democracy or opression of minorities?

[Grimmrog]

There is actually one thing that makes me wonder.

Theoretical example. There is a society of 100 people, and 20 of them are a subsociety. So we have 20% making that subsociety up (yeah what a math move I did ther ).

Wouldn't a fair system mean out of 5 choices one would be a pro subsociety one?
But with the current democatic majority voting mechanics, we acutually would get 5x a choice that ignores the subsociety unless the whole society doesn't randomly meet that subsocieties interets as well.

In total, the things that happened in spain where a part wanted to be independend made me think.

When a whole nation by it's laws is defined and also defined as a democracy, and suddenly a local part would of lets say 20% people would like to form an own nation, what now?
Surely the majority would not like that to happen (unless maybe that local area is the slum and getting rid of that part would benefit the majority as well).
But when a country has democratic standards, wouldn't they have to let them go, as the local majority would be the ones that wan tot leave the nation? Otherwise what actually would be the tools, of a said 90% local majority wanting to leave the whole nation of which they only make up like 20%? if they do not have a democratic tool allowing this their only choice would be some war of independence, but that surely wouldn't be a nice way.

I surely do not believe many small split nations is a good thing, Europe had that in the past and it went mostly between bad and horrible within the last centuries. But in the end a multicultural mix is not going to work if the people living do now want it. We currently see this in many countries in the middle east where no proper strong government exists and the "country" is inhabitated by different ethnic groups. So surely in such a System dividing what can't unite is probably the best choice. But sure there is no oen doing so down there.
But when we have a democratic system, I find this quite and interesting question how such a situation should be handeled.

[CBJ]

Democracy, by its very definition, means that minorities do not get much say in anything. The only thing a minority can do is to try and get the support of the majority, either by campaigning to convince as many people as possible directly, or by finding a political party that depends sufficiently on the minority's support that they can be persuaded them to add the minority's cause to their manifesto.

[fiksal]

Wouldn't a fair system mean out of 5 choices one would be a pro subsociety one?

Proportional representation seems to be better than no representation. So I'd say that would be fair.

Some countries implement laws where a larger majority is needed for bigger changes. Or where minority is considered.


I need a local Australian to confirm... but I think in Australia, as an example, minority can get officials elected... correct me if I am over simplifying

[Mightysword]

Democracy, by its very definition, means that minorities do not get much say in anything. The only thing a minority can do is to try and get the support of the majority, either by campaigning to convince as many people as possible directly, or by finding a political party that depends sufficiently on the minority's support that they can be persuaded them to add the minority's cause to their manifesto.

And I think that's the objective truth of the matter. Often you hear people talk about "the right of minority", it's often simply trying to skirt around the issue and try to be politically correct. The fact of the matter if minority are to enjoy the same consideration and privilege as majority, as in "my opinion is worth as much as yours!" then there would be no point in differentiate the two to begin with.

Some countries implement laws where a larger majority is needed for bigger changes. Or where minority is considered.

It's called the Constitution.

It's not really protecting the minority, but rather it acts as an absolute safeguard where number doesn't matter. If the constitution grant you a certain right as an individual, then others can't take it from you simply because they have superior number. Ultimately they can, but it requires nothing less than a SUPER MAJORITY to change the Constitution itself.

That's why I kinda surprise to see people comment in other threads that the UK doesn't have a Constitution. I never comment on it because I don't if it's true (it sounds a bit too ridiculous to be true IMO). If there is a case where minority is ignored and bullied, the lack of a Constitution literally beg for it

[Bishop149]

Democracy, by its very definition, means that minorities do not get much say in anything.

This^^^

The best we can hope for here is to cultivate a system in which no single entity can gain a majority. . . . basically proportional representation and lots of parties.
That way whilst no one might "win" no one will really "lose" either and a compromise will be forced.
There is a problem here however. To give an example I think its perfectly reasonable to refuse to compromise even a single inch with someone who would deny your right to life / existence.
I have also previously made my distaste for centrism and eternal compromise pretty clear. However, I also dislike the idea of a authoritarian majority (the oppression you speak of) and nationalism (an unifying force that might quell dissent). I confess I do not know how to square this circle.
It is hard to imagine a truly free and equal society that couldn't be destroyed or corrupted by a small group of nutters who we're forced by principle to acknowledge.

As for the specific example you reference, the case of a local majorities (but national minority) right to independence and self-determination. Well that's a very tricky one, the solution if seen successfully applied is meet them half way, devolve centralised power. This usually has the effect mollifying a proportion of the local vote and thus reducing the local majority, in many case to the point where it become a minority. Not in every case though, see Scotland. . . still has a very powerful independence lobby despite a large amount of devolution.

[CBJ]

That's why I kinda surprise to see people comment in other threads that the UK doesn't have a Constitution. I never comment on it because I don't if it's true (it sounds a bit too ridiculous to be true IMO). If there is a case where minority is ignored and bullied, the lack of a Constitution literally beg for it

It is very much true that the UK has no formal constitution, at least not in the sense that you would be familiar with where there's a document you can point to it and say "X is in the constitution". Instead we have a rather more abstract and diverse collection of laws, acts of parliament, court judgements, unwritten conventions, practices and procedures that together form the rules that most countries put into a formal constitution. The result is somewhat messier than a written constitution might be (which is not surprising given that it's been assembled piecemeal over a period of several hundred years) but it achieves a similar result.

[fiksal]

Instead we have a rather more abstract and diverse collection of laws, acts of parliament, court judgements, unwritten conventions, practices and procedures that together form the rules that most countries put into a formal constitution.

Now that's interesting, there's no one central "document" or "book"? It is literally the collection of rulings and laws up to this point?

Some countries implement laws where a larger majority is needed for bigger changes. Or where minority is considered.

It's called the Constitution.

It is. And any other law equivalent to constitution.

Though I was thinking of other systems. The majority votes, the Representatives.

[RegisterMe]

I've only skimmed the thread, but I don't think anybody's mentioned this yet? If not it's worth a read if you're interested in this kind of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[eladan]

I need a local Australian to confirm... but I think in Australia, as an example, minority can get officials elected... correct me if I am over simplifying

I take it you're referring to what we call preferential voting, but which is apparently properly called instant run-off voting.

There are any number of electorates here where the major parties (there are two of them) have had less than 50% of the first preference vote. They generally need somewhere between 30%-40% to be assured of getting enough of the re-allocations of votes from any candidates that get removed during the rounds of counting, to get over the 50% required to win the electorate. It does often happen that there is a third candidate whose preferences flow very strongly to the second place candidate, giving that candidate enough votes to win the seat. E.g.

First round of counting:
Smith: 40%
Jones: 35%
Doe: 25% (eliminated)

If more than about 60% of Doe's voters put Jones as their second preferred candidate, it would enable Jones to get enough votes to win the seat after the second round of counting where Doe's votes are distributed based on those second preferences to the remaining candidates.

[CBJ]

Now that's interesting, there's no one central "document" or "book"? It is literally the collection of rulings and laws up to this point?

That's correct. There is not even a definitive list of which laws are considered "constitutional" and which are not. Ironically, however, some of those laws are some of the oldest laws of a constitutional nature in the world; parts of the Magna Carta (1215) and, I believe, all of the Bill of Rights (1689) are still on the statute, for example.

[Morkonan]

There is actually one thing that makes me wonder.

Theoretical example. There is a society of 100 people, and 20 of them are a subsociety. So we have 20% making that subsociety up (yeah what a math move I did ther ).

Wouldn't a fair system mean out of 5 choices one would be a pro subsociety one?
But with the current democatic majority voting mechanics, we acutually would get 5x a choice that ignores the subsociety unless the whole society doesn't randomly meet that subsocieties interets as well.

In total, the things that happened in spain where a part wanted to be independend made me think.
...But when we have a democratic system, I find this quite and interesting question how such a situation should be handeled.

"Majority Rule, but With Tyranny Toward None" - Morkonan

That is our current, basic, concept of democratic freedom. There are no "Democracies" in existence. That would likely take technology we don't currently posses and we'd all end up spending more time voting than doing anything else. So, we have things like Democratic Republics and Representative Republics that take care of that sort of thing. It's still well-within the basic functions of our ideals for Democracy, but it has been streamlined so that it's actually practical to implement.

But, our nations are much, much, more than just about a system of government where people vote or elect officials that vote for them. We have other ideals and things that we think are important. A lot of nations list out a set of rules that must always be followed by the government, no matter what some segment, or a large segment, of people want to vote for. These "Rights" or "Constitutionally Guaranteed Privileges" are inviolate unless the Constitution itself is annulled. If one looks at such Constitutions, one gets a very quick understanding of the sorts of things the people in that nation feel are important. Well, if they empower it, that is - A "Constitution" empowered by a tyrant who seized power only states what the Tyrant thinks is important.

In the US, we have a Representative Republic made up, currently, of fifty sovereign States, each of which must adhere to the Constitution, Federal Law who's limitations are strictly outlined by the Constitution, and some regulations that are necessary to ensure good relations between the States and continued healthy trade.

Our Constitution is only a four pages long. It has around 4500 words and is the shortest "Constitution" of any major nation in the world. It has 27 "Amendments" of a total of about 7500 words. 1

In that Constitution, there is first an emphasis on a balance of power within the government itself, so there is no one part that is more powerful than another. There is also a very clear impression, here - It's an effort of all the member States. And, with the first 10 Amendments, the Rights of the People are addressed specifically as are the Rights of the States, being anything not already enumerated by the Constitution. These Rights are not "awarded" or "given." They are, instead, acknowledged as preexisting and inseparable from being a human being. The States, themselves, are considered sovereign entities except where they have agreed to allow the Federal Government to supersede. 2

I point all this out not to blather about how awesome the US is... I point it out because these things are very clearly pointed out in our fundamental beliefs embodied within the Constitution. They're in writing. Any citizen can point to them and say "This is what we think is important." Any foreigner can look them up and find out what Americans think is important for governance.

So, when we look at something like the issue going on with Spain, in order to really know "what to do" and "what is just" we have to know what the people of Spain have agreed to. What do they think? What do their governing documents say?

IF Spain's government, itself, is "legitimate," then it is empowered by the Will of the People. And, that's an informed populace who can know what they're agreeing to by looking at a piece of paper somewhere.

I'm reminded of the current situation in Venezuela. When I found out about the issues surrounding the current President and the politics surrounding this latest uprising, there was only one question in my mind - What have the people empowered and what have they said they want their government to be? For me, it's not a question of "Liberty for its own sake." It's a question of "what is it that you have said, freely, that you value and that you want?"

Venuzuela's Constitution dictates that if there is, indeed, a proclamation of illegitimacy regarding an election or an elected President, then exactly what is happening should happen... IOW - What has been done in declaring the election illegitimate and appointing the current interim President is exactly what the people have already agreed to do in their, supposedly, "empowered" Constitution.

If Spain has not addressed this issue. If they do not have sufficient laws or a Constitution that can address this issue, then it has a flaw and it needs to be rectified. It's as simple as that.

The United States added the 13'th Amendment to our Constitution to abolish Slavery. We fought a Civil War over it, too. So, we had all these great Rights in our Bill of Rights, but even they were "flawed." You see, we didn't recognize "slaves" as having "Rights."

Later, SIX AMENDMENTS LATER, we decided women should be allowed to vote, too...

See what I'm saying?

If Spain hasn't faced this issue already or doesn't already have a system in place to have already given these people what they want so they didn't have to try to argue for succession, then its Constitution, its Laws, its values have either not been implied correctly or are flawed. And, perhaps, maybe the past practices of its government, too, are flawed?

And, if that's the case, they might end up having to host a Civil War in order to figure out this problem. (We did. Worked out great...Lots of movies, books, and collector's items came out if. It was A Really Big Deal ™ here. Everyone attended...)

It is likely they are going to have to be faced with granting some sovereignty to this region after having ignored their needs and desires for far too long. Them's the breaks and that's what happens when you're human and try to form a decent government system - It's never going to be perfect, it just has to try to be as perfect as it can be.

Catalonia's current situation isn't that far removed from how the Southern States of the Confederacy felt. There, they felt the North was great from the sweat of Southern backs. Granted, most of that sweat was from the backs of slaves... But, the North hoarded its industry, its wealth, its opportunity, because it enjoyed having power over the source of all that wealth. You didn't see Northern industries setting up production centers in the South because they didn't want to be associated with it, yet they gleefully imported all the Southern goods and raw materials and often, through their power in legislature, acted to keep their "captive suppliers" of labor from enjoying broader foreign trade. This, along with the battle over slavery, ended up pushing the nation into Civil War. The Southern States felt as they had little power in Federal Government and felt as if they were often taken advantage of and looked down upon. They didn't have the industrial power that the North did, yet they fueled a great portion of it.

So, Catalonia is tired of "doing everything" and not being acknowledged, even feeling preyed upon by the rest of Spain that they feel they support. They don't feel that they're getting treated fairly... Golly, that sounds familiar. Somebody should have probably taken care of that a long time ago, but decided it was too much trouble to deal with. That sounds familiar, too.