Your argument is a huge double-standard. The majority rules on a national level, but the majority does not rule on the state-level? Why is it do you think states exist? It's the people living in various states have various ways going about things, various beliefs and various priorities. The very existence of these states within a nation-state prove that your "majority rules" mantra is far over extended. The irony is that the people often times don't even want the majority to rule, and this is why the majority of people would not support the abolition of states as recognizable boundries and the movement towards one big majority rules national policy.

Also, as long as we're talking political theory, how democratic is a system where the majority elect a handful of people to represent them, when these said people do NOT have to account for the laws they pass? How representative is that? The only thing keeping them from passing the laws they do is being re-elected for another term, that's all. It is far more politically difficult to pass laws than to remove them. If this was truly a democratic system, then everyone would personally vote themselves on every single issue. Indeed, this is currently not terribly practical, but I think a good compromise (for now) would be to enact a stockwell-dayish law that would allow 1) people with enough signatures to make referendums about certain issues, 2) the ability to REMOVE a politician from office if the majority who elected him believe he is no longer representing them or doing a bad job of doing so. Costly, yes, but how much is your freedom worth to you?

(I do realize this is not hacking or computer related, but it's worthwhile to pull your head out of the sand every once in a while, take a few steps back from your all night programming sessions, and take a peak at what is going on in the big place with the high blue ceilling.)