Democracy and Majority Rule
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams -
May 29, 2009
37 ratings from readers
Does Congress have the constitutional authority to do anything on
which it can get a majority vote? Most Americans today think it does — and
they're wrong.
Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy to acts
that would otherwise be deemed tyranny.
Think about it. How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would
we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process?
How about the decision whether you should watch a football game on
television or Law and Order? What about whether you drive a
Chevrolet or a Ford, or whether your Easter dinner is turkey or ham?
Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would
deem it tyranny. Why isn’t it also tyranny for the democratic
process to mandate what type of light bulbs we use, how many gallons
of water to flush toilets or whether money should be taken out of our
paycheck for retirement?
The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy
and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote,
“Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of
justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force
of an interested and overbearing majority.”
John Adams predicted, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It
soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a
democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our founders intended
for us to have a republican form of limited government where the
protection of individual God-given rights was the primary job of
government.
Alert to the dangers of majoritarian tyranny, the Constitution’s
framers inserted several anti-majority rules. One such rule is that
election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but
instead by the Electoral College.
Nine states have over 50 percent of the U.S. Population. If a
simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could
determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can’t because they have
only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are
needed.
Were it not for the Electoral College, that some politicians say
is antiquated and would like to do away with, presidential candidates
could safely ignore the less populous states.
Part of the reason our founders created two houses of Congress was
to have another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can
block the designs of 435 representatives and 49 senators.
The Constitution gives the president a veto to weaken the power of
535 members of both houses of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both
houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
To change the constitution requires not a majority but a
two-thirds vote of both Houses to propose an amendment, and to be
enacted requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The Constitution’s Article V empowers two-thirds of state
legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose
amendments that become law when ratified by three-fourths of state
legislatures.
I used to be for this option as a means of enacting a spending
limitation amendment to the Constitution but have since reconsidered.
Unlike the 1787 convention attended by men of high stature such as
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams,
today’s attendees would be moral midgets: the likes of Barney
Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi.
In addition to an abhorrence of democracy, and the recognition
that government posed the gravest threat to liberty, our founders
harbored a deep distrust and suspicion of Congress.
This suspicion and distrust is exemplified by the phraseology used
throughout the Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights,
containing phrases such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe,
deny, disparage or violate.
Today’s Americans think Congress has the constitutional
authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote.
We think whether a particular measure is a good idea or bad idea
should determine passage as opposed to whether that measure lies
within the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has
successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.
Walter E. Williams
is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Virginia. He has authored more than 150 publications, including many in
scholarly journals, and has frequently given expert testimony before
Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor
policy to taxation and spending.
