Talk:Tyranny of the majority/Archive 1

Lani Guinier
Whether the Lani Guinier book "Tyranny of the Majority" is relevent to the article is a content decision, but the bare sentence that User:Raggz is deleting is not original research (see my comment on his talk page (here). The book is discussed in the Lani Guinier article;  the inline link should be sufficient sourcing, but feel free to add the book to the references if desired. - David Oberst 09:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Important Article

 * But, a least, we can say, that this tyranny was a major factor, in all civil wars, between MAJORITIES, of any kind. --Stayfi (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article to be written here?
Currently, a couple of references for use of the phrase aside, this article is devoid of content. Right now, all it actually says is:


 * The tyranny of the majority is the dilemma facing a democracy when a minority's own interests are consistently blocked by an electoral majority.

Ignoring the huge number of ill-defined terms (a "minority" could mean, say, an ethnic minority, or a parliamentary minority; "electoral" could refer to the electorate (usually electing representatives), or a majority of representatives, usually sufficient to establish law.  "blocking someone's interest" could mean anything from "not doing as someone says" to "making life miserable for someone"), what appears to be said here is that the tyranny of the majority is the "dilemma" (not the right term in this context) that someone does not get their way. Hardly unique to democracy, and certainly not a valid definition.

As far as I understand it, the phrase evokes a very clear mental image - that of a small number of people (states, what have you) being acted against in a discriminatory fashion by a majority vote. It's certainly a problem, particularly if it is assumed everyone votes in their own interest - what is it that would stop anyone but Bill Gates from voting "yes" on a referendum to take away his money and split it up evenly?

I'm not sure whether there's any good source actually discussing the phrase in detail - usually, people who use it are deliberately avoiding making a rational argument, instead going for the emotional image of, say, a majority in Nazi Germany voting in favour of the Holocaust.

If there is serious use of the term, maybe that includes a usable definition. Until then, the best we can do is something like "the phrase tyranny of the majority is used by people opposing majority rule in certain matters because they think the decisions so made would be mean". Or an AFD as dicdef.

RandomP 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point stands, but I would certainly not vote for a redistribution of Bill Gates's funds! A small amount of cash for me would do significantly less good than the weight of his fortune directed at good charitable work worldwide.

I also find your suggested definition of "tyranny of the majority" to be lacking, not to mention a little condescending. The definition of a philosophy is not its use in arguments that you disagree with, nor is the fear that people would be "mean." In the US there are multiple historical examples of majority opinion in favor of denying civil rights for minority groups. Our Constitution is explicitly intended to protect such groups, for instance the existence of the Supreme Court charged with striking down unconstitutional law. If the majority ruled, schools would not have been desegregated when they were. I don't think denial of civil rights can be brushed off as "mean."

That said, when I searched for the phrase "tyranny of the majority" I was rather surprised to see that it had its own article. It's definitely an important concept, especially to me as an American. I never ceased to be amazed at how many of my fellow countrymen don't understand their own system of government, and if that page helps that tiny bit I suppose its inclusion is worthwhile. 71.202.105.98 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

strange "The Logic of Collective Action" graph removed
I removed a graph added in recent days on single book, "logic of collective action." If there is going to be an expounding of single book with a marginal opinion, then this article would also need to be 50x longer and include an analysis of how and with what arguments the hundreds of social science, political science, US history and indeed ancient Greek works gave consideration and supported the caveat against tyranny of the majority. We would have to have perhaps three or four graphs on Plato, twice as many on Mill and much more on Tocqueville specific discussion of the issue.

In any case Olson never effectively challenged the idea of tyranny of hte majority isn't a concern, he simply added other concerns.

I also have concern about the article to which it refered: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

which incorrectly and without attribution at this point states: The book challenged accepted wisdom in Olson’s day that: 1)if everyone in a group has interests in common, then they will act collectively to achieve them; and 2) in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority.

What? Was there some kind of poll of either the populace or political scientists establishing "accepted wisdom" or that that accepted wisdom contended that: "in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority."

Answer: no.72.75.11.5 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Veltzer
As I understand the editor removed my section criticizing this term. I the only reasoning seems to be "not according to wikipedia standards". What does this mean ? Wikipedia standard claims that logical arguments cannot be stated ? Which standard that is ? I think that the editorial descision is political in nature and should be revered. Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.173.10 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

practical instances
Probably should be links to ethnic democracy, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Section
Why is the paragraph explaining the objectivist viewpoint taking up so much room? It certainly can't be because political theory courses in universities spend any amount of time covering her thought. It should be shortened, if not removed entirely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.70.66 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have put Rand's views in their place; she seems to have a large Internet following so that might explain it. This article is more about the term, but some documentation of the history of the idea in the 20th century might be worth documenting. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

why I made the changes
We need to avoid promoting our own views in articles.

Unless of course you want to see pediphile activity added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingeyez (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly what you mean by pedophile activity being added to the list, but I'm inclined to agree that an example section could be problematic under WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. Without sources to verify that these examples are widely accepted, and do not represent the contributing editor's personal perspective or that of a minority, I don't see how they can meet core content policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to this 39 page document, I did a text search for the word "Tyranny" and failed to find it. A quote to verify the connection to the term would be welcome. I'm inclined to think, too, that if examples are to remain, they need to be contextualized to avoid WP:NPOV issues...such as indicating who calls something "Tyranny of the majority". Personally, I can think of a few examples that I believe qualify, but the point here, obviously, is to avoid injecting our beliefs. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the middle of page 12: "Indeed, the danger to the liberty of same-sex couples in California rises to the level of that warned by philosopher John Stuart Mill, who opined that in a representative democracy, safeguards are required against unfettered control by the 'tyranny of the majority.' (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts Edition, p.7.) Nowhere is this tyranny of the majority more evident than when the electorate of California approved Proposition 22 or the Governor vetoed contrary legislation 'out of respect for the will of the People.'" Eyliu (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Don't know why the pdf search didn't find it, particularly with it in there twice. Given the size of the document, it might be appropriate to at least include the page numbers in the citation template, and perhaps to utilize the quote parameter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have made your suggested changes to the citation template, and I have added an independent reference that was just published in The Economist today. Eyliu (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I've removed the unsourced examples (even though I personally agree with both of them) as well as the tags and added a hidden note requesting sources for new examples. Hopefully, this will help us avoid issues down the road, though I bet there will be some occasional soapboxing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning-up. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples Section
I have added an examples section that includes Same-Sex Civil Marriage, specifically California Prop 8 and Maine Question 1. In both cases, a majority of people voted to take away rights granted to a minority by their state governments.

I understand that "Tyranny" in "Tyranny of the Majority" makes it a loaded term. Because of that, people who are opposed to same-sex civil marriage rights may object to including those examples in this article. However, this issue exactly fits the definition of Tyranny of the Majority.

I know of no other example in U.S. hisotry. If there are other examples that fit the definition (whether in the U.S. or other countries), they should be added to the list.

MeatheadMathlete (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Other examples would include prohibition of alcohol, the continued prohibition of marijuana, helmet laws, basically any issue of regulation brought up in a conversation about the "nanny state". I think an important distinction is that tyranny of masses limits a freedom to do something that ONLY affects the person(s) doing it. Or (such as drinking, smoking, smoking pot) influences the public the same or less than similar activities which the majority has deemed acceptable. Or (as in the case of helmet laws) the external affects are limited to those between private individuals or organizations such as the motorcycle driver and his insurance salesman. Something like requiring labels for trans fats on food may seem impositive, but the benefits of those labels are equal for everyone and the burdon equal among food producers. If a majority enacted a law requiring girlscout cookies have such labels yet other cookies need not then it is an example of this subject. The Tyranny, then, is the arbitrary application of preferences instead of law. 99.72.247.225 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Chris Bright cobright@gmail

I am removing the current example section because it is merely (and will become more so) a place for people to place political decisions they disagree with (made in some form of democratic state). It requires recognition of, and a debate about, specific fundamental human rights, and so is inherently non-neutral. "Same-sex marriage" might seem like an obvious example for some, but "taxes" is for others. If any example is placed here in the future it should be a universally recognized example from history. Ohspite (talk)

Should the "Term" section be broken into Term and History?
It seems like much of the section highlights the historic origin of the concept yet there is also references to more currant and contemporary usage. As far as the history of the term, in addition to Nietzsche and J.S. Mill, Kant seems like a welcome edition/

"Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty." - Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, II, 1795

99.72.247.225 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Chris Bright cobright@gmail.com

Disputed
This article is a good starting point, and it is not my topic area, but I have some concerns that it is confusing a description of the problem (tyranny of the majority), with possible solutions. It also is not exhaustive in listing solutions, and seems to be subject to some bias about possible political process. This lends a bias to the article, in my view.

Perhaps the article is incomplete in listing examples and structure. I am just noting the concerns, but as this is not my area, I would have difficulty editing the article.

Sroen (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since as you say, this is not your area, and as your complaints do not seem to be substantive or to match the tag, I'm removing it. I don't see anything wrong with the article, seems like a factual report of the subject, could be developed further but it's just a phrase, the larger thing, democracy, etc. is covered elsewhere. Lycurgus (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Author of Federalist No. 10 and letter to Thomas Jefferson
This article opens with a sentence that discusses some writings of Alexander Hamilton; however, James Madison is believed to be the author of Federalist No. 10 and is the author of cited letter to Thomas Jefferson. As I read the current sentence, the citation reference seems to be directed at Federalist No. 10 as I read it; however, the reference link is directed to James Madison's letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Please forgive any Wikipedia customs and practices that I am unfamiliar with. As this is my very first contribution to Wikipedia, I would be appreciative if a more experienced contributor make any edits to the article if it is deemed appropriate to edit the article.Politik scudlar (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC) My bad: Madison to Jefferson. (good grief, apologize...confusing. It was Fed 78, Madison "Judicial Review.

And here are two fresh decisions of a minority: the sons of conferate soldiers trying to perpetuate the Southern myth that the South did not lose. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-license-plate-confederate-flag-20150618-story.html

And another one where the voting faction with power prevented free speech by a church abused by town officials (the minority with voting power): http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/18/us-usa-court-church-idUSKBN0OY1WB20150618

Also, Please consider rewording the intro on this page; there are semantic difficulties which have taken me too long to sort out: you see tyranny of the majority and minority on the same page in many attempts to explain it. "Factions", Madison 10, is a better word than either Majority or Minority. The intent of Hamilton 55 and Madison to Jefferson is clear albeit difficult simply because it's difficult to enumerate all of the possible conditions where a minority of voters (state legislators, mostly) could override even a majority of their constituents: the slave/blacks are a good example; most of the South consistently passed legislation keeping them disenfranchised them for many decades. It was the Supreme Court, the 3rd Power of the Federal Gov., which the founding fathers placed in a secure position; they could not be influenced or removed from office and were appointed as the last legal review. It took numerous Supreme court decisions and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to get where we are today, which, if you read the news ain't all that good but it's a lot, lot better.

The same goes with School boards who have tried to circumvent the Separation Clause (they are minority but powerful voters of a board) by trying to make their religious preferences apply to all the constituents of their district. Again, the court systems have invalidated and struck down these "tyrannnies" or "factious factions".

Hamilton letter to Jefferson: "The second object, the due partition of power, between the General & local Governments, was perhaps of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States: some for such a power without a negative: some for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative: the majority finally for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the Negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. As I formerly intimated to you my opinion in favor of this ingredient, I will take this occasion of explaining myself on the subject. Such a check on the States appears to me necessary 1. to prevent encroachments on the General authority. 2. to prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States."

The introduction needs to be better written to eliminate the semantic difficulties and equivocal sense of Tyranny of the Majority because many times it is a Minority of voters who exert undue influence over the majority of their constituents.Psw808 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Tyranny of the Majority and Ochlocracy
I saw there are two separate articles for these topics in Japanese (the only other language I know) so I guess they are different concepts, but just curious as to what the differences are as they relate to the two wikipedia articles. For example, this page has the link to ochlocracy stating it as "the form of democracy" but in the sidebar both tyranny of the majority and ochlocracy are both listed as variants of democracy. Anyways, hoping we can start a discussion that might lead to improvements of both articles. Thanks. XinJeisan (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Illustrating" section
What is "revert decision strategy"? The rest of the article doesn't mention or define this term at all, and a quick google search isn't very illuminating. Condominium is linked wrongly - its linked to the housing condominium. I don't know what condominium is supposed to mean in this context tho.

Its a bit unclear what this example is trying to illustrate. It seems that the conclusion is that the tyranny of the majority reverses the decision to color both rooms the same, but I don't think that's an example of tyranny of the majority. Rather, its an example of ex-post-facto voter regret and the fact that those voters care more about the color of the room they spend most time in than the decision to color both rooms the same. I kind of don't think this section is a good example of tyranny of the majority. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fresheneesz, I agree and deleted... Need time to review and do correct (and percentuals, etc.)... But perhaps the best is to restart here, discussing first a draft... Do you have an "nowadays" illustration --Krauss (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree to deletion. it's OR and makes little sense. Rjensen (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Rjensen and Fresheneesz, can you help to "imagine didactic case" to illustrate? Please edit the subsections bellow, the first step is only to draft something that makes sense for us... them clean, summarize, etc. The English is bad and need reviews and corrections. --Krauss (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, no answer: posting part-1 and part-2 there, but we can discuss and change to get a better result, as suggested above. --Krauss (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So I think I see what you're getting at with this explanation. You're essentially trying to describe a situation with a particular set of utilities for each constituency (gamers who like blue, gamers who like red, gym users who like blue, gym users who like red, etc), and showing how a majority vote won't come up with the best solution when voters are all voting by their own preferences. I think you should simplify this a little bit. First: only have two rooms, the game room and the gym (I'm assuming "gyn" is a gym).
 * Thanks Fresheneesz (!), I am reviewing directally the main text, because now have updated also the introduction-text, but I can stop there and back here if you prefer. I think also (agree) that explanations need simplification: please check if the new tyranny emerging subsection can be simplified or deleted (the emergence of any thing is so abstract and perhaps a difficulty to avoid in explanations). --Krauss (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations
... figures and scenarios, we can discuss here ...

American bias
This article is written almost entirely with reference to the United States. Either it should be retitled accordingly, or the balance adjusted. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Research
It seems that the "Illustrating scenarios" section (and similar information in the introduction) is probably original research. Search engines return only this Wikipedia article for the phrases "Abandon of the rationality", "Usual no-tyranny scenario" and "Federated centralisation excess". The first doesn't appear to be grammatically correct English. The section also uses a number of other odd words and phrases: "wall-ink", "velocity-cyclists" and "gyn room", for example. I know little about the subject but this section seems to be in need of someone who does, or it should be removed. 2601:410:4301:1027:A55A:710:77B:D25E (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They are "original phrases", and can be changed to better, and all with better English, but not seems "Original Research", it is only an didactic organization of the content. Please help to emprove the text as  this talk section requires.  --Krauss (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I improved the spelling, as I couldn't understand what it was about, but not fixed in the image. I assume gyn should read gym unless there is some kind of obstetrics related static cycling that I am not aware of. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is pretty raw
I walked away knowing that several people like hamilton talked about the artccle topic and that john c. calhoun has something to do with somethign related to this. The beginning was fine and up to snuff for aa wiki articcle. the middle and end were BAD. Weird, very very unclear, the weird 'gyn' / 'gym' cyclist graphs did not inform me, i do not understand, they also are not near each other on the page. this page is very messed up. i dont have time to fix it either. This article sucks. read it through from beginning to end and you will see what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielfirst (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased opinion in opening paragraph
"This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.[1]"

The cited source is the view of an individual and should not be included as a fact.

104.172.23.78 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)bk2
 * the analysis is by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, -- this is one of the biggest names in the history of political thought--he set the agenda we are still following and of course he belongs front and center,Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Examples again
Uninformed readers are no wiser, after reading this article, as to how it applies in the real world. Why no mention of the Northern Irish 'troubles' where majority Protestants tyrannised minority Catholics? Or Cyprus prior to the Turkish invasion of 1974? East Timor prior to its independence from Indonesia? Irian Jaya? Hutus and Tutsis? And so on. Mention of Power-sharing as a means to fix tge problem, as in the Good Friday agreement, Lebanon, Belgium, etc would also be useful. Crawiki (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Illustrating Scenarios" section confusing
The Illustrating Scenarios section is confusing (as is most of the article actually). It seems to be an attempt at an exposition of someone's theory about types of majority tyranny. Apart from being terribly written the issues that are raised are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry on the term "tyranny of the majority". Content should be clear to the average reader, this sounds like a badly written textbook. JulianRDWinter (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

attribution
Normally this term is attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America). Why does this article not mention this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Gym not gyn
Would someone please correct this spelling error in the diagrams? Crawiki (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What's the Hamilton-Jefferson cite?
"Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon or population centers"

Anyone have a source for this? I'm a bit skeptical, given Hamilton's reputation as something of an urbanist and the fact that demagogues don't generally appeal to the upper echelon.

Cosmocatalano (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)