[ctlby]

No, not literally a smoking hole (though I believe arson was a problem for a time?) But as close to one as you’re going to get in the USA.

I can’t disagree more with your majoritarian arguments. You (and I) would probably object when, e.g. California voters ban gay marriage. But you cheer when slim majorities attempt to saddle others with heavy economic burdens or interpose themselves in others’ contractual arrangements. I find most democratic decisions illegitimate; how hard is to to just keep your nose out of other people’s business?

The founders were aware of urban/rural tension from the beginning. The system was designed to make it difficult to force obligations on fellow citizens. That means majorities are being thwarted in their efforts, and that’s a good thing.

[notacoward]

You're still conflating two things: what gets decided at a federal level, and how. How big that category is doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. What matters is that, when those decision points do occur, letting the minority prevail would be worse.

> I find most democratic decisions illegitimate

Ah, the political equivalent of solipsism. Sorry, but this isn't the forum to address such fundamental fallacies. Hard pass.

[ctlby]

You seem to be positing a world where “bad” decisions are somehow kept off the ballot, leaving only a menu of “good” options for the wise majority to enact.

Well, that’s not our world. When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way. And unless I’ve seriously misapprehended your politics, I’m not sure why you’re advancing an argument where such a ban is just because “letting the minority prevail” would be worse.

So yeah, it’s a mistake to treat the “what” and the “how” of decision-making separately.

[notacoward]

> When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way

That's why we have constitutions. Minority rule doesn't solve that, and in fact makes it more likely that the evangelical minority will shove their religion down everyone else's throats. Thanks for underlining my point.

[ctlby]

Your argument against minority rule is to invoke... the courts? "Majority rule is great. Except when it does stuff I don't like, in which case I'll lean on minority rule by an infinitesimal number of unaccountable dudes in black robes to override it."

Constitutions are not enough. This isn't an academic question. Throughout the country's history, majorities have consistently trampled the rights of minorities. To me, majority rule looks an awful lot like rampant injustice. Minority rule looks like defense.

[notacoward]

Minority rule by whom? Do you think for one fevered second that your minority will be the one to get its way? No, you hanging from a tree in Gilead is about a thousand times more likely. Please go study the history of aristocracies, theocracies, and colonies where minority rule prevailed, and pay particular attention to how someone like you would have fared under them.

Majority rule is imperfect. Constitutional limitation is imperfect. Federalism is imperfect. That's why people have spent centuries trying to devise systems that use all of these tools in balance against one another, because the alternatives - autocracy or anarchy immediately turning into autocracy - are far worse.