What Is Majority Rule Majority Rule Is Where A Group, Party, Or Facti

What is majority rule? Majority rule is where a "group, party, or faction has more than half the votes" (Webster's). The statement "In theory and in practice, majority rule is not a reliable guarantee of democracy" is true of the US government today. It is hard for the majority to rule in the United States government, even with the system of checks and balances. There are so many interest groups and organized groups of citizens who can undermine majority rule in our government. These groups cut into our democracy and buy their way into our government, thus influencing policy. Especially in today's government where there is not a clear majority, and the era of candidate politics exists, interest groups have a great advantage. Not to mention that our government is a republican democracy, not a pure democracy, which means that the people elect the person who gets the majority of the votes to represent them in government. In a republican democracy the candidate is more susceptible to fla ws and is more likely to take money from major corporations to win an election. In the paper I will be looking at articles that illustrate arguments for and against the statement that majority rule is not a reliable guarantee of democracy. In the essay Why We Still Need Real Political Parties, Kay Lawson argues that the political parties of the United States have moved from "party politics" to "candidate politics" where there is more emphazisis placed on the candidate, which makes them more susceptible to the mercy of elites, interest groups, and other small groups of organized citizens, rather than the issues. Lawson says that the modern day political parties do not perform the tasks that they were given since the day they were founded. She says that they used to "aggregate interests, recruit candidates, structure the vote, and they provided a means of holding elected officials accountable." Her argument is that now is that the elites and interest groups have the candidate by the throat, making it hard for them "aggregate interest", even though it may look like they do. Thus, the candidate will not aggregate his or her interests to that of the constituents, but rather to the interests of the interest group or elites t hat are supporting them. Next, Lawson says that parties "recruited and trained candidates" and now, she says, that they do not do this any more because the candidate is recruited by the interest group, not by the party, "today's parties do not perform the second function" of recruiting candidates. Her third argument is structuring the vote. She says that today's parties do structure the vote, but not by using the party label. She says that the parties of today do not control their own nominations, and that their party label is now associated with the interest group they represent which "have become their nominations." This idea is almost one hundred percent true in the party system today. For example, The National Rifle Association is known for its representation by the GOP, and the Pro-Choice interest group is represented by the Democratic Party. Finally, Lawson's fourth argument is that the only thing that holds the elected officials accountable "is the force that is needed to ope n a wallet". In other words, the elected official is only accountable to the interest group, not to his party. They have to represent the interest group other wise the money is not going to be there. Over all Lawson believes that the government has been taken over by the elites and interest groups, therefore not representing the majority in government. The counter argument to Lawson's essay is that a system of checks and balances protects the majority from the "factions" that may undermine democracy. In The Federalist, No. 10 the author James Madison forewarns the people to watch out for factions, especially majority factions. Madison knows that factions "are sown in the nature of man," so by destroying factions he says you destroy liberty. He also says that if you could give the citizens the rights of the factions to even out the playing ground between the citizens and the factions, but that is irrational and impossible. So what to do? Madison created