So how should minority opinions be taken into account in a nations democracy.
If there was a national decision to choose X or Y but NOT both. And the majority chose X, does democracy disregard the minority that chose Y?
Ok another definite example. State religion. So if the nation with Christinity as its nation religion decides that every Sunday everyone must stay home and go to church, how about the minority that are not Christians and don't regard Sunday as a holiday but rather a work day. Must they comform with what the majority says?
Well, that is not really an either-or choice, is it? It's trivially easy for some people to go to church and some people not to. Generally a democracy avoid such decisions.
In a very strict either-or choice, the minorty does get disregarded. But such situations are rare. In reality, a politician will be elected with a mandate that is nowhere near overwhelming, and may very well be less than 50%. Which means that antagonizing a minority can cost him a future vote.
> In a very strict either-or choice, the minority does get disregarded.
Electoral college! Electoral college!
>>3
Huh? Explain..
On an added note, how about Nazi beliefs. Like in the US, if there are very very small minority that support a Nazi belief, should they be allowed a political party as a minority view?
Political Class 101, first question of the teacher:
"Should a democratic government allow an anti-democratic party in its rank? Discuss."
Why not? They'll never be able to elect an official any higher than Assistant Parks & Rec Supervisor.
"Should a democratic government allow an anti-democratic party
in its rank? Discuss."
Evrybody should have the right to share ANY view, providing its to a consenting audience. I dont care if its a Nazi or a Jihad terrorist, as long as they keep it off the street and put it in a book then youve only got yourself to blame for being offended by it.
>>5
No.
The preservation of democracy must be locked into the constitution of a democratic country.
If it is not, that will eventually lead to a load of extremists gaining enough power (bla bla most people are too lazy to vote but extemists never get tired of voting for their extreme views, trick people into believing their way is the only way) to change the countries constitution to be non-democratic, and lock it that way, defeating the purpose of having a democratic constitution. This has happened in the past (zomg hidden godwin), and that sucked hard. Anyone should be able to share any view, but not to force that view on everbody else.
>>1
In extreme cases, they may just have to swallow it and do what the majority wants, which may not make all, but the most people happy. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system that seems to work properly.
As for state religions, there should be no such thing as a state religion. Seperation of state and church is a good thing, right? If, to take up your example, it is normal for people to stay at home on sundays and go to church, then they should be able to do so, not forced. If people want to stay at home on days other than sunday, they can try to find a employer which allows them to do so (work on sunday and stay at home some other day), if they can't they will have to swallow it or go to somewhere else, see above.
If everyone in a democracy wants to be a nazi, then democracy will not last very long.
Likewise if everyone in a nazi dictatorship wants to be a democracy, the nazi dictatorship will not last very long.
Should a democracy allow an anti-democratic party isn't a relevant question. A relevant question is what should a democracy do to perpetuate the ideas of liberty and free speech that prevent extremists from persuading too many people that a form of tyranny is a good idea.
VORUDEMOTO