Not sure what you're going for there, but one nice thing about our system of government is that it's designed to protect rights from majority rule. Something like 90% of the country opposed interracial marriage when the courts said "Sorry, but being grossed-out and racist isn't enough reason to keep people apart," and the courts made the right call.
On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government[/font]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, sans-seri]There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.[/FONT]
From our own government's webpages.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm
My point is that we have become so oversensitive on the topic of minority rights that majority rule is no longer effective. Think of every major issue on the table for this campaign. Now think back to 2004 and 2000. Were those issues still there? Now think back to 1996 and 1992... how about 1988? Yeah, the majority of those issues were still present. I cite one of the primary reasons for nothing being done as the timidness of our elected officials to enact permanent statutory change due to fear of backlash from one part of the populace or another.
To put it simply, we keep pushing around the dirt instead of sweeping it up.
I'll illustrate this by selecting one of many examples: illegal immigration. Our borders are more or less wide open for virtually anything to come across. Though it did not have the limelight until recently, it has always been a problem for this country.
The problem exists for two reasons. One, illegal immigrants have the capability to come here due to very lax border security on our part. Two, illegal immigrants have the incentive to come here because there is an economic incentive for shady US businesses to hire them. The minimum wage forces an inelastic floor for labor costs, no matter what supply and demand might dictate. If say, the laws of supply and demand dictate that a maid is worth $5.00 an hour, and minimum wage (in my state anyway) dictate that she be paid $7.25 an hour, that employer has a $90 per week per laborer incentive to hire illegal immigrants. The illegal will work for less and for obvious reasons not report the employer for breaking the law.
There are obviously many other dynamics as to why illegals come here (political instability at home, difficulty/cost of becoming a US citizen, etc), but I'm simplifying the issue for the sake of argument.
So, when deciding how to handle the problem (assuming you see thousands of people violating our national sovereignty daily as a problem), an elected official has two sides. One one side there are the illegals themselves. The best estimate I've seen for the population of illegals in this country is currently 12 million. Clearly a minority compared with our 300 million+ national population. Add in to their side anyone who benefits from the continued open-border policy (i.e. employers and relatives). For argument's sake, let's say 60 million.
On the other side, let's put John Q. Taxpayer, who foots the bill for the economic impact these illegals have on America. The Heritage Foundation performed a study in 2007 on what illegal immigration costs the average taxpaying household. This is quite an in-depth study and interesting reading if you're into that sort of thing (
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm). However, if you're not, the end cost is about $22 thousand per taxpaying household in the course of a year (not person, household).
So now you have 240 million people on one side of the issue and 60 million people on the other side. The concept of majority rule over minority rights would dictate that something must be done, and it must be done to protect the needs of that majority, especially if it is being adversely affected. The concept also states that the rights of the minorities (the illegals) should not be infringed upon either. They should not be persecuted, but by the same token, they cannot be allowed to continue having a negative impact on the majorirty.
This, however, is not happening. Every time any decisive action is comtemplated, it is summarily shot down because the Latin community gets extremely vocal, and no politician has had the balls to stay the course. Illegal immigration has been happening as long as this country has been around, and it's been happening en masse for the last twenty years. Yet, nothing continues to be done about it.
THIS is what I'm talking about when I say the concept of
majority rule is being forgotten. In this case and others, the majority is getting screwed over in favor of the minority. The only difference between this and the circumstances that led to the birth of this country is that the economic roles have been switched. Back in 1776, the minority doing the screwing was rich and the majority getting screwed was poor.
Keyes, though... He's an odious little man. Even if I spotted you the economic positions, his social views are so overwhelmingly religious-right horrible that it's still hard to fathom anyone taking him seriously (except maybe those schmucks at Westboro Baptist Church). The guy disowned his own daughter for coming out as a lesbian. As much as I like to joke about Dick Cheney having cloven hooves and torturing sinners during his off-hours, Cheney was never that low.
I honestly didn't know about him disowning his daughter. Like I said, my attraction to his candidacy was his testicular fortitude, especially compared to now-President Bush.
