Last night, when I was thinking of the democracy system, I suddenly found a very frightening law in the voting system, which is the vital part to establish representative government.
Let's set up a scenario like this. Long time ago, there was a kingdom. The royals and the king's family all lived in luxury, while the people starved to their death and intimidated and discriminated. At last, the poor people lost their patient. Recruiting the army, the middle class and provoked by the intellectuals, the people revolted and overthrew the atrocious king from his throne. The royals and upper class people were all executed for their crime on humanity. A new 'democratic' government was set-up by the middle class. The new Republic swore to meet all people's need using the democracy system which had been issued by the intellectuals.
Most of the poor people were uneducated and tempted to be able to decide the right things for themselves, so they impatiently complained and advised. For everyone had been given rights of expressions at this moment, the government had to, probably reluctantly, give their ears to their words. Chaos followed because the new representatives of the people didn't know what to do and how to govern for they had no experiences during the old regime. Dangers also came from outside as the neighbor countries saw the chance to take over the country. Then, the government came with the decision: voting system.
Voting means that the majority will always win, regardless the sanity and logic of the solution chosen. Even if the majority is 50.00001% and the minority is 49.99999%, the majority will win. The inexperienced government thought that this system was the best choice to end the chaos. They needed stability and order to rule the country properly.
The chaos still continued. Some group of unsatisfied peasants threatened the new republic by another revolution. There was also a group of rich aristocrats who prepared to restore the monarchy.
How? Democracy seemed to meet a dead end until a representative of government suggested.....
"Let us continue the voting system. Who doesn't agree with the chosen decision shall be executed, so there will be stability."
Somehow, for the suggestion seemed to be rational though radical, the decision was applied into a new law. In other words, the majority agreed to that solution. Hence, the minority was executed because they didn't agree, though the minority was almost half of the population of the country.
And so it went on. This system continued without judging that everyone is different and nobody will have share the same thought on everything. The bloody execution abounded and went on rapidly until there was only one man left in the country.
I realize that this scenario is hardly possible in the reality though it is still possible. However, it still exposes the fatal flaw of voting system. Sometimes, the majority's decision is not always the best. We must judge who those people who we call majority are. Are they experienced, educated, and enough socialized in politics? Are they experts in the area that they decide on? Do they experience by themselves the problems that are issued?
I suggest that discussion might be better for even the solutions that are suggested by the minority will still be mixed together with the majority's decision. This will result in the wiser policies that concern various groups of people's needs.