Compromise, essential to democracy?

[MountainBilly]

Do you REALLY think you have a functioning society when 1 short of half the people hate a law?

It happens now. The vote on Medicare Part D was lost in the house when the Speaker stopped the clock and the arm twisting started. Hours (if memory serves) enough congressmen had changed their vote so that it was passed. That's a pretty "close" vote, but I don't hear people refusing to recognize the law. It's on the books whether unamimous or by one vote.

One more thing on compromise in a "true" democracy; If the US suddenly changed so that every citizen could vote on every bill (something that is possible now) I would still belong to the AICPA and other groups and these groups would seek consensus and compromise ahead of votes.

[Preacher Man]

It happens now. The vote on Medicare Part D was lost in the house when the Speaker stopped the clock and the arm twisting started. Hours (if memory serves) enough congressmen had changed their vote so that it was passed. That's a pretty "close" vote, but I don't hear people refusing to recognize the law. It's on the books whether unamimous or by one vote.

One more thing on compromise in a "true" democracy; If the US suddenly changed so that every citizen could vote on every bill (something that is possible now) I would still belong to the AICPA and other groups and these groups would seek consensus and compromise ahead of votes.

I do not think Blackknight was referring to a majority in Congress, but a majority of the citizenry. Elected officials do not always do what they are supposed to, which is to represent their constituents. A majority vote in Congress doesn't necessarily means that the majority of the citizenry supports the measure, usually that is the case, but not always. A consequence of living in a Representative Republic. There would definitely be the potential for social and political problems when a significant sector of the population opposes a measure. That happens now with
simple minorities, imagine if the minority represented roughly half of the citizenry.

[HJK]

Is compromise essential in a Democracy? It is quite correct to note, as others have, that the terms, "compromise", "essential" and "democracy" are all ambiguous terms that can mean several things: but we don't have to get too picky to have a meaningful discussion. I hope. The parliamentary system of the UK and Canada differs from the tripartite system you have down there, but both can loosely be called "democracies" for the purposes of discussion, at least until the differences become material. When a parliamentary party has an absolute majority they could pass any legislation they want without "compromise" initially, but there are many more factors at play that make compromise essential in quite practical terms: they could be overturned or delayed by the Senate ( we have one in Canada too), or by the Governor general ( the Queen's representative),, etc by the Courts, by popular opinion, or by substantial minority and vested interests all of which could pose problems now and, of course, in the next election. There are many stakeholders with power that goes beyond simple majorities and passing legislation or executive orders. Compromise of some kind is almost always necessary, but certainly not always for every executive act or piece of legislation. There are always consequences and when a "democracy" starts to resemble unilateral rule or a tyranny of the majority, national consensus and cohesion are endangered and undermines the system itself, so on balance i would say that compromise is generally essential when a deeper view is taken.
But on some issues it is quite possible that compromise is not only unnecessary, it is a terrible mistake. There are some basic rights, limitations and ideas enshrined in most nation's constitutions or social contracts ( written or unwritten) that cannot and should not be compromised because they are fundamental and essential. The problem is in determining what those are and what is a "compromise" of principle is in that regard. So I guess the answer is yes and no and reasonable people can disagree about which is which. But isn't that what democracy and a free society are about? Or is it? Maybe the process of debate and accommodation where appropriate is the real secret to a healthy and functioning "democracy".