#majoritarianism

It’s not a civics problem, either. One hopes liberal activists like Ken Dilanian, who wonders “how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority,” understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn’t give “disproportionate weight” to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea “disproportionate” because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.

Also, rural America doesn’t “bully” people like Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. The non-“forward moving” America—those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington—doesn’t very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.

It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions Americans aside to make this argument. We don’t know how a national majority would vote. There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don’t involve themselves in the futility of state politics. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.

A moderate refers to someone who holds political stances that happen to be near the average of the prevailing clusters of opinions on each side of the issue (within the contextual time and region). My impression is that "centrist" has a different connotation, and a worse one in the way that many -ist terms tend to have negative connotations at least among intellectuals who promote freethought: for instance, Darwinist and evolutionist are mainly used by those who oppose the theory of evolution because the -ist suffix suggests ideological adherence rather than something more scientific-minded (I've always tried to avoid calling myself an evolutionist for this reason).

Similarly, calling someone a centrist seems to suggest that they're adhering to a meta-ideological agenda, one which some people no doubt do pursue: that of choosing, as a rule, stances which reflect the average of the opposing sides. (I've certainly seen people accused of being "radical centrists" if they're perceived to take this philosophy too rigidly.) There are possible defenses for this: one could take something akin to majoritarianism as a guiding light, for instance, where they figure that humans as an overall population tend to be correct about things on average -- sure, we differ widely on certain issues, but the number of people too far on one side is always going to be balanced out by the number of people too far on the opposite side. I personally find this an extremely doubtful assumption. I also tend to think that some people use it as a cover for laziness: there's no need to research issues on your own in an open-minded manner if you can just take the average of the opinions you see around you as the formula for the correct stance.

In theory, secularism is a promise. In practice, it is a negotiation. And nowhere is this negotiation more visibly skewed than on the public roads of Delhi and its adjoining regions during the annual Kanwar Yatra.

This resilience can be attributed to the robust infrastructure developed by successive Dravidian governments, the presence of reputable educational institutions, the establishment of Tidel parks, favorable climatic conditions, and the enduring spirit of its people.

To suggest that Coimbatore's development hinges solely on the intervention of a BJP is not only inaccurate but also disrespectful to the contributions of Dravidian leaders spanning generations.

From Diwan Bahadur Rathnasabapathy to present-day governance, their efforts have played a pivotal role in shaping the city's progress.

In the aftermath of the bomb blasts in Coimbatore, many individuals who once sought livelihoods in the city departed, leaving behind a community determined to restore normalcy.

However, among those who returned, a faction emerged— individuals who, instead of contributing positively, sought to assert dominance over local businesses. These individuals, often identified by their support for particular religious affiliations, engaged in practices that suppressed native enterprises.