If Democracy Was Actually On The Ballot, I’d Vote Against It

This one is going to make me very unpopular.

Towards the beginning of this election cycle, there was a lot of rhetoric about “democracy is on the ballot.” That rhetoric has died down some in the last few weeks, and that's too bad. I for one wish democracy actually was on the ballot.

Because I would vote against it.

I ask you to hear me out.

When I was younger, I would hear an older person stand up in meetings and emphatically instruct us that we did not live in a democracy, but in a representative republic. Thanks, grandpa you can sit down now. I'm not younger anymore, and maybe I'm that grandpa, but I have learned there is a difference.

Canva

Pure democracy, also know a direct democracy, is really nothing more than, well, mob rule. Whatever the majority wants, it gets. Wikipedia gives this definition of pure democracy.

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies.

You really want that?

One of the main problems with pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is the potential for majority rule to become oppressive. In this system, every citizen has the opportunity to vote on laws and policies directly, without intermediaries. While this might sound like an ideal form of government, it can create issues, particularly the tyranny of the majority. In this case, a majority group can impose its will on a minority, disregarding the rights or interests of smaller groups. This could lead to unjust policies or even societal divisions if the minority feels continuously oppressed.

History has shown us the ill effects of when the majority does become tyrannical. For example, if a majority decides to pass laws that benefit themselves while actively restricting the rights or opportunities of a minority, the system would still be democratic in process but unjust in outcome.

Canva

Also in a pure or direct democracy factions and polarization can be exacerbated. Since all votes are directly decided by the public, different interest groups may rally behind single-issue causes, potentially driving extreme positions and creating political instability. Instead of fostering collaboration and compromise, direct democracy can deepen divides, making it harder to govern effectively.

Direct democracy assumes that all citizens are equally informed and capable of making decisions on intricate matters of law, economics, or policy. That's a bad assumption.

So why am I on this tangent. Because, like the grandpa in my younger meetings, it's important that we remember we don't live in a pure democracy, nor should we aspire to do so.

James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville, prominent political thinkers, both warned of this danger. Madison, in The Federalist Papers, argued that a republic with a system of checks and balances would help prevent the tyranny of the majority by protecting individual and minority rights. Similarly, de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, noted that unchecked majority rule could lead to despotism over time, even in democratic nations.

Canva

What we have is a representative republic or if you want, a representative democracy. I think we interchange those two terms because we want to be cheer leaders for the two major political parties, two organizations that I really don't care about.

So what I would vote against is unrestricted majority, mob rule, that would be the outcome of a pure, direct democracy.