Richard concludes his essay with an observation that I wish conservative democratic majoritarians (and their democratic compatriots on the left) would take to heart.
a person who is governed by or believes in decision by a majority.
The democracy part implies that those areas of policy requiring collective decision making will reflect majoritarian preferences.
governed by or believing in decision by a majority.
Justice is not to be equated with the law of the state or with simple 'majoritarian' democracy.
Personally, I don't necessarily see such fragmentation as a bad thing, as it acts as a check on 'majoritarian' power.
While they have their place, referenda suffer from being overly 'majoritarian' and non-deliberative.
The 'majoritarian' says, ‘If you want to know who should prevail in a conflict, take a vote.’
He is not a moral 'majoritarian' , but he isn't going to be extending the boundaries of personal morality either.
If the state's wisdom came from 'majoritarian' prejudices, rather than the expertise of its technocrats, that would take us no further.
In fact, academe's characteristic mode of governance magnifies 'majoritarian' power.
American politicians are much more ‘democratic’ from a 'majoritarian' point of view.
The democracy part implies that those areas of policy requiring collective decision making will reflect 'majoritarian' preferences.
Risk taking does not come easily to 'majoritarian' institutions.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this at odds with his often stated 'majoritarian' views?
He believes the Greens' values are 'majoritarian' values that can reach across the political spectrum.
Here is T. R. Malthus's reading of Smith which makes it clear that contemporaries regarded Smith as a 'majoritarian' .
The social transition has gone wrong: it is 'majoritarian' absolutism.
The unwritten guiding premise of governance today is 'majoritarian' supremacy in the form of Hindu theocracy.
The smoking ban is probably the most topical example of a decision that comes near to enforced 'majoritarian' virtue.
Nice to see George spelling out that he's in favour of 'majoritarian' rule rather than democracy.
It's an insane effort, smacking of 'majoritarian' tyranny and aggressive, hidebound religious-exclusivist ethics.
How can 'majoritarian' politics durably sustain policies harmful to majority interests?
A final note: do not misinterpret this criticism as a defense of 'majoritarian' democracy.
What they propose is not really strict construction, but 'majoritarian' tyranny.
If civil liberties are left to popular votes, they can similarly founder on the rocks of 'majoritarian' advantage.
Given the reality of the Jim Crow South, however, 'majoritarian' democracy could hardly have been said to be in play.
But this libertarian view antagonizes both the diversitarians and the 'majoritarians' more than anything, more even than they antagonize each other.
We live in a world in which the people who want the government to be more involved in our lives include moral 'majoritarians' and old New Dealers.
Sunstein identifies Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as a majoritarian but says there are no consistent 'majoritarians' on today's Supreme Court.
The lines between 'majoritarianism' , nationalism, and fascism have been defiantly blurred, and quite logically.
The tyranny of 'majoritarianism' had already held them in its stranglehold ever since the dawn of freedom.
More and more Arab 'majoritarians' are speaking up.
Some liberals have been 'majoritarians' with a limited concern for the rights of minorities; some conservatives have been valiant defenders of the liberties of conscience and expression.
|Don't be guided by majoritarian views: Chief Justice|
Credits: Google Translate