Nov 15, 2016
Duke writes this:
We seek to follow correct eternal principles.
It is my understanding that one of these principles is, that the will of the majority prevail, at least in elections.
In this case, the will of the majority did not prevail. The will of the minority prevailed.
From the standpoint of following correct eternal principles, UNLESS there is some other principle that trumps majority will, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE WILL OF THE MINORITY PREVAILING OVER THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY, regardless of what sort of technicality caused it.
So…1) Is there some other eternal principle (not something situational like “we have to follow the rules even if they’re sometimes unfair”) that overrides majority will in elections?
And 2) If so, what is it, does it apply here, and if so, how?
You bring up some good points that need some clarification.
First, the idea that majority rule always works out for the best is not a principle. Something that is a principle is consistent and can be depended on to guide one toward that which is true.
In many instances I support majority rule and in others I do not. Why? Because in some instances it provides us with the safest most reliable path and in others it does not.
What is the difference?
The majority when properly and fairly informed on a subject will generally make the right decision.
On the other hand, if they are misinformed, biased and have an emotional stake in several errors of judgment then the majority will often make the wrong decision.
When a true innovation is presented to the people that requires a change in thinking the majority will usually resist and take the wrong path. It will generally be a small minority who sees correctly. Take inventions like the, automobile, airplane, the telephone, radio TV and even the computer. When first introduced the majority saw them as playthings for the frivolous and didn’t want much to do with them.
Here are several quotes to illustrate my point:
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
By Ken Olson, president, chairman/founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977
“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”
From Western Union internal memo, 1876.
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?”
Quote of David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment the radio in the 1920s
Innovations or anything different, will not only be resisted by the majority, but by many experts in and out of the field.
There are many true things that could be presented by Christ himself that would be rejected by the majority, just as happened the last time he was here.
The Spiritual Hierarchy does not consider majority rule as far as how they decide to influence mankind. They know that there are many things that would be good for us that the majority would resist vehemently.
Their aim is not to introduce light according to what the majority wants, but to assess the next step that the majority would accept once that next step is understood. After this assessment is made they then figure out a plan to move humanity forward in the light so the majority will see that step and approve of it.
Majority acceptance is not necessary for the beginning of a step, but it is necessary for the consummation of it.
For example, we did not need majority acceptance for the introduction of computers, but we do need it to establish the universal use as we have now.
Government is always a combination of majority and minority rule. In other words, there are situations where majority rule works best and others where a minority or even a single person making the decision works best.
For instance, at the foundation of our country a small minority wanted to establish a separate and free nation and even many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were not on board with them.
Then as the situation changed and ideas and light permeated the people more people started supporting the idea. By the time of the Revolutionary War the rebels had, not a majority, but approximately a third of the people supporting them. Another third supported King George and the final third attempted to remain neutral.
Thus our country was fought for and the government established by a third who saw the vision. It wasn’t long though after the establishment of the nation that the majority was happy with the result and supported their new country.
The founders respected the will of the people and incorporated it as much as deemed wise to do so. Representatives were elected by a simple majority of the people. But after being elected they could defy that majority and vote however they wanted so the majority sometimes got their way, but not always.
The Senate was not elected directly by the people in the beginning but were appointed by state legislatures that were in turn elected by popular vote.
Now we have the strange situation where the Senators are elected by popular vote yet represent greatly different numbers of people. Here in Idaho a senator represents less than a million, but in California he or she represents over 19 million
Then when setting up a process of electing the president the founders wanted to include the vote as much as practical, but also considered the importance of each state having a significant impact. Therefore, the system of the Electoral College was set up which gave value to the individual vote yet keeps the smaller states from being overwhelmed in power by the larger ones.
Another consideration was the recounting of contested elections. Recounting in one state is bad enough but if a recount had to be performed by the entire nation it would be a nightmare indeed and if the recount was not accepted a civil war could result. Think of the difficulties with the one state of Florida with Bush and Gore and multiply it by 10 in a close national recount. In any close national election the people would have to wait weeks before finding out who will be president. As it is we generally find out election night.
So, did the Founders follow or not follow some principle correctly as far as majority vote is concerned? To answer this question one must realize this. The amount of incorporation of majority vote in a system is a judgment call. You can’t have a majority vote on all things, but you can on some things and a group simply must use their best wisdom to create the most efficient system possible for the people as a whole.
I am fine with the present system of the electoral college as the popular vote usually agrees with it, but if we change to the popular vote by legal means I would be fine with that also. Whatever system is in play I would accept the results, so long as fraud is not involved.
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE