What is the evidence for the “tyranny of the majority problem” in a direct democracy context?Have any systems of direct democracy ever been proposed that are specifically designed to mitigate the problem of “mob rule”?What are the main arguments in favour and against general assemblies as legislative bodies?Is there a website or online database of what policies different politicians have voted for?Looking for the name of a voting process by public tokenHave any systems of direct democracy ever been proposed that are specifically designed to mitigate the problem of “mob rule”?What are the differences (in principles and in practice) between direct democracy and anarchyWhat about this political process is useful for making the world great again?Which nation is a direct democracy ? (At the national scale)Where to draw a line between representative democracy and a direct democracy? [Focus on the *where*]Did direct democracy ever work (in a lab)?Would Switzerland's direct democracy survive EU membership?
Why can Carol Danvers change her suit colours in the first place?
What are the advantages of simplicial model categories over non-simplicial ones?
Do we have to expect a queue for the shuttle from Watford Junction to Harry Potter Studio?
How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?
Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?
How do apertures which seem too large to physically fit work?
Fear of getting stuck on one programming language / technology that is not used in my country
Calculate sum of polynomial roots
Why "had" in "[something] we would have made had we used [something]"?
PTIJ: Haman's bad computer
How should I address a possible mistake to co-authors in a submitted paper
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Multiplicative persistence
What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)
Unexpected behavior of the procedure `Area` on the object 'Polygon'
Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?
This is why we puzzle
How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?
Quasinilpotent , non-compact operators
Why should universal income be universal?
Add big quotation marks inside my colorbox
What is the evidence for the "tyranny of the majority problem" in a direct democracy context?
What if a revenant (monster) gains fire resistance?
What is the evidence for the “tyranny of the majority problem” in a direct democracy context?
Have any systems of direct democracy ever been proposed that are specifically designed to mitigate the problem of “mob rule”?What are the main arguments in favour and against general assemblies as legislative bodies?Is there a website or online database of what policies different politicians have voted for?Looking for the name of a voting process by public tokenHave any systems of direct democracy ever been proposed that are specifically designed to mitigate the problem of “mob rule”?What are the differences (in principles and in practice) between direct democracy and anarchyWhat about this political process is useful for making the world great again?Which nation is a direct democracy ? (At the national scale)Where to draw a line between representative democracy and a direct democracy? [Focus on the *where*]Did direct democracy ever work (in a lab)?Would Switzerland's direct democracy survive EU membership?
I have read about the ways to mitigate the "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" here, but is it a practical issue in the first place ?
Has it been observed in a direct democracy context or in a referendum under non direct democracy ?
In other words, is there an example in history where a people officially voted for the destruction of a minority ?
Edit following comments:
- Replace "destruction" by "violation of basic rights".
- I am looking for examples where a specific popular vote occurred on a particular issue.
direct-democracy
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 7 more comments
I have read about the ways to mitigate the "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" here, but is it a practical issue in the first place ?
Has it been observed in a direct democracy context or in a referendum under non direct democracy ?
In other words, is there an example in history where a people officially voted for the destruction of a minority ?
Edit following comments:
- Replace "destruction" by "violation of basic rights".
- I am looking for examples where a specific popular vote occurred on a particular issue.
direct-democracy
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
I don't know how widely accepted the definition/term for "mob rule" is, but the question you link to basically defines it as what's more commonly called "tyranny of the majority". Actually that page also says "A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). "
– Fizz
3 hours ago
4
Historic (and in some places, ongoing) persecution of homosexuals, for one example. The US experiments of Prohibition, and the current "War on Drugs" insanity, for another.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
2
@time4tea, this is an example of "tyranny of the representative" not "tyranny of the majority" per se.
– marc
2 hours ago
2
@marc wasn't Hitler voted into power on a platform of rather 'racist' policies? e.g. Mein Kampf, purity of the Aryan race. It seems the German people had some idea of what they were voting for and weren't entirely misled.
– Time4Tea
2 hours ago
2
I don't know that there is any evidence by modern scientific standards. There were plenty of arguments, e.g. in the Federalist papers: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/… As far as I can tell, they boiled down to the mob being less literate and more hot-headed than the "natural aristocracy" from which representatives were expected to emerge. A sort-of elitist theory, if you ask me.
– Fizz
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
I have read about the ways to mitigate the "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" here, but is it a practical issue in the first place ?
Has it been observed in a direct democracy context or in a referendum under non direct democracy ?
In other words, is there an example in history where a people officially voted for the destruction of a minority ?
Edit following comments:
- Replace "destruction" by "violation of basic rights".
- I am looking for examples where a specific popular vote occurred on a particular issue.
direct-democracy
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have read about the ways to mitigate the "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" here, but is it a practical issue in the first place ?
Has it been observed in a direct democracy context or in a referendum under non direct democracy ?
In other words, is there an example in history where a people officially voted for the destruction of a minority ?
Edit following comments:
- Replace "destruction" by "violation of basic rights".
- I am looking for examples where a specific popular vote occurred on a particular issue.
direct-democracy
direct-democracy
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
marc
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
marcmarc
213
213
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
marc is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
I don't know how widely accepted the definition/term for "mob rule" is, but the question you link to basically defines it as what's more commonly called "tyranny of the majority". Actually that page also says "A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). "
– Fizz
3 hours ago
4
Historic (and in some places, ongoing) persecution of homosexuals, for one example. The US experiments of Prohibition, and the current "War on Drugs" insanity, for another.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
2
@time4tea, this is an example of "tyranny of the representative" not "tyranny of the majority" per se.
– marc
2 hours ago
2
@marc wasn't Hitler voted into power on a platform of rather 'racist' policies? e.g. Mein Kampf, purity of the Aryan race. It seems the German people had some idea of what they were voting for and weren't entirely misled.
– Time4Tea
2 hours ago
2
I don't know that there is any evidence by modern scientific standards. There were plenty of arguments, e.g. in the Federalist papers: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/… As far as I can tell, they boiled down to the mob being less literate and more hot-headed than the "natural aristocracy" from which representatives were expected to emerge. A sort-of elitist theory, if you ask me.
– Fizz
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
2
I don't know how widely accepted the definition/term for "mob rule" is, but the question you link to basically defines it as what's more commonly called "tyranny of the majority". Actually that page also says "A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). "
– Fizz
3 hours ago
4
Historic (and in some places, ongoing) persecution of homosexuals, for one example. The US experiments of Prohibition, and the current "War on Drugs" insanity, for another.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
2
@time4tea, this is an example of "tyranny of the representative" not "tyranny of the majority" per se.
– marc
2 hours ago
2
@marc wasn't Hitler voted into power on a platform of rather 'racist' policies? e.g. Mein Kampf, purity of the Aryan race. It seems the German people had some idea of what they were voting for and weren't entirely misled.
– Time4Tea
2 hours ago
2
I don't know that there is any evidence by modern scientific standards. There were plenty of arguments, e.g. in the Federalist papers: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/… As far as I can tell, they boiled down to the mob being less literate and more hot-headed than the "natural aristocracy" from which representatives were expected to emerge. A sort-of elitist theory, if you ask me.
– Fizz
2 hours ago
2
2
I don't know how widely accepted the definition/term for "mob rule" is, but the question you link to basically defines it as what's more commonly called "tyranny of the majority". Actually that page also says "A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). "
– Fizz
3 hours ago
I don't know how widely accepted the definition/term for "mob rule" is, but the question you link to basically defines it as what's more commonly called "tyranny of the majority". Actually that page also says "A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). "
– Fizz
3 hours ago
4
4
Historic (and in some places, ongoing) persecution of homosexuals, for one example. The US experiments of Prohibition, and the current "War on Drugs" insanity, for another.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
Historic (and in some places, ongoing) persecution of homosexuals, for one example. The US experiments of Prohibition, and the current "War on Drugs" insanity, for another.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
2
2
@time4tea, this is an example of "tyranny of the representative" not "tyranny of the majority" per se.
– marc
2 hours ago
@time4tea, this is an example of "tyranny of the representative" not "tyranny of the majority" per se.
– marc
2 hours ago
2
2
@marc wasn't Hitler voted into power on a platform of rather 'racist' policies? e.g. Mein Kampf, purity of the Aryan race. It seems the German people had some idea of what they were voting for and weren't entirely misled.
– Time4Tea
2 hours ago
@marc wasn't Hitler voted into power on a platform of rather 'racist' policies? e.g. Mein Kampf, purity of the Aryan race. It seems the German people had some idea of what they were voting for and weren't entirely misled.
– Time4Tea
2 hours ago
2
2
I don't know that there is any evidence by modern scientific standards. There were plenty of arguments, e.g. in the Federalist papers: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/… As far as I can tell, they boiled down to the mob being less literate and more hot-headed than the "natural aristocracy" from which representatives were expected to emerge. A sort-of elitist theory, if you ask me.
– Fizz
2 hours ago
I don't know that there is any evidence by modern scientific standards. There were plenty of arguments, e.g. in the Federalist papers: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/… As far as I can tell, they boiled down to the mob being less literate and more hot-headed than the "natural aristocracy" from which representatives were expected to emerge. A sort-of elitist theory, if you ask me.
– Fizz
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
I think your requirements are just too restricting to find many examples.
There aren't that many cases of direct democracy in the first place, and "voted for the destruction of a minority" is a very high bar. There's a reason that people talk about the singularity of the Holocaust; there aren't very many places in time where people had 1) the desire and 2) the means to exterminate an entire people. A lot of discrimination is about exploitation, exclusion, or subjugation, not necessarily about annihilation.
I know of at least one example of violations of basic human rights in a direct democracy though. The people of Switzerland voted with 57% to forbid the building of minarets (which goes against the freedom of religion).
We can also see tyranny of the majority in non-direct democracies, such as the support of Germans for the NSDAP, the support of slavery and Jim Crow in the US, restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries (proposition 8 would be an example of direct democracy), etc.
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In 1879, California held a referendum on Chinese exclusion that passed the all-white electorate by a margin of 154,638 for to 883 against. It was later codified into law by elected representatives, both in the California Constitution as well as Federal Law.
In other words, 99.4 percent of the all-white California electorate voted to exclude all Chinese immigrants from the state forever. It was a remarkably unanimous show of nativist hostility toward a single immigrant group. Hatred of Chinese immigrants — the “indispensable enemy” — had become the one issue upon which white working-class Californians of all nationalities, religions, ethnicities, and political parties could agree.
In 1901, Alabama held a state-wide referendum calling for a constitutional convention with the express purpose to "establish white supremacy in this State". The resulting convention ultimately not only disenfranchised almost all African Americans in the state, but most poor white people also.
The second one may be a bit borderline, since it involved not only a massive amount of voter fraud in order to get passed, but the poor whites who were also disenfranchised were told that it was the only way to keep from being disenfranchised by the wealthy gentlemen who ran the convention. More information
In 1910, Okalahomans passed Oklahoma Initiative 10 that required proof of literacy in order to vote. There was a grandfather clause included allowing anyone to vote who was also entitlted to vote prior to January 1, 1866 ensuring that the qualification only applied to African Americans. The vote was 56% for to 44% against.
In 1963, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act which attempted to prohibit racial discrimination by realtors and owners of apartment buildings built with public assistance. In response, the California Real Estate Association and other real estate groups helped place Proposition 14 on the November ballot, essentially nullifying the Rumford Act and ensuring a "right to discriminate" for housing sales and rentals, and was passed the same day Lyndon Johnson was elected president with almost 2/3 (65%) of the vote.
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
1
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
marc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39702%2fwhat-is-the-evidence-for-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-problem-in-a-direct-democ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think your requirements are just too restricting to find many examples.
There aren't that many cases of direct democracy in the first place, and "voted for the destruction of a minority" is a very high bar. There's a reason that people talk about the singularity of the Holocaust; there aren't very many places in time where people had 1) the desire and 2) the means to exterminate an entire people. A lot of discrimination is about exploitation, exclusion, or subjugation, not necessarily about annihilation.
I know of at least one example of violations of basic human rights in a direct democracy though. The people of Switzerland voted with 57% to forbid the building of minarets (which goes against the freedom of religion).
We can also see tyranny of the majority in non-direct democracies, such as the support of Germans for the NSDAP, the support of slavery and Jim Crow in the US, restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries (proposition 8 would be an example of direct democracy), etc.
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I think your requirements are just too restricting to find many examples.
There aren't that many cases of direct democracy in the first place, and "voted for the destruction of a minority" is a very high bar. There's a reason that people talk about the singularity of the Holocaust; there aren't very many places in time where people had 1) the desire and 2) the means to exterminate an entire people. A lot of discrimination is about exploitation, exclusion, or subjugation, not necessarily about annihilation.
I know of at least one example of violations of basic human rights in a direct democracy though. The people of Switzerland voted with 57% to forbid the building of minarets (which goes against the freedom of religion).
We can also see tyranny of the majority in non-direct democracies, such as the support of Germans for the NSDAP, the support of slavery and Jim Crow in the US, restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries (proposition 8 would be an example of direct democracy), etc.
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I think your requirements are just too restricting to find many examples.
There aren't that many cases of direct democracy in the first place, and "voted for the destruction of a minority" is a very high bar. There's a reason that people talk about the singularity of the Holocaust; there aren't very many places in time where people had 1) the desire and 2) the means to exterminate an entire people. A lot of discrimination is about exploitation, exclusion, or subjugation, not necessarily about annihilation.
I know of at least one example of violations of basic human rights in a direct democracy though. The people of Switzerland voted with 57% to forbid the building of minarets (which goes against the freedom of religion).
We can also see tyranny of the majority in non-direct democracies, such as the support of Germans for the NSDAP, the support of slavery and Jim Crow in the US, restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries (proposition 8 would be an example of direct democracy), etc.
I think your requirements are just too restricting to find many examples.
There aren't that many cases of direct democracy in the first place, and "voted for the destruction of a minority" is a very high bar. There's a reason that people talk about the singularity of the Holocaust; there aren't very many places in time where people had 1) the desire and 2) the means to exterminate an entire people. A lot of discrimination is about exploitation, exclusion, or subjugation, not necessarily about annihilation.
I know of at least one example of violations of basic human rights in a direct democracy though. The people of Switzerland voted with 57% to forbid the building of minarets (which goes against the freedom of religion).
We can also see tyranny of the majority in non-direct democracies, such as the support of Germans for the NSDAP, the support of slavery and Jim Crow in the US, restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries (proposition 8 would be an example of direct democracy), etc.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
timtim
17.8k94779
17.8k94779
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
To what "restrictions of basic human rights for LGBT people for much of the 20th century in western countries" do you refer? (genuinely curious)
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
I agree "destruction" is too restrictive, I meant violation of basic rights.
– marc
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
@RobertHarvey There are really too many to list, but eg sodomy laws in the US which essentially criminalized being gay, §175 which did the same thing in Germany, restrictions on marriage (see right to family), ban of gay and trans people in the military (I don't know the English word, but in Germany we call the right "Berufsfreiheit"), requirements of sterilization for trans people (right to bodily integrity), etc.
– tim
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In 1879, California held a referendum on Chinese exclusion that passed the all-white electorate by a margin of 154,638 for to 883 against. It was later codified into law by elected representatives, both in the California Constitution as well as Federal Law.
In other words, 99.4 percent of the all-white California electorate voted to exclude all Chinese immigrants from the state forever. It was a remarkably unanimous show of nativist hostility toward a single immigrant group. Hatred of Chinese immigrants — the “indispensable enemy” — had become the one issue upon which white working-class Californians of all nationalities, religions, ethnicities, and political parties could agree.
In 1901, Alabama held a state-wide referendum calling for a constitutional convention with the express purpose to "establish white supremacy in this State". The resulting convention ultimately not only disenfranchised almost all African Americans in the state, but most poor white people also.
The second one may be a bit borderline, since it involved not only a massive amount of voter fraud in order to get passed, but the poor whites who were also disenfranchised were told that it was the only way to keep from being disenfranchised by the wealthy gentlemen who ran the convention. More information
In 1910, Okalahomans passed Oklahoma Initiative 10 that required proof of literacy in order to vote. There was a grandfather clause included allowing anyone to vote who was also entitlted to vote prior to January 1, 1866 ensuring that the qualification only applied to African Americans. The vote was 56% for to 44% against.
In 1963, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act which attempted to prohibit racial discrimination by realtors and owners of apartment buildings built with public assistance. In response, the California Real Estate Association and other real estate groups helped place Proposition 14 on the November ballot, essentially nullifying the Rumford Act and ensuring a "right to discriminate" for housing sales and rentals, and was passed the same day Lyndon Johnson was elected president with almost 2/3 (65%) of the vote.
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
1
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
add a comment |
In 1879, California held a referendum on Chinese exclusion that passed the all-white electorate by a margin of 154,638 for to 883 against. It was later codified into law by elected representatives, both in the California Constitution as well as Federal Law.
In other words, 99.4 percent of the all-white California electorate voted to exclude all Chinese immigrants from the state forever. It was a remarkably unanimous show of nativist hostility toward a single immigrant group. Hatred of Chinese immigrants — the “indispensable enemy” — had become the one issue upon which white working-class Californians of all nationalities, religions, ethnicities, and political parties could agree.
In 1901, Alabama held a state-wide referendum calling for a constitutional convention with the express purpose to "establish white supremacy in this State". The resulting convention ultimately not only disenfranchised almost all African Americans in the state, but most poor white people also.
The second one may be a bit borderline, since it involved not only a massive amount of voter fraud in order to get passed, but the poor whites who were also disenfranchised were told that it was the only way to keep from being disenfranchised by the wealthy gentlemen who ran the convention. More information
In 1910, Okalahomans passed Oklahoma Initiative 10 that required proof of literacy in order to vote. There was a grandfather clause included allowing anyone to vote who was also entitlted to vote prior to January 1, 1866 ensuring that the qualification only applied to African Americans. The vote was 56% for to 44% against.
In 1963, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act which attempted to prohibit racial discrimination by realtors and owners of apartment buildings built with public assistance. In response, the California Real Estate Association and other real estate groups helped place Proposition 14 on the November ballot, essentially nullifying the Rumford Act and ensuring a "right to discriminate" for housing sales and rentals, and was passed the same day Lyndon Johnson was elected president with almost 2/3 (65%) of the vote.
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
1
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
add a comment |
In 1879, California held a referendum on Chinese exclusion that passed the all-white electorate by a margin of 154,638 for to 883 against. It was later codified into law by elected representatives, both in the California Constitution as well as Federal Law.
In other words, 99.4 percent of the all-white California electorate voted to exclude all Chinese immigrants from the state forever. It was a remarkably unanimous show of nativist hostility toward a single immigrant group. Hatred of Chinese immigrants — the “indispensable enemy” — had become the one issue upon which white working-class Californians of all nationalities, religions, ethnicities, and political parties could agree.
In 1901, Alabama held a state-wide referendum calling for a constitutional convention with the express purpose to "establish white supremacy in this State". The resulting convention ultimately not only disenfranchised almost all African Americans in the state, but most poor white people also.
The second one may be a bit borderline, since it involved not only a massive amount of voter fraud in order to get passed, but the poor whites who were also disenfranchised were told that it was the only way to keep from being disenfranchised by the wealthy gentlemen who ran the convention. More information
In 1910, Okalahomans passed Oklahoma Initiative 10 that required proof of literacy in order to vote. There was a grandfather clause included allowing anyone to vote who was also entitlted to vote prior to January 1, 1866 ensuring that the qualification only applied to African Americans. The vote was 56% for to 44% against.
In 1963, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act which attempted to prohibit racial discrimination by realtors and owners of apartment buildings built with public assistance. In response, the California Real Estate Association and other real estate groups helped place Proposition 14 on the November ballot, essentially nullifying the Rumford Act and ensuring a "right to discriminate" for housing sales and rentals, and was passed the same day Lyndon Johnson was elected president with almost 2/3 (65%) of the vote.
In 1879, California held a referendum on Chinese exclusion that passed the all-white electorate by a margin of 154,638 for to 883 against. It was later codified into law by elected representatives, both in the California Constitution as well as Federal Law.
In other words, 99.4 percent of the all-white California electorate voted to exclude all Chinese immigrants from the state forever. It was a remarkably unanimous show of nativist hostility toward a single immigrant group. Hatred of Chinese immigrants — the “indispensable enemy” — had become the one issue upon which white working-class Californians of all nationalities, religions, ethnicities, and political parties could agree.
In 1901, Alabama held a state-wide referendum calling for a constitutional convention with the express purpose to "establish white supremacy in this State". The resulting convention ultimately not only disenfranchised almost all African Americans in the state, but most poor white people also.
The second one may be a bit borderline, since it involved not only a massive amount of voter fraud in order to get passed, but the poor whites who were also disenfranchised were told that it was the only way to keep from being disenfranchised by the wealthy gentlemen who ran the convention. More information
In 1910, Okalahomans passed Oklahoma Initiative 10 that required proof of literacy in order to vote. There was a grandfather clause included allowing anyone to vote who was also entitlted to vote prior to January 1, 1866 ensuring that the qualification only applied to African Americans. The vote was 56% for to 44% against.
In 1963, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act which attempted to prohibit racial discrimination by realtors and owners of apartment buildings built with public assistance. In response, the California Real Estate Association and other real estate groups helped place Proposition 14 on the November ballot, essentially nullifying the Rumford Act and ensuring a "right to discriminate" for housing sales and rentals, and was passed the same day Lyndon Johnson was elected president with almost 2/3 (65%) of the vote.
answered 1 hour ago
Jeff LambertJeff Lambert
9,60752847
9,60752847
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
1
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
add a comment |
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
1
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
That first article you linked is unabashedly, unapologetically, relentlessly partisan. I can barely hear the facts over the sound of axe-grinding. Here is a better reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
– Robert Harvey
1 hour ago
1
1
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
@RobertHarvey Coincidentally, yours is the second link in the answer. The Chinese Exclusion Act though isn't directly pertinent to this question (even though we both want to link to it), since it was passed by representatives and for this question I want to highlight the lopsided vote of the California referendum specifically, since that is direct democracy. I include the source specifically for the quote I used, since it is directly addressing the question.
– Jeff Lambert
23 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
As long as readers can get past the tone, the general purpose of the article is to highlight examples of victimization of minorities at the behest of the majority in the State of California. CA is one state that regularly exercises direct democracy through initiatives, recalls, and referendums, so it just so happens to be a pretty good source of information in this instance.
– Jeff Lambert
14 mins ago
add a comment |
marc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
marc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
marc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
marc is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39702%2fwhat-is-the-evidence-for-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-problem-in-a-direct-democ%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
I don't know how widely accepted the definition/term for "mob rule" is, but the question you link to basically defines it as what's more commonly called "tyranny of the majority". Actually that page also says "A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"). "
– Fizz
3 hours ago
4
Historic (and in some places, ongoing) persecution of homosexuals, for one example. The US experiments of Prohibition, and the current "War on Drugs" insanity, for another.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
2
@time4tea, this is an example of "tyranny of the representative" not "tyranny of the majority" per se.
– marc
2 hours ago
2
@marc wasn't Hitler voted into power on a platform of rather 'racist' policies? e.g. Mein Kampf, purity of the Aryan race. It seems the German people had some idea of what they were voting for and weren't entirely misled.
– Time4Tea
2 hours ago
2
I don't know that there is any evidence by modern scientific standards. There were plenty of arguments, e.g. in the Federalist papers: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/… As far as I can tell, they boiled down to the mob being less literate and more hot-headed than the "natural aristocracy" from which representatives were expected to emerge. A sort-of elitist theory, if you ask me.
– Fizz
2 hours ago