the rest; the minorities are part of the people, so they are represented also. This can't be achieved by simply allowing the majority of voters to decide policy. The rights of individuals and minorities must be protected by principles which are not up for vote.

Election is not enough; for real democracy, there needs to be constitutionally enshrined rights for individuals. Without this, the majority become tyrants.

It's easy to forget or ignore what democracy really means, and just think of it as the rule of the majority, but majorocracy is not democratic in the slightest.

Which county in the world is, by official definition, a democracy?

I'd say the US is a pretty good example of a democracy.

Actually, we're only a true Democracy on the local level. Our Federal government is a constitutional republic.

The USA is a Federal Republic, not a democracy.

I don't know, but the ones that feel the need to have "Democratic" in the official name of the country definitely aren't.

Unfortunately the US has a fair bit of majorocracy. The citizens themselves have to do a good deal of leg-work to get their constitutional rights recognised at a local level. The treatment of ethnic minorities and homosexuals, for example, is not particularly democratic.

And I stand corrected.

Often very true.

At a local level, minorities and gays have far more rights than at the federal level. Tim and I could get married right now in DC, and our marriage would be recongnized in our city in Maryland, and by our state government, but not by the Feds..

Equal rights has become a sort of "trickle up" mentality.

Oh well, I would have thought it was the other way around.

Africa springs to mind there...

Obviously, I've split hairs here somewhat and I assume the discussion is more about democratic means than purist democracy.

That wasn't truely intentional to the opening poster's thoughts and ideas

The closest thing to a democracy in today's world is the one represented by the Italian government. Every official on the ballot receives a certain percentage of jurisdiction over the issues to be voted on. No one 'loses' per se. Each just wins a little less (or more) than the other.

For example, say Bill, Davii, and I were on the same ballot. If Davii recieved 50% of the votes his voice would be worth 30% more than say Bill who received 20% of all the votes. If I got 30% of all the votes, then my voice wouldn't be as significant as Davii's, but more consequential than Bill's. So the order of the power would be Davii, myself, and then Bill. So if I want to get something done for my voters, the name of the game is persuasion (or at times bribery and blackmail). If I can get Bill to side with me on an issue that we agree on then we can level out the playing field in our favor. But if Davii and Bill both agree on an issue then I have absolutely no chance because I'd only have 30% against their 70%.

It's a more direct representation of Democracy but, as you can imagine, it's highly unstable and corruption and greed run rampant in such a model, in most other political models as well.

Shame it's corrupt as hell.

Hey!! Why did I only get 20%?