democracy is an ad populum

[jackson33]

P; I have to believe the State Legislatures know and understand their State, the peoples sentiments, laws and would represent to will of the people, better than the Representation sent by a population maybe 5-10 or 40 years in the past. Anyway the thought pertains to certain cases, repeated below....

 

IMO, anything concerning the operation of all States whether perceived for the good or bad to any particular States, or is not already perceived or in fact covered by the Constitution or an Amendment, should require the amendment process. [/Quote]

 

 

I liked doG's old thread on increasing the number of reps. At least it seemed to acknowledge the difference in representation orientation as well as intensifying the philosophy behind it. It would also consequently reaffirm the role of senators a bit. [/Quote]

 

If the 7 States with one rep increased to 10 or 100, those 25 from LA would also increase

to 250 or 2,500, an LA Public Housing Project could easily become a district. I don't see any advantage or sense in this. Additionally, the House already legislates and amends port into bills far more than necessary, I doubt 1 'Bill' in 50 sees the Senate floor, much less the Presidents desk. It's pure politics.

[forufes]

ok although i did start this thread i actually stopped reading when stuff started going over my head, but i was reminded of it when i came across this:

Democracy

 

The "correctness" of electoral processes lies in the prior acceptance by the electorate that the outcome of an election shall be enacted no matter what it is.

"Most of the voting members at the last Rotary Club meeting thought that the Club should hold a fund-raiser in October. Therefore, the Club shall hold a fund-raiser in October."

 

Democracy is based on appeal to popularity. As a means of determining the truth of beliefs, it is fallacious (see consensus reality and wikiality). Democracy does not obviate this; it merely makes the fallacy irrelevant as correctness is defined by popularity in its case (possibly subject to constitutional restrictions).

 

Argumentum ad populum explains how some democracies (e.g. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy) have fallen victim to the tyranny of the majority.

 

so democracy is a fallacy. but that's meaningless if truth was regarded as subjective.

The following argument is an Appeal to consequences:

 

1. Most people of the country "A" may have wrong wills.

 

2. These wrong wills may have very bad consequences.

 

3. Therefore governing the country "A" based on the wills of most of its people is wrong.

 

Similarly fallacious is the following argument:

 

1. A human being may have wrong wills.

 

2. These wrong wills may have very bad consequences.

 

3. Therefore for human beings, having a free will is wrong.

 

In the statement 3, free will means the ability of a human being to act based on his/her right or wrong wills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum#Democracy

 

so democracy is a fallacy. but that is rendered meaningless when truth is regarded as subjective.

Edited July 26, 2010 by forufes

[Pangloss]

Well I guess that depends on whether you equate popularity with accuracy. I don't know that that necessarily follows in the larger concept of "democracy".

 

Isn't the US Constitution, for example, with its checks and balanced that go not only to authoritative power but also to popular power, a pretty good argument in refutation? A statement that you can have something very much like a pure democracy, with the benefits therein, without the pitfall of mob control?

[ParanoiA]

Democracy is based on appeal to popularity. As a means of determining the truth of beliefs, it is fallacious (see consensus reality and wikiality). Democracy does not obviate this; it merely makes the fallacy irrelevant as correctness is defined by popularity in its case (possibly subject to constitutional restrictions).

 

so democracy is a fallacy. but that is rendered meaningless when truth is regarded as subjective.

 

Democracy makes no claim to determine "truth" of beliefs, or "correctness" or any of that. At best, democracy claims to determine popular preference. And it is not fallacious by that measure.

 

Anyone who invokes democracy to some other purpose may be committing a fallacy themselves - the appeal to majority - but it doesn't exist as a fallacy at all. There is nothing false about its definition.

 

And sure, truth is not objective, but that has nothing to do with why democracy is or isn't a fallacy.