>

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.
/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.