Dear Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,

 James DeMartini's March 21 letter protests a court's striking down the "overwhelmingly" passed Proposition 187, contending that "foundations of democracy" are thereby eroded.

He thus reflects the false but popular view that democratic decision-making -- to put it crudely -- is determined by unthinking show of hands.  Contrarywise, the consensual will of the body politic in totality is determined only by following traditional parliamentary rules of order, where all relevancies by citizenship equals are fairly debated.  This principle originated in a 1689 British bill of rights as speech-making and debating.  It was incorporated into our Articles of Confederation; nine years later into our own Constitution (Article VI); and two years later described as free speech in the First Amendment.

In short, this is the true meaning of constitutional free speech....

Respectfully, 
Louis Worth Jones
 

Subj: Democracy is not majority rule
Date: 02/04/99
To: smiedit

Dear Editor, San Mateo Independent 

It comes as good news that statewide League of Women Voters is seriously questioning whether the initiative process is actually a good thing.

Is it proper to put measures on the ballot by paid signature gatherers? Shouldn't the signers be representative of all parts of the state rather than just the densely populated areas?  And what about those measures that later end up in court?  These are some of the questions being asked. 

Another question needs to be asked: Is enactment of laws by a mere majority of voters, however unthinking and misinformed, truly democratic? Is democratic process being redefined as government of by and for the majority rather than all of the people?

Democracy is not and has never been rule of the majority.  If this were true Christianity would be the national religion and we would again have racially segregated schools

Democracy is actually the rule of unity, achievable only by thorough face-to-face deliberation of all relevant fact and opinion under previously agreed on rules of procedural fairness.  The model, as has been many times pointed out, is the traditional town hall meeting.  Decisions resulting from this process are supportable by everyone participatively involved.

Respectfully, 
Louis Worth Jones
 
 

1998, 1999