Bigla ko lang naisip: In a democracy, where unanimity is not always possible, should the minority submit to the will of the majority? And if so, is it because it is what ought to be done, or is it just for the sake of preventing chaos?
In my opinion, if the minority really has the better idea or has a better interest, they should fight for what they believe in. But since unanimity is not always possible, what mostly happens is that the majority is followed. This is the procedure that is followed so as to prevent chaos.
if the minority doesn't submit to the majority, what are they to do then? kim said, "fight for what they believe in" Fight how?
correct me if i'm mistaken, but i think the majority is followed in a democracy because it is a democracy. Its supposed to be the rule of the majority. Admittedly, during the time of Plato, the majority was actually a minority (free, Athenian men). But today, at least ideally, the "majority" really is the majority of the people (50% + 1). This isn't to say the majority is always right (hence, Lapid's election into the senate)If the minority were right, then perhaps the best way to go about it is for them to try to convince the people of their being right, thus becoming the new majority on the matter.
Doesn't the minority submit to the will of the majority anyway? Most probably have the mentality that since they are the mentality, they are unable to make any change (notice I said most, not all). I think that this is mostly for the sake of preventing chaos; not necessarily that it is what ought to be done. Those who do not listen to the majority are normally seen as rebellious and what not and are seen as causing chaos to society by the majority.
Yet, I do think that the minority should let their voices be heard. They never know; they could possibly end up being the majority. They were only seen as the minority because everyone was too afraid to let their opinions be heard. However, if they are going to express their opinion, they should do it in a peaceful way and not go all crazy causing chaos and uproar.
Democracy is basically the rule of many, but it doesn't necessarily mean that whatever the majority wants should be followed. If decisions are to be made, there are a lot (e.g for the betterment of the society as a whole, feasibility, etc.)that should be taken into consideration and not only the approval of the majority, for as long as it pursues the interest of the many.
I think the minority should submit to the will of the majority because it is in their interest to do so. Respecting the will of the majority reinforces the institution that allows majority rule, which those in the current minorities can exploit in the future.
This is possible because being a part of the majority or the minority is never permanent. The current period’s majority can easily become the minority in another period given the right circumstances. For instance, in the US, after the election of Obama as President, the Democrats have once again gained the majority against the Republicans in the Senate and Congress. In the UK’s House of Commons, the Conservative Party (along with the Liberal Party) took away the long-held majority position of the Labour Party. And in the Philippines’ House of Representatives, Lakas Kampi CMD’s majority was lost due to the large number of elected Liberal Party members.
Thus, if majorities and minorities are temporary, then I argue that current minorities will willingly subject themselves to the rule of the majority so that, in the future, it will be easier for them to rule once they attain the majority position. This is because they will not have to deal with problems of disunity, which can severely impair the ability of the majority to effectively rule and enjoy their positional benefits.
I don't think the minority should just sit there and submit themselves to the majority. That's not exactly the way to get their voices across and get what they want. Sure, they won't get what they want right away. However, they definitely won't get it just by sitting there. Even if the majority begins falling apart, the minority won't exactly take their spot as the majority if they're still sitting there like a bump on a log submitting themselves to the majority. Right? The people in the above examples you gave didn't get their spots as the majority just by sitting there letting the majority get their way despite the fact that they may have been in a weakened state. They had to show that they were right and the majority was wrong so that they can be chosen to become the majority. However, I am not saying that the minority should go out and be saying things such as "DOWN WITH THE (insert majority group here)!" Or be creating riots in resistance to the majority. Yet, they should also not be passive and just wait for their time to come either. Easy comes, easy goes, no? :D
I agree, Frederick. I also don’t think that the minority should just sit there and do nothing. They should be critical of the actions of the majority and strive to make their voices heard. They should join debates and evaluate the status of the country. They should try their best to work with the majority in order to achieve progress.
However, I think that the minority can still do these things while submitting themselves to the will of the majority. A clarification is needed regarding the phrase “submit to the will of the majority.” I interpreted it as respecting the power that is vested upon those that are part of the majority. For instance, in Congress, if 60 people voted to pass a bill while 40 people voted otherwise, “submitting to the will of the majority” means realizing that even if the vote was not unanimous, the bill should still pass because of the power of the majority. However, these 40 people can still opt to “show that they were right and the majority was wrong so that they can be chosen to become the majority” (Almeda, 2010). :D
P.S. I’m sorry if my former post wasn’t clear enough.
yes, democracy is the rule of the many. But many does not mean all. so it is to be expected that not everyone will get to be followed, since not everyone has the same opinions or ideas. The majority is followed but at least the minority are still heard. Everyone's voice is heard. This is what makes democracy a good kind of government.
Let me shift first. Do you think the interest of the majority is the rightful interest? And, let's say there is unanimity in a specific issue. Should that mean that the interest of all is the rightful interest? Is there an absolute edict of Right and Wrong that lurks behind people (just like Rousseau's "General Will"), silently carved in the hearts of men (as are Christian values), that determines the righteousness of an interest? Or should something agreed on by everyone be considered the "right" thing to do? Since, if there was some absolute determiner of righteousness, the interest of all might not necessarily be the right interest. To illustrate: everyone agrees that the Sun revolves around the Earth, while the Truth is the contrary. Of course, we do not realize our folly until some "radical" steps in the consensus and proclaims that all of us have been wrong for the whole time. (which made me think: ALL of us might be presently believing in something that is actually WRONG, but is never contested since we are unanimous as to its "truth") Of course, this is a different scenario: the issue is about a solid fact, that fact of the heliocentric nature of the solar system.
Unfortunately, ethics and politics may not stand on facts as rigid as the former. People will have to eternally debate on the existence of an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Do you think we should simply define the "right interest" as the one that benefits everyone?
I don't think that the "right interest" is ALWAYS that which benefits everyone. However, may I remind you that a major decision or a major action which benefits EVERYONE is actually very rare, or at the very least, one that benefits everyone equally.(By major, i'm referring to actions and decisions influencing large areas) Usually, one way or another, one side will lose and another will gain. Most decisions are made based on which decision will more gain and less lose. If an "interest" (sorry, i don't quite think that interest is the right word. erm...action? decision? plan?) is to benefit everyone, then my only real basis for its being right or wrong are as you say "Christian Values." I suppose this argument will inevitably fall into a battle of morals.
I agree with Ticia. The "right interest" never benefits everyone. I do not think there is a a side to any problem that benefits everyone. Free education? Good for kids, but then how will the school pay for what it needs? Free food for the world so world hunger ends? How will the people who grow the crops or animals for meat get the money to raise their products? One side will always lose, but there's always how much that one side actually loses. I guess the "right interest" would be one where mostly everyone benefits, and those who don't benefit are not as "disadvantaged" as possible. If someone gains 100 dollars for something and someone has to lose money, why not try have them lose as little as possible so that they won't revolt and cause chaos in the world.
I do find the idea that we might be thinking something that is right as actually wrong very interesting. I have never thought of it that way.
I think we should all just be skeptics or was it the cynics. The ones who just don't believe in anything. Or be more like Socrates who was the "first" yet tried to find the truth by asking questions instead of just believing things as they are. :D
Then, what is the "right" interest, or the right action, or fundamentally, the right thing? Or is there one? Since if there isn't, how can we know if the minority has the "better" idea, the "better" purpose, the better proposal? Is the word "right" just a construct, an empty box filled in by the people that use it?
Second, is to prevent chaos the only "right" thing to do, assuming it has been settled that the existence of a "right" thing has been presumed? Is it the absolute right interest?
Third, apparently no interest might benefit everyone. Should this be the reason why we should let the majority decide?
what i think is yes, the minority should just submit to the majority, dahil kung iisipin masasabing mas tama ang desisyon ng nakararami dahil marami silang nakakaisip nito
IN MY VIEW, WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG DEPENDS ON THE CRITERION/CRITERIA WE SET. WHAT IS WRONG FOR ONE MAY BE RIGHT FOR OTHERS. IF ONE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT AN ISSUE, HIS TENDENCY IS TO IMPOSE HIS CRITERION/CRITERIA ON OTHERS. THAT IS WHEN QUARRELS OFTEN ENSUE. WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER THIS. A MORAL DISPUTE IS TURNED INTO A POWER STRUGGLE. OF COURSE, THE MAJORITY IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT AND (AS JAMES STUART MILL EMPHASIZED) THE MAJORITY CAN BE AS TYRANICAL. THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IS NO LESS BENIGN THAN THE TYRANNY OF A MINORITY.
I HOPE YOU WILL NOT BE CONTENT WITH SKEPTICISM BECAUSE THAT IS THE MARK OF INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS. AN INTELLIGENT PERSON SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL AT FIRST (NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING AT FACE VALUE) BUT HE DOES NOT STOP THERE. HE INQUIRES AND HE THINKS IN ORDER TO TAKE A POSITION. TAKING A POSITION ON A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IS NOT SKEPTICISM, IT IS COMMITMENT. HE IS NEVER SATISFIED WITH BEING A SKEPTIC. THAT IS WHAT DRIVES HIM TO LEARN.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IN A LARGE AND COMPLEX SOCIETY LIKE A NATION, THERE IS HARDLY ANY PUBLIC POLICY THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE. THAT IS WHY POLITICS OCCURS IN EVERY NATION. POLITICS IS THE PROCESS OF MAKING PUBLIC POLICIES, IN EFFECT IS IS ALSO THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING "WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN AND HOW" (THE TITLE OF A POPULAR POLITICAL SCIENCE TEXTBOOK BY HAROLD LASSWELL. EVEN CHRISTIAN VALUES DO NOT ENSURE HOMOGENEITY OF INTERESTS, THAT IS WHY CHRISTIANS WERE KILLING EACH OTHER IN 17TH CENTURY EUROPE. THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE IN FRANCE WAS DONE IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIAN VALUES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HUGUENOTS WHO WERE CHRISTIANS AS WELL. HOMOGENEITY OF INTERESTS IS CONCEIVABLE ONLY IN SMALL AND SIMPLE GROUPS LIKE THE FAMILY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PRIMITIVE TRIBE, ETC.
THAT IS THE IDEAL, NOT THE REALITY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU DELUDE YOURSELF THAT THE PHILIPPINES TODAY IS A DEMOCRACY. ELECTION GIVES OF SEMBLANCE OF MAJORITY RULE, BUT IN TRUTH IT IS A SMALL MINORITY -- THE POWER ELITE -- THAT RULES. ELECTION IS JUST A FACADE OR A MASK FOR ELITE RULE OR WHAT ARISTOTLE CALLED OLIGARCHY. YOU MUST ALWAYS DISTINGUISH THE IDEAL FROM THE REALITY. OR AVOID MISTAKING THE IDEAL FOR THE REALITY. THIS IS WHAT I TRIED DESPERATELY TO DO IN MY POLITICAL SCIENCE CLASSES.
TAMA. KUNG IKAW AY KABILANG SA MINORIYA SA KONGRESO, LAGI KAYONG TALO SA BUTUHAN. BUT YOU CAN CONTINUE CAMPAIGNING FOR YOUR POSITION, EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY ARE ABLE TO PASS THE LAW AND USE TAXES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION. YOU CANNOT QUESTION THE MAJORITY'S RIGHT TO DECIDE, BUT YOU CAN QUESTION THE LOGIC, MORALITY OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THEIR DECISION.
Kung ang iniisip na context ay ang Philippine Congress, it is not a question whether the minority should submit to the majority. If a vote is taken, the bill goes to the Senate where the minority allows it. When it becomes a law, it is binding on all citizens. Government resources will be used to implement. But to submit to the will of the majority in this manner does not deny the minority to keep criticizing it and keep trying to reverse the policy.
In my opinion, if the minority really has the better idea or has a better interest, they should fight for what they believe in. But since unanimity is not always possible, what mostly happens is that the majority is followed. This is the procedure that is followed so as to prevent chaos.
ReplyDeleteif the minority doesn't submit to the majority, what are they to do then? kim said, "fight for what they believe in" Fight how?
ReplyDeletecorrect me if i'm mistaken, but i think the majority is followed in a democracy because it is a democracy. Its supposed to be the rule of the majority. Admittedly, during the time of Plato, the majority was actually a minority (free, Athenian men). But today, at least ideally, the "majority" really is the majority of the people (50% + 1). This isn't to say the majority is always right (hence, Lapid's election into the senate)If the minority were right, then perhaps the best way to go about it is for them to try to convince the people of their being right, thus becoming the new majority on the matter.
Doesn't the minority submit to the will of the majority anyway? Most probably have the mentality that since they are the mentality, they are unable to make any change (notice I said most, not all). I think that this is mostly for the sake of preventing chaos; not necessarily that it is what ought to be done. Those who do not listen to the majority are normally seen as rebellious and what not and are seen as causing chaos to society by the majority.
ReplyDeleteYet, I do think that the minority should let their voices be heard. They never know; they could possibly end up being the majority. They were only seen as the minority because everyone was too afraid to let their opinions be heard. However, if they are going to express their opinion, they should do it in a peaceful way and not go all crazy causing chaos and uproar.
Democracy is basically the rule of many, but it doesn't necessarily mean that whatever the majority wants should be followed. If decisions are to be made, there are a lot (e.g for the betterment of the society as a whole, feasibility, etc.)that should be taken into consideration and not only the approval of the majority, for as long as it pursues the interest of the many.
ReplyDeleteI think the minority should submit to the will of the majority because it is in their interest to do so. Respecting the will of the majority reinforces the institution that allows majority rule, which those in the current minorities can exploit in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis is possible because being a part of the majority or the minority is never permanent. The current period’s majority can easily become the minority in another period given the right circumstances. For instance, in the US, after the election of Obama as President, the Democrats have once again gained the majority against the Republicans in the Senate and Congress. In the UK’s House of Commons, the Conservative Party (along with the Liberal Party) took away the long-held majority position of the Labour Party. And in the Philippines’ House of Representatives, Lakas Kampi CMD’s majority was lost due to the large number of elected Liberal Party members.
Thus, if majorities and minorities are temporary, then I argue that current minorities will willingly subject themselves to the rule of the majority so that, in the future, it will be easier for them to rule once they attain the majority position. This is because they will not have to deal with problems of disunity, which can severely impair the ability of the majority to effectively rule and enjoy their positional benefits.
I don't think the minority should just sit there and submit themselves to the majority. That's not exactly the way to get their voices across and get what they want. Sure, they won't get what they want right away. However, they definitely won't get it just by sitting there. Even if the majority begins falling apart, the minority won't exactly take their spot as the majority if they're still sitting there like a bump on a log submitting themselves to the majority. Right? The people in the above examples you gave didn't get their spots as the majority just by sitting there letting the majority get their way despite the fact that they may have been in a weakened state. They had to show that they were right and the majority was wrong so that they can be chosen to become the majority.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am not saying that the minority should go out and be saying things such as "DOWN WITH THE (insert majority group here)!" Or be creating riots in resistance to the majority. Yet, they should also not be passive and just wait for their time to come either. Easy comes, easy goes, no?
:D
I agree, Frederick. I also don’t think that the minority should just sit there and do nothing. They should be critical of the actions of the majority and strive to make their voices heard. They should join debates and evaluate the status of the country. They should try their best to work with the majority in order to achieve progress.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that the minority can still do these things while submitting themselves to the will of the majority. A clarification is needed regarding the phrase “submit to the will of the majority.” I interpreted it as respecting the power that is vested upon those that are part of the majority. For instance, in Congress, if 60 people voted to pass a bill while 40 people voted otherwise, “submitting to the will of the majority” means realizing that even if the vote was not unanimous, the bill should still pass because of the power of the majority. However, these 40 people can still opt to “show that they were right and the majority was wrong so that they can be chosen to become the majority” (Almeda, 2010). :D
P.S. I’m sorry if my former post wasn’t clear enough.
yes, democracy is the rule of the many. But many does not mean all. so it is to be expected that not everyone will get to be followed, since not everyone has the same opinions or ideas. The majority is followed but at least the minority are still heard. Everyone's voice is heard. This is what makes democracy a good kind of government.
ReplyDeleteLet me shift first. Do you think the interest of the majority is the rightful interest? And, let's say there is unanimity in a specific issue. Should that mean that the interest of all is the rightful interest? Is there an absolute edict of Right and Wrong that lurks behind people (just like Rousseau's "General Will"), silently carved in the hearts of men (as are Christian values), that determines the righteousness of an interest? Or should something agreed on by everyone be considered the "right" thing to do? Since, if there was some absolute determiner of righteousness, the interest of all might not necessarily be the right interest. To illustrate: everyone agrees that the Sun revolves around the Earth, while the Truth is the contrary. Of course, we do not realize our folly until some "radical" steps in the consensus and proclaims that all of us have been wrong for the whole time. (which made me think: ALL of us might be presently believing in something that is actually WRONG, but is never contested since we are unanimous as to its "truth") Of course, this is a different scenario: the issue is about a solid fact, that fact of the heliocentric nature of the solar system.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, ethics and politics may not stand on facts as rigid as the former. People will have to eternally debate on the existence of an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Do you think we should simply define the "right interest" as the one that benefits everyone?
I don't think that the "right interest" is ALWAYS that which benefits everyone. However, may I remind you that a major decision or a major action which benefits EVERYONE is actually very rare, or at the very least, one that benefits everyone equally.(By major, i'm referring to actions and decisions influencing large areas) Usually, one way or another, one side will lose and another will gain. Most decisions are made based on which decision will more gain and less lose. If an "interest" (sorry, i don't quite think that interest is the right word. erm...action? decision? plan?) is to benefit everyone, then my only real basis for its being right or wrong are as you say "Christian Values." I suppose this argument will inevitably fall into a battle of morals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ticia. The "right interest" never benefits everyone. I do not think there is a a side to any problem that benefits everyone. Free education? Good for kids, but then how will the school pay for what it needs? Free food for the world so world hunger ends? How will the people who grow the crops or animals for meat get the money to raise their products? One side will always lose, but there's always how much that one side actually loses. I guess the "right interest" would be one where mostly everyone benefits, and those who don't benefit are not as "disadvantaged" as possible. If someone gains 100 dollars for something and someone has to lose money, why not try have them lose as little as possible so that they won't revolt and cause chaos in the world.
ReplyDeleteI do find the idea that we might be thinking something that is right as actually wrong very interesting. I have never thought of it that way.
I think we should all just be skeptics or was it the cynics. The ones who just don't believe in anything. Or be more like Socrates who was the "first" yet tried to find the truth by asking questions instead of just believing things as they are.
:D
Then, what is the "right" interest, or the right action, or fundamentally, the right thing? Or is there one? Since if there isn't, how can we know if the minority has the "better" idea, the "better" purpose, the better proposal? Is the word "right" just a construct, an empty box filled in by the people that use it?
ReplyDeleteSecond, is to prevent chaos the only "right" thing to do, assuming it has been settled that the existence of a "right" thing has been presumed? Is it the absolute right interest?
Third, apparently no interest might benefit everyone. Should this be the reason why we should let the majority decide?
what i think is yes, the minority should just submit to the majority, dahil kung iisipin masasabing mas tama ang desisyon ng nakararami dahil marami silang nakakaisip nito
ReplyDeleteIN MY VIEW, WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG DEPENDS ON THE CRITERION/CRITERIA WE SET. WHAT IS WRONG FOR ONE MAY BE RIGHT FOR OTHERS. IF ONE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT AN ISSUE, HIS TENDENCY IS TO IMPOSE HIS CRITERION/CRITERIA ON OTHERS. THAT IS WHEN QUARRELS OFTEN ENSUE. WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER THIS. A MORAL DISPUTE IS TURNED INTO A POWER STRUGGLE. OF COURSE, THE MAJORITY IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT AND (AS JAMES STUART MILL EMPHASIZED) THE MAJORITY CAN BE AS TYRANICAL. THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IS NO LESS BENIGN THAN THE TYRANNY OF A MINORITY.
ReplyDeleteFN
TO MR. ALMEDA
ReplyDeleteI HOPE YOU WILL NOT BE CONTENT WITH SKEPTICISM BECAUSE THAT IS THE MARK OF INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS. AN INTELLIGENT PERSON SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL AT FIRST (NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING AT FACE VALUE) BUT HE DOES NOT STOP THERE. HE INQUIRES AND HE THINKS IN ORDER TO TAKE A POSITION. TAKING A POSITION ON A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IS NOT SKEPTICISM, IT IS COMMITMENT. HE IS NEVER SATISFIED WITH BEING A SKEPTIC. THAT IS WHAT DRIVES HIM TO LEARN.
FN
TO MS. SORESCA
ReplyDeleteI AGREE WITH YOU THAT IN A LARGE AND COMPLEX SOCIETY LIKE A NATION, THERE IS HARDLY ANY PUBLIC POLICY THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE. THAT IS WHY POLITICS OCCURS IN EVERY NATION. POLITICS IS THE PROCESS OF MAKING PUBLIC POLICIES, IN EFFECT IS IS ALSO THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING "WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN AND HOW" (THE TITLE OF A POPULAR POLITICAL SCIENCE TEXTBOOK BY HAROLD LASSWELL.
EVEN CHRISTIAN VALUES DO NOT ENSURE HOMOGENEITY OF INTERESTS, THAT IS WHY CHRISTIANS WERE KILLING EACH OTHER IN 17TH CENTURY EUROPE. THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY MASSACRE IN FRANCE WAS DONE IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIAN VALUES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HUGUENOTS WHO WERE CHRISTIANS AS WELL.
HOMOGENEITY OF INTERESTS IS CONCEIVABLE ONLY IN SMALL AND SIMPLE GROUPS LIKE THE FAMILY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PRIMITIVE TRIBE, ETC.
FN
TO MR PELIAS
ReplyDeleteWE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN UP ROUSSEAU BECAUSE HE DEALT PRECISELY WITH THIS ISSUE, ALSO JOHN STUART MILL.
FN
TO MS CASTRO
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS THE IDEAL, NOT THE REALITY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU DELUDE YOURSELF THAT THE PHILIPPINES TODAY IS A DEMOCRACY. ELECTION GIVES OF SEMBLANCE OF MAJORITY RULE, BUT IN TRUTH IT IS A SMALL MINORITY -- THE POWER ELITE -- THAT RULES. ELECTION IS JUST A FACADE OR A MASK FOR ELITE RULE OR WHAT ARISTOTLE CALLED OLIGARCHY.
YOU MUST ALWAYS DISTINGUISH THE IDEAL FROM THE REALITY. OR AVOID MISTAKING THE IDEAL FOR THE REALITY. THIS IS WHAT I TRIED DESPERATELY TO DO IN MY POLITICAL SCIENCE CLASSES.
FN
TO MR ROBLES
ReplyDeleteTAMA. KUNG IKAW AY KABILANG SA MINORIYA SA KONGRESO, LAGI KAYONG TALO SA BUTUHAN. BUT YOU CAN CONTINUE CAMPAIGNING FOR YOUR POSITION, EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY ARE ABLE TO PASS THE LAW AND USE TAXES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION. YOU CANNOT QUESTION THE MAJORITY'S RIGHT TO DECIDE, BUT YOU CAN QUESTION THE LOGIC, MORALITY OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THEIR DECISION.
FN
TO MR IGLESIA
ReplyDeleteKung ang iniisip na context ay ang Philippine Congress, it is not a question whether the minority should submit to the majority. If a vote is taken, the bill goes to the Senate where the minority allows it. When it becomes a law, it is binding on all citizens. Government resources will be used to implement. But to submit to the will of the majority in this manner does not deny the minority to keep criticizing it and keep trying to reverse the policy.
FN