Should the will of the majority always win through?

Once again, I am always saying this, there was a discussion on the radio. It was someone was talking about attitudes to politics and the current disengagement. The speaker suggested it was because we had ceased to see our selves as citizens and only saw ourselves as consumers and this changes our perception of what is important when voting from what is best for society to what is best for me.

Here is the link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29786733

Not everyone can move, though, soontobe. Where would you move to that is better than here?

Yes, is the answer to the OP, if you believe in democracy. Not everyone votes for self-interest.
Hopefully in the next election the majority of people will vote for what is best for the majority, not just to stop someone else getting in power.

I dont think that the majority are always right.

But that is democracy in my opinion.

I think I would try to move out of a country if I consistently disagreed with the Government in power.
Even this one.

You can please some of the people some of the time, etc.

I've asked myself exactly the same questions, granjura. I've tried to weigh up regional needs vs. national, immigrant vs, aboriginal, and the fact is, you can never know how well any decision made will work until it has been tried out. Even dictatorships can work if the dictator is a good and intelligent person. Highly dangerous though. I was talking to an MP years ago about a new road that was going to be built, and he said that every single decision ever made for the good of the country on a long-term basis is going to affect someone adversely.

the reality is that sometimes 'minority opinion' is accorded more weight than majority opinion - I am sure you can all think of instances where this happens in this country - whether it is acceptable is debateable.
a local referendum on political matters is probably not the answer.
demoicracy by its nature has to award most weight to the majority with the views of the minority being considered to an extent and getting the balance right is difficult (if not impossible)

The list of countries following the FPTP system may surprise you:

Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, Canada, Cook Islands, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Micronesia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, United Republic of Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Virgin Islands British, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe,

Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. This "winner-takes-all" system may be one of the reasons why "voter participation tends to be lower in countries with FPTP than elsewhere."[9]

From Wikipedia- in the UK, due to the voting system- the majority does NOT make decision, but is wasted.

Well yes- but a majority in the UK very rarely makes any decision themselves- they 'just' elect people to make decisions for them.

Due to first past the post system- there have been many elections in the UK where a Prime minister has been elected WITHOUT the majority- so what then? The UK system of first past the post gives very undemocratic non majority results.

There is the fatal flaw in democracy. The idea of democracy is that you vote in your own self-interest, so that the result represents the greatest good for the greatest number. But in practice we vote tactically, and the absence of PR means that we waste our votes as has been said.

In our constituency, as in many others, more people voted against the successful candidate than for him - but the opposition was split between several other parties, so there he is.

The will of the majority does not always win through.

I agree with that bags and FlicketyB.

It's called democracy. The alternative would be to live in a country ruled by dictatorship or communism surely.

A very interesting question eloethan- and one I ask myself often. Especially now that I live in a country where the people, rather than the politicians (or civil servants) make the decisions on a regular basis. People here can gather sufficient signatures to force a new law to go to the vote- and many new laws or decisions are put to the vote on local, regional or national level.

Sounds great doesn't it?

And yet, in the 5 years I've been back- I notice with every vote on manipulated the population is- by the media, publications that turn up in your letter box, etc, etc. It takes a lot of time to try and understand the issues each time- and to try and sift out manipulative information- and - and I know it will sound terrible, but here goes- i know many people who for all sorts of reasons do not have the ability to do so, and yet have the same right to vote.

And that is where it gets really complicated. I would be totally against a system where people have to have a minimum level of education to vote- and yet.... there are clearly people who have a very low level of education and a very narrow level on information and understanding- and it is worrying. Just do not know what the answer is- and have been pondering on this for the past couple of years- and just do not know.

In the UK, people elect politicians with the fist past the post system- with NO proportional representation at all- which means in you live in an area which does not represent your 'views'- your vote automatically ends up in the bin. I voted in the uk for 39 years- and my vote has always gone straight into the bin- rather demotivating, no! And then politicians with the help (or manipulation, or both) of civil servants- make the decisions for you.

So I live with one foot in two countries- with absolutely totally different ways of doing things, on 1000s of key issues (education being the one I am most involved in- especially at 6th form level)- and I compare every day, and still have not got a clue as to the answers.

If the majority opinion is influenced by untruth/part truth and propaganda is it a true opinion?

But who decides whether when people reached their conclusions they are influenced by untruth/part-truth?

Generally speaking we use those terms to describe the arguments of those who oppose our view and react with outrage when they use the same words to describe our arguments

I think one of the 'costs' of democracy is that the majority doesn't always make the right decision. For me that is not an argument against democracy but a description of how it works. There are ideas and beliefs now held by majorities in certain populations which will probably be considered mistaken with hindsight.

So, no, the majority isn't always right and I agree absolutely with your comments about bandwagons. It's one of the prices we pay for the freedom to decide. Worth it in the end, I think (hope!).

Well it might be a 'true' opinion in as much as that is what people believe but that wouldn't make it right.

If the majority opinion is influenced by untruth/part truth and propaganda is it a true opinion?

oops - lots of issues here! For example, should we always allow people to have an individual say as opposed to a say in choosing a representative to have a say for them? What do we mean by a majority? The choice made by the greatest number of those choosing or a majority of those making the decision? And is there any link at all between what a majority - whatever we mean by that- decide and that being 'right'- whatever we mean by that?