I'm just curious to see what people think.

You could also frame it in terms of political systems if you liked: Is direct democracy a good or desirable system of governance?

You need to elucidate on your definition of "right to rule."

By "right to rule," do you mean the majority vote elects a leader over the populace (including as an autocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy etc.)? If so, that's a simplistic definition of democracy.

I voted for option two. Here is my qualification:

The rule of law, and the rule of man ... are two different things. Just because man also makes the law, does not mean that the rule of man and the rule of law are the same thing. You can argue that Natural law is man made... but the point is that the rule of the majority cannot become arbitrary, because the law is equally applied to everyone. The majority must then respect the rights to which they themselves claim. That in itself protects individuals and minorities.

Basically what that means is that any right that the majority claims to have.. should be reserved for minorities as well.

So for instance if society thinks they should have a right to life... then the government has no right to infringe upon this right without due process...

If society claims to be able to own property then nobodys property can be taken for the benefit of the "greater good"

"Right to rule"? Who grants rights? In other words, I don't think in terms of "right" to rule. Someone will rule, whether we like it or not. If anarchy exists, then pretty soon the powerful will enslave the weak. In terms of government, well, somebody has to be in charge. If not the majority, then who? Power corrupts. If we spread out the power among many, then it's less corruptive than if we pile it all onto one person. If everybody has just a little power, moderated by some kind of ubiquitously applied law, then I think there is the least chance of horrid abuse of power.

If the notion of a "right to rule" is causing you problems, you can look at it in the way I put it in the first post. What I mean is, is it correct or desirable that the majority should rule (as in, govern things, run the government, exercise legislative or executive powers, etc. In other words, is a direct democracy a desirable system)? The term "right to rule" seemed most appropriate to me at the time.

How do you moderate that power? Rule of law? Who applies the law?

What's to prevent buying people's votes? Most people don't care about politics. A few bucks to cast an insignificant vote? Why not?

It doesn't but it's harder to corrupt many than a few.

Buying 2 peoples vote is easier as to buy 1 millions vote.

So the economics of it would make it impracticable for anyone but the rich?

This is how any system will work as long as humans are greedy and think only about their own good.

A republic for example is a very easy target, you have to corrupt less people to get a greater effect.

What is ironic is that.. almost with absolute certainty any majority will degenerate into corruption.. but at least if we were a monarchy there would be a chance that we would have a benevolent dictator.

Can't remember a good dictator in history.

Even if he would be benevolent at the beginning of his ruling, the chance of corrupting one person is exponentially higher then corrupting many.

Power itself leads to corruption. So giving less power to a single person will always be fairer for the others.

Legislature would be slow, but I couldn't care less.

The majority? What majority? As much as we try, people don't divide into monolithic blocks. Membership in "the majority" depends on the issue.

Also, we elect people, not issues. The people we elect should make wise independent decisions based on superior knowledge and judgment. They are not sock puppets for whatever group credits themselves with their election.

Perceived majorities are often extra noisy and well-organized pluralities, or large interest groups that happen to currently align with the winning side.

Any ruling majority is likely to be an artificial construct or a simple power grab. We must not think this way.

That is self-evident. In any vote, there will be a majority and a minority (save for a tie).

What I wonder is how many people support the basic idea of majoritarianism: that the majority in society on a particular issue should dictate what that society does regarding that particular issue.I didn't say otherwise. I'm looking at support for the notion of majoritarianism, a notion I hear support for all the time for some reason.
I'm not proposing that majorities are necessarily persistent or uniform in their makeup.

In a democracy representatives run on behalf of the people. In Ireland we have a voting system called proportional representation which actually results in a fair representation of the people. We haven't had a single party government in some time and in a multi party government the small parties and independents actually have a lot of power.

Majority rule is mob rule.

Representative democracy isn't the same as majority rule because there are checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities. So although the majority may form the government, they don't rule in their own interests.

The right to rule is established through the process of election and although there are variations, such as proportional representation, it's the mandate from the electorate that gives the government the right to rule. Once the mandate is expressed, the right to rule exists.

The elected representative is supposed to take decisions on behalf of the electorate - that's not the same as always doing the will of the majority. It a popular misconception that MPs are supposed to do what the electors tell them to do day to day. They are elected to use their judgement to make their own decisions. They represent us by making their own decisions, on our behalf. They are not there do carry out our decisions.

Of course, that isn't to everyone's taste because most of the time, governments will take decisions that the represented electorate doesn't agree with. They may make economic decisions that are seem harsh - but we elected them to make just that kind of decision.

If decisions are truly majoritarian, the sort of government you get is often fascist. Minoritarian governments are oligarchies or plutocracies. Representative democracy has its faults, but at least minority interests are represented and respected.

Those of you who dislike "majority rule" should suggest an alternative. I agree that there are problems with majority rule, but I think they are smaller than the problems with rule by the few. The claim is not that majority rule is great, but that it is better than the alternative. To refute that, you should suggest a viable alternative.

Good explanation synogenes.

Representative republic. Like the U.S.A.

Had the U.S. been a pure democracy, imagine how much longer it would have taken to give women the right to vote, pass the civil rights act, etc.

OK, I'll bite. To me, that's still majority rule, but it's moderated by our legal system. I have no problem with that. And there is a code of law which is applied to everyone, but the law is essentially defined by the majority. I'm not in favor of pure democracy, but the power should rest ultimately on the shoulders of as many people as possible.