Tyranny of the Majority

In a post a few days after election day, I linked to a map that showed how, contrary to the Red state-Blue state discourse, the country is really more "purple" than red or blue. In other words, in any given state, there's a sizeable group of people who disagree with the majorities in their state.

As anyone who's taken Political Science 101 has had drilled into their heads, one of the primary concerns of the "Founding Fathers" was the "Tyranny of the Majority." Now, as a brief footnote, the way this fear played out for them was very different than we use it today: to them, fear of the "majority" was grounded in fear that the masses would revolt and take away the power and privileges of the elite few. In other words, they were afraid of a true democratization of the country. But, nonetheless, it's a very legitimate problem with majoritarian systems for all minorities, elites or not.

Our current political situation in this country is increasingly becoming a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority. The Republicans won the Presidency by a narrow margin - 48% of the country voted against him - and many of the Congressional races were just as close. Even those that were considered blow-outs often had losing candidates receiving around 40% of the vote - a sizable percentage of the population. Additionally, due to the nature of our federal system, you can get odd definitions of "majority." For example, the Republicans have a strong majority in the Senate, 55-45, yet in terms of a nationwide "Senate popular vote," more people have voted for the current crop of 45 Democratic Senators than for the 55 Republican Senators.

However, the Republicans are taking the "winner-take-all" principle literally. Those who voted against them simply don't matter - they lost and as a result, deserve no representation. It's that simple. Here are a few of the ways they've been working to enforce and institutionalize the "tyranny of the majority":

1. By preventing Democrats from passing legislation with the aid of a minority of Republicans:

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

2. Republicans have frequently taken advantage of their majority to prevent Democrats from even reading proposed legislation before they have to vote on it:

The House requires a three-day waiting period, but the Rules Committee can override that obligation if a simple majority of the House agrees. House leaders circumvented the three-day layover 44 times in the past two years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The House has removed the waiting period for some of the most costly and complex bills, including Saturday's appropriations bill. Representatives last year voted on a 1,213-page defense-authorization bill three hours after receiving it, according to Baird's office. They had eight hours before voting on an 816-page energy bill.

3. During last year's Medicare bill:

[House Republican leaders] held open a 15-minute roll call vote for an unprecedented two hours and 51 minutes. At the end of the normal time for voting, Republican leaders faced defeat on the drug bill by a two-vote margin. Eventually, two Republicans were hammered into switching their votes.

4. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is currently pushing Republicans to limit the Democrats' ability to filibuster, one of the tactics available to minority parties to halt the majority.

5. In Texas, the Tom Delay-engineered gerrymandering scheme, however illegal it may have been, resulted in a gain of four seats for the Republicans in Texas.