The rule of the majority is as absurd as his detractors accuse him of being. So begins a text of the philosopher John Dewey, who continues: what matters is how a majority becomes it. In my opinion, fit three paths: serene discussion and well-argued public discussion, the aggregation of individual and group interests and the manipulation of the feelings. I think that you wearing reason Dewey. Representative democracy is not the Government of the people, in any place on Earth governs the village. It is rather, as he has been said, the Government wanted by the people, and not even that: is the Government wanted by the majority of the people, even for the minority when the parties in power do not have absolute majority. How that majority whose representatives agreed with minorities is a major problem.
It can be done by aggregation of the interests of the voters. Political parties compete for their votes trying to bring to light what may be the interests of different sectors and ensure them that they will meet them. People ponder well the different offerings, study them and choose which seem best to them. The deliberacionista criticizes this approach because it considers it to be wrong. We are not born already with interests, but that interests are socially, nor true democracy is in which people seek their particular interest, as if it were not possible to forge a common willingness through deliberation and exchange of arguments.
This is the characteristic of a people, of a demos, to be able to say yes, we want, and without it there is no democracy possible. Only that the deliberacionista often being American and having the floor of one indisputable patriotism with others, with a sense of the US, linked to universal values, that it permeated the Obama speech. Here in Spain there is no us worth, and when present, is against each other.