>

Not in a meaningful way. The central claim is that a group of people can take over the system and the checks and balances in place can't really stop them. Where that group of people must be the majority of the voting population or simply be able to achieve a majority in the electoral college is immaterial. I'd say the latter is actually a stronger and more worrying claim even though strictly it incomparable because neither implies the other.
/u/overactor (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

No the Senate is not a fair representation of the population and therefore electoral college is unfair as well which results in a minority rule. >

The Senate isn't meant to be,   The House is.
There's two different chambers for a reason. >

What does the intentions of anything have to do with OPs post or my comment? >

You're stating it as if it's some sort of evil or nefariousness.
It's not unfair.
It's by design.    A design that makes things more fair. >

Something can be unfair and by design.
It was designed to be unfair based on arbitrary lines in the sand. >

The Founding Fathers sat around the convention and had a round table on how to design America as unfair? >

Yes they were pretty damn open about setting up a system that benefited white landowners. >

No political system can be characterized by strong majority rule when the candidate most people vote for can lose to the candidate less people voted for, which has already happened twice this century. >

If this were true, there would be no political debate at all.   There would be no division.
We would have No Abortion, No gay rights, No civil rights, and No gun control    or  Full Abortion everywhere, Full Gay rights, Full Civil rights and Full gun control.
What we actually have is Some abortion rights, some gay rights, some civil rights, some gun control and constant battles over them all.   Because one side or the other does not have control. >

I agree that there are ongoing debates and disputes over certain social issues in our country, but this does not contradict my belief that the US political system is inherently tilted towards majority rule. The checks and balances in place serve to limit power indirectly, through influencing public opinion on what is acceptable, but they do not directly prevent the majority from having their way. The two-party system, which is an inevitable consequence of the US political system and fuels tribalism, further exacerbates this trend towards majority rule.
Furthermore, the current trend of increasing tribalism and erosion of trust in our institutions will only make this situation worse in the future. The political parties are simply playing a game where they push as far as public opinion will tolerate, and the lack of trust in the system only empowers the majority and weakens the checks and balances in place. The situation may not always result in full control, but the inherent structure of the system means that majority rule will always be the dominant force. >

When literally everything is done or uncovered regularly and no accountability is taken it's not tribalism that's causing distrust. It is the institutions that are proving to us with evidence they can not be trusted. They push to civil unrest to justify excessive force and removal of rights. That's been the play for a long while now. >

I don't really disagree with you, but my point is that the impotence of the checks and balances and the tribalism is what is enabling these institutions to act with impunity. If they were more worried about losing voters due to not sticking to decorum, they'd adhere to it more. If the checks and balances actually worked they would be scared of them. This creates a feedback loop which keeps making the situation worse and worse. >

Yeah the checks and balances do not even exist. We see it everyday. The slaps on the wrists that would be crippling and life changing for the people. The total fraudulent existence of more than likely more than one politician.  I think tribalism is what has keep the. Public together. Separate but together. In the courts it's not tribalism that's happening it is literally foreign and corporate infiltration gone unchecked because they've embedded themselves through their puppets in the most powerful seats in the country and even in the world. What's making it worse is the slaps in the face to the public who majority are struggling every time one of their puppets gets caught red handed and gets no serious repercussions for they're actions. 
After "grab em by the pussy" & so many ok and still ok with that I don't think decorum is something people care about or need. Because the thought that comes to mind when we think decorum is "this is what they use when they lie & want to sound smarter than us from atop their high horses.. this is the pretend niceness and care"
It appeases the religious. As a matter of fact it only appeases them when the liberals use it. When they can  control them and force it out of them because they sure were right there at maga speeches in support of that trash.  But everyone else knows it's bullshit. Just like the ones who had sense enough to know the one who didn't have decorum was flat out lying because every time he lied his mouth turned into a butthole. We can live with or without both. Doesn't really matter. What matters is not being lied to on a 24hr 365 cycle of madness and being treated like we're goddamn terrorists in our own homes and neighborhoods. What matters is our freedom and our ability to protect ourselves but they've done a prime level job at dropping the protection ball in schools so they can fuel school shootings and have people begging for their rights to be taken away. They can't just go do it or they'd get push back. It was set to make them beg for domination over them.  
We've been screaming from the rooftops that law enforcement was not created to serve and protect us and everyone ignored and didn't believe us until they flat out ruled in several courts that we were right. Just like we've been screaming from the rooftops that the authority here itself was just fabricated out of thin air, they used protecting us and natural resources as the excuse to have it while they sell it right from under us day by day but no one believes that until China owns all our goddamn pork factories, and foreigners and corps own majority of our real estate. I guess they won't believe that until they're all in section 8.
And those topics were brought up to the general public despite our Separate tribes. But it seems people don't believe anything until it is directly affecting them just as they had to learn with police brutality. >


with its two-party system and tribalistic tendencies, leads to a situation where the majority is able to dominate the minority and push their agenda without much opposition.

At every level of U.S. government, it is in fact the opposite: the President can be elected with a minority of votes, the same goes for the Senate (which is the more powerful chamber), and then these two positions determine the Supreme Court.

The checks and balances that are in place, such as the Supreme Court, are often influenced by political bias

That bias is frequently in favor of the minority opinion, such as when the Supreme Court decided to revoke the constitutional protection of abortion rights.

Evidence suggests that Supreme Court justices may have political biases that impact their decision making, and the Court itself has a history of partisan rulings.

Again, this is oftentimes to the advantage of the minority, not the majority.

Additionally, the Senate and the Supreme Court can be compromised if 1/3 of the Senate and a simple majority of the Supreme Court are aligned in their views

I am genuinely struggling to comprehend what you mean by this.

The only real constraints on government power in such a scenario are the morals and ethics of the individuals in positions of power

Yes, that's...that's why there are three branches that check and balance each other.

This creates a system where the government is not effectively limited,

Except for when the government limits itself, or the government is limited by the powers of the states. 

Overall, the US political system's strong majority rule and lack of effective checks on government power create a situation where individual rights and freedoms are at risk and can be violated if the majority of the population supports it

Again, there is no section of the U.S. government which requires the consent of the majority, nor do any of the flaws you have listed have anything to do with majority rule.

The current system relies too heavily on the ethics and morals of those in positions of power

Which is why we have elections, in order to select people with ethics and morals that we appreciate and respect. Again, you haven't actually pointed out how majority rule causes any of this.

So eben minority rule is too mild a way of putting it. That doesn't really change my for argument though,

Except your entire argument seems predicated on the idea that all of this is caused by majority rule, which you have admitted doesn't actually exist in the U.S. >

I would have to disagree.
If that were true... we wouldn't still be having the same tired debate on gun control after every mass shooting and still be unable to pass any meaningful legislation to curb the proliferation of guns....something which every other leading democracy has been able to do with relative ease.
By now .. I am sure that a good majority of Americans recognize the gun problem. But a very strong and influential minority holds that debate in a stalemate. >

A small minority can do so much to stop any progress. You see it with a couple republicans forcing vote after vote for the speaker role, with the minority party holding the debt ceiling hostage every few years, with judge appointments being blocked, with the electoral college and the president who gets fewer votes getting elected, with the senate not being an accurate representative of the U.S. Population, with super majorities needed to do pretty much anything, with Gerry mandering, and with laws being passed to supress certain groups likelihood of voting. Executive orders are really the only thing I can think of that can lead to strong majority rule and that is only if the president is currently part of the majority. >

Yet here's Bill Cosby walking free, obviously guilty and the majority want him behind bars, because the courts care about the letter of the law. >

It's true that there is a disconnect between what the voters of political parties and the politicians and judges associated with those parties want, so !delta for that.
Then again, at best this relies on the sense of morality of the politicians and judges, which I conceded in my original point. At worst, this makes it so less than 50 people can decide how to run the country with no legal recourse on place to stop them. >


judges don't necessarily accurately reflect the will of the people they are meant to represent

Judges aren't meant to represent people, though. >

True, but I'd argue that in the current system they are implicitly expected to. They have very much become a political tool to the point that appointing many judges is seen as a huge win for a political party. >

The Democrats have consistently got more votes in Presidential elections as well if you add all Senate popular voting and all House of Representative voting. Yet the Republicans control the House, the Supreme Court, and have two Presidents elected that lost the popular vote. Our Electoral college is anti-democratic. Puerto Rico and Washington, DC have more people than Wyoming, yet Wyoming gets two Senators and 1 House member. California has 70 times Wyoming's population, yet only 53 times the House members and the same number of Senators. If anything, the U.S. system is set up to make sure rural votes count more than urban votes. The rural minority has the majority of the power and that is completely unfair. >

I think a lot of your analysis is correct, but your initial statement carries a huge flaw — the US does not have majority rule at all, let alone strong majority rule. The presidential election system, for instance, allows for a president to be voted into office without the support of a majority — not even a support of the majority of people who vote, let alone an actual majority of the populace. Gerrymandering throughout the country allows for congress people to lock in seats regardless of what the majority want. If you look at the stats and polls, majority opinion scarcely affects public policy on any level of government.
Majority rule has some serious problems, but what we have is minority rule, which is even worse. Not only is the voting system not set up for majority rule, but the influence of special interests and companies tends to have a larger effect on policy than the voters. Democracy in the US is dead. >

See my edit. I have conceded this point, but I don't think it really detracts from my argument. It's just an additional way in which the system is shitty. >

The system is definitely shitty. >


where the actions of the government are primarily driven by what the majority of the population wants

This is demonstrably false if you look at, say, the 2016 election, 2000, or a ton of issues, like gun control, abortion, etc. where a strong majority want things like choice protected.

Additionally, the Senate and the Supreme Court can be compromised if 1/3 of the Senate and a simple majority of the Supreme Court are aligned in their views, further weakening the checks and balances.

I don't understand what you mean. Compromised how? 
What about the House? >

You're right about your first point, I've conceded that and awarded a dents to the first person to point it out. The electoral college can actually lead to minority rule which is worse than majority rule, so that doesn't really challenge the core of my view.
By comprimised I meant that if 1/3 of the senate and a simple majority of the supreme court were bad actors, there is no legal way to stop them from doing whatever they want. This is obviously an exaggerated scenario because there would be a revolt before we got to that point. The house is completely impotent to stop these bad actors if they don't adhere to any decorum. >


By comprimised I meant that if 1/3 of the senate and s simple majority of the supreme court were bad actors, there is no legal way to stop them from doing whatever they want.

That's already happened despie the majority opposing it. I'm not sure how this supports your argument. >

As I said, I've already conceded that a majority isn't even necessary, you just need a majority in the electoral college to get the majority in the supreme court and then get at least 1/3 of the senate. The reason that didn't really go against my argument is that it's basically an even stronger claim than my original one.
The US is susceptible to majority rule -> in the US a group of people can decide what happens provided they are the majority of the voting population
The US is susceptible to minority rule -> in the US a group of people can decide what happens provided they can achieve s majority in the electoral college. >

Those are contradictory claims.