I have to write like that for school. It translates to mean this:
The major problem with democracies is that everybody's out for themselves and so the choices that are really in everyone's best interests are often overlooked, and that's how majority rule can devolve into mob rule. People often blame the government for the disillusionment of its citizens, but more often than not, it's the warring parties that are to blame. Since we can't get everyone to agree on everything, the best way to combat this problem is by limitations of power. This is one of the benefits of having a republic (representative democracy) instead of a true democracy where we all represent ourselves; through the process of debate the virtue of minority decisions can be brought to light, at least enough to keep the majority from shitting all over everyone else. Most importantly, having a big nation of diverse people keeps the majority small in the periods of time where a majority exists at all. Despite our 2-party system, there are fewer true majority issues than you might think.
Mebbe I should just post that instead. :)
Monday, November 28, 2005
Madison asserts that the central problem posed by factious interests is that, in the clash of opponent factions, the public good may be overlooked; thus policy may be set according to mob rule as opposed to the interests of justice and protecting the rights of all citizens. He also posits that it is the influence of faction, not raw governmental form, which further leads to doubt of those in the public sphere and concern over the state of civil rights. Madison then contends that, since the interests of varying groups cannot be practically unified, the effects of faction must be controlled for; this, he proposes, must be done by limiting the ability of majority factions to dominate others and railroad government into preserving their own interests. The republican scheme, wherein a large number of citizens elect a small number to represent them in the halls of governance, is recommended as an effective means of control. In this case, variant public perspectives may be distilled into a cohesive agenda that bears the public good as its highest interest; this relates to the concept of agenda-setting as a means of determining policy choices. Additionally, Madison suggests that the breadth and diversity of the citizenry are much to its benefit in avoiding factious violence, as a greater variety of interests might preclude the possibility of an imperious majority, yielding instead a plurality that cultivates public benefit.