I know more history than the average person, and I totally, utterly disagree with you.
From what I understand, the US Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to avoid a democracy, which was seen as an unjust system that punished Socrates and was associated with the downfall of Rome (at one point, the Roman emperors apparently had to essentially feed the populace in order to maintain enough popularity to stay emperor, bankrupting the state).
Rather, they wanted a system that protected individual rights. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That is explicitly opposed to a system of rule by the majority or rule by the people.
The US was not supposed to be a democracy.
And regardless of the historical details, why would I want to be ruled by the majority? I want to rule myself, and I have no desire to rule others. That's the only morally proper attitude.
Regardless of what they were trying to do, the founding fathers created a democratic system -- who is "we the people", if not literally the "demos" ?
Are laws not written in an assembly by majority vote?
Are you not electing representatives by majority vote?
And this has always been the case in the US system.
See my other post here about the different types of majority and how they can represent different things and/or failing at representing the will of the demos. The fact that the founding fathers were trying to avoid the worst elements of democracy doesn't mean they didn't want a democracy at all; if that was the case, they'd have just nominated a new King and be done with it. No, they were establishing a government by "we the people", which is the exact definition of a democracy. Whether or not they misused the term to indicate the "tyranny of majority", which is a separate concept, does not mean that we should keep misusing it in modern scientific and political debate.
From what I understand, the US Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to avoid a democracy, which was seen as an unjust system that punished Socrates and was associated with the downfall of Rome (at one point, the Roman emperors apparently had to essentially feed the populace in order to maintain enough popularity to stay emperor, bankrupting the state).
Rather, they wanted a system that protected individual rights. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That is explicitly opposed to a system of rule by the majority or rule by the people.
The US was not supposed to be a democracy.
And regardless of the historical details, why would I want to be ruled by the majority? I want to rule myself, and I have no desire to rule others. That's the only morally proper attitude.