majoritarian
ಬಹುಸಂಖ್ಯಾತ
definition
noun
Richard concludes his essay with an observation that I wish conservative democratic majoritarians (and their democratic compatriots on the left) would take to heart.
a person who is governed by or believes in decision by a majority.
adjective
The democracy part implies that those areas of policy requiring collective decision making will reflect majoritarian preferences.
governed by or believing in decision by a majority.
example
What they propose is not really strict construction, but 'majoritarian' tyranny.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this at odds with his often stated 'majoritarian' views?
In fact, academe's characteristic mode of governance magnifies 'majoritarian' power.
While they have their place, referenda suffer from being overly 'majoritarian' and non-deliberative.
Given the reality of the Jim Crow South, however, 'majoritarian' democracy could hardly have been said to be in play.
Justice is not to be equated with the law of the state or with simple 'majoritarian' democracy.
The democracy part implies that those areas of policy requiring collective decision making will reflect 'majoritarian' preferences.
How can 'majoritarian' politics durably sustain policies harmful to majority interests?
The unwritten guiding premise of governance today is 'majoritarian' supremacy in the form of Hindu theocracy.
American politicians are much more ‘democratic’ from a 'majoritarian' point of view.
The smoking ban is probably the most topical example of a decision that comes near to enforced 'majoritarian' virtue.
Here is T. R. Malthus's reading of Smith which makes it clear that contemporaries regarded Smith as a 'majoritarian' .
It's an insane effort, smacking of 'majoritarian' tyranny and aggressive, hidebound religious-exclusivist ethics.
If the state's wisdom came from 'majoritarian' prejudices, rather than the expertise of its technocrats, that would take us no further.
He believes the Greens' values are 'majoritarian' values that can reach across the political spectrum.
Nice to see George spelling out that he's in favour of 'majoritarian' rule rather than democracy.
He is not a moral 'majoritarian' , but he isn't going to be extending the boundaries of personal morality either.
The 'majoritarian' says, ‘If you want to know who should prevail in a conflict, take a vote.’
Personally, I don't necessarily see such fragmentation as a bad thing, as it acts as a check on 'majoritarian' power.
If civil liberties are left to popular votes, they can similarly founder on the rocks of 'majoritarian' advantage.
A final note: do not misinterpret this criticism as a defense of 'majoritarian' democracy.
The social transition has gone wrong: it is 'majoritarian' absolutism.
Risk taking does not come easily to 'majoritarian' institutions.
Richard concludes his essay with an observation that I wish conservative democratic 'majoritarians' (and their democratic compatriots on the left) would take to heart.
This 'majoritarianism' has combined with other features to provide Britain with responsible party government.
Yet this argument runs into trouble once it is conceded that 'majoritarians' of the earlier period were ‘mostly good Americans.’
First, the dominant principle of American democracy is not unconstrained 'majoritarianism' .
It is a measure of Dworkin's success that moral 'majoritarians' are now more likely to speak in neutral terms of ‘disempowerment’ and ‘oppression’ than in subjective terms such as ‘disgust’.
Formal governmental censorship is rare and moral 'majoritarians' have been relatively ineffective in the effort to criminalize rock concerts through the instrumentality of the courts.
It is faithfulness to a complex tradition that forestalls being overtaken by 'majoritarianism' or convention.
Credits: Google Translate
