The Tyranny of the Majority and Article

The Tyranny of the Majority

Living in a democratic society has largely affected the way we perceive decision making. In our world, when two sides differ, we tend to lean towards the majority’s opinions. By doing so, we are not following the major principles of democracy. One of them is being equal and fair to everyone, but when majority rule overcomes the minority, are we being fair to all? This raises doubts about how our government should make decisions and to what extent it should depend on the majority vote.

In order to have a fair system where everyone is happy, the government must cooperate with its people, even if they vary opinions. Even if the majority vote gets a bigger piece of the compromise, the minority should also feel included. The majority vote can rule but it would not dominate everything. In order to be fair, a democracy must switch between varying “parties” to make everyone’s opinion known. Lani Guinier makes a very good point in his essay “The Tyranny of the Majority”. He says that a Madisonian Majority, a majority which rules but does not dominate, is the best system our democracy can follow and be fair.

A good way to keep decision making in a democracy fair is by allowing the “minority” group to somehow influence some of the laws and policies made. This way, people would be able to come together and agree on some ideas they have in common. Also, by taking turns and cooperating together, the democracy of the government will be much stronger.

I found Guinier’s essay very empowering because it shows how everyone’s ideas should matter. Even if a large part of a population favors a certain thing over another, they should still be able to listen to the opinions of others without being biased. I have been researching for days now about universal health care and how it will affect our country. Many people are in favor of having this program, while others are not. The majority of people are for this program, yet I still believe that our government should consider the explanation other people give. There are many pros and cons involved with this topic.

Before making any decisions, our government must analyze the facts carefully. I believe that in order to be fair to everyone, the government should have universal healthcare only for people who are willing to pay for it. Privately owned medical insurance companies should still be available to anyone who can afford it. This way, people who are against universal healthcare would not have to enroll in it, and people who are for it can. The government would be cooperating with people on both sides and letting them have their own space. The majority would not dominate our society this way, and everyone would be able to voice their opinions.

Health Care Article

Article: http://www.kqed.org/w/youdecide/healthcare/

As I was researching the pros and cons of universal healthcare, I found this website that argues your opinion whether you are for or against this plan. It gives you many reasons that will cause you to really think about this topic. It first asked whether I was for or against it, so I answered that I am for it. But then, it gave me many reasons why universal healthcare is not beneficiary. One of the most important things to me is keeping our government a democracy, but if we have universal healthcare, we would turn into a socialist country or a bureaucracy. For example, the healthcare system in Canada is breaking down because the waiting list of patients is very high. If we adopted the universal healthcare program, our country’s medical facilities would be the same.

I also wanted to see what the benefits of having a universal healthcare program are. One of the most striking ones is how the cost of hospitals, nursing homes, and doctor visits would be cheaper. According to a study conducted in 2005 by the National Coalition on Health Care, the US will be spending more than $3.8 trillion by 2015 compared to $2.1 trillion we are spending now. One of my main arguments used to be how people would be able to afford higher taxes if they can’t afford medical insurance. This research led me to change my belief because they will have to pay more money in the future anyways.

I believe that universal healthcare should be available to everyone, but it should not be enforced. If the government enforced it, we will become more of a socialist country instead of a democratic one. The benefits of this plan are very good, and the cons are also dangerous to our economy. It should be up to the citizens if they want to have this plan or not.