The Tyranny of the Majority

The Tyranny of the Majority

In reading Lani Guinier’s article, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, I found myself agreeing with the majority of her views. Guinier explains how often times those in the majority simply disregard and/or alienate all together the opinion of the minority. Things are looked at as winners and losers opposed to the better process of everyone wins. This thought process often plagues democracy’s as well as everyday life. I think that the concept of “winner takes all” is so deeply embedded in our minds that we often do not deflect from it. The majority is usually the one and only winner.

This article sort of instantly “turned on a light” for me. Many thought began to produce in my mind. Guinier used excellent examples such as, the child who thought it was fair and natural to play both games and not just the one that the majority of the class voted for. I thought this tied the concept together with the question of is the majority really a tyranny together very well. As I think of all the instances where the majority has come out on top, it seems pretty natural that they would. Isn’t that what a democracy is all about? But it isn’t. A reall democracy is about taking turns and coming to a common solution where the majority rules some of the time and the minority will rule the other times.

People often get so caught up in being the majority and upsetting the masses, that the opinion of the minority becomes irrelevant. This is seen in presidential election process. The president with the most votes as well as most electoral votes wins the election hands down. What about the Americans who voted for the other candidate? Were their votes irrelevant? I think if we followed the Golden Rule of reciprocity, one might even explore the idea of the other candidate maybe becoming the vice president. This is just a way that we, as a society, could explore the possibilities of a true democracy that both represent the views of the majority as well as the minority.

The concept of universal healthcare may seem like a radical idea to some, and some even argue that we are a democracy and the ideal of universal healthcare would be borderline socialism. I think that if we actually did put universal healthcare into place, it would be more democratic than the democracy we live in today. It would help both the rich and the poor, who act as the majority and minority in this case. To be even more “fair”, one could even pose the option of purchasing your own additional private coverage if you want more of a “safety net” of sorts. This way, the skeptics who believe the waiting times, the service, and anything else will be decreased due to universal healthcare will now have an alternative option that would best suit them.

Article

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/06/universal_healt.html

This article, like many others also give the pros and the cons of the healthcare debate. As I continue to explore the argument of should we have universal healthcare or not, I do not think I’ve found any evidence that truly moved me one way or the other. I always personally thought that we should in fact transition to universal healthcare. After reading, “The Tyranny of the Majority, the thoughts and opinions that I produced from that article now pose as my strongest arguments in favor of universal healthcare. The concept of reciprocity is one I think would truly work, and a concept that I think should be more widely known and explored.