Nevertheless, it does appear that much public policy in the United States lately has been driven by a misinformed and misguided yet very large group of people. It should cause wonder how that could happen with all the advances in communication lately. It is indeed counter intuitive, but the internet has made the problem worse, not better. Most of the engineers in charge of the internet were not really born to guide public policy. They have created an internet than can rapidly measure the number of people on one side or another of issues. They have not been successful however in ensuring other tests of validity are given proper place.
To state the problem in as few words as possible, as is often necessary to state, a mob has developed that believes its opinion is "scientific fact" for no other reason than it is their opinion and they constitute a majority. Whether they actually constitute a majority is not always clear. Sometimes they are merely the most outspoken.
Following are some examples.
There is more than one flaw in the health care reform law and that is not even counting the ones you hear about in the mainstream media and Supreme Court decisions.
One problem is that the tyrannical majority believes the law would lower medical costs by the principles of "mass production" which can indeed lower the cost per item if the number of items is increased in some circumstances. That is not exactly how it works in all circumstances though. The cost is only decreased if the number of items produced was below the capacity of available resources. If the number of items is increased further, beyond the capacity of available resources, then more resources must be obtained and that raises the costs again. So there is an optimum number of items for any quantity of resources. The lowest possible price per item is at the maximum efficiency of resource use. That is just one of the reasons that no matter how many automobiles are made, the price for a new one cannot go lower than some rather large number of dollars.
It is that flaw which has led to the necessity of federal subsidies to maintain feasibility of the plan.
Another flaw is that most of the treatments required have never really been shown to have any value. One example of bad math in that case is the so called "survival rate" of cancer. Using those numbers often creates the impression that great success is being made against cancer. However the cancer "death rate" does not indicate any significant progress against cancer in twenty years. A reason for the difference in the rates is that cancer is being detected far more often and in most of those cases it would not have lead to death anyway.
Another unscientific opinion of the tyrannical majority is that homosexuality is not a mental illness. The "scientists" had agreed until as late as 1973 that it is a mental illness. There are practicing "scientists" today who must treat the symptoms of the mental illness of homosexuality.
If you ask any member of the tyrannical majority whether they believe people should mind their own businesses, they will usually say that they should and that, they say, is why they believe homosexuals should be left free to marry which sex they wish.
That those people are minding their own businesses is not supported by the data. Private property and strict marriage as taught by religion turn out to procure the most freedom people can possibly have, that is freedom to mind their own businesses. Same sex marriage shows a lax attitude to the notion that biological parents need to mind their children. It is not entirely the fault of same sex marriage the idea of marriage has become so degraded though. Laws known as "no fault" divorce laws started destroying the traditional idea of marriage several decades ago. Same sex marriage only put the final nail in the coffin of the dead institution.
Euclid
It is their rather obvious failure to understand the institution of godly marriage that has been a problem for homosexuals throughout most of history. Some debaters (some on television before I put a stop to it) cited ancient Greece and Rome as "great" societies that accepted homosexuals and they note that homosexuals were successful in those societies. I countered that those were not so much "great" societies as they were new ones that had yet to develop the sense of private property and strict marriage the societies they conquered had. They took what wasn't theirs because they hadn't learned better yet.
When people start thinking of marriage as something "government" takes charge over, it defeats the whole point of promising never to need outside help. Although schools have often been considered "necessary" for communication with the world at large, some people have gone so far as to provide their children that without outside help as well.
Another idea the tyrannical majority has failed to support with real science is the idea of climate change. The argument most often found is that a "majority of scientists" thinks the seas might rise to disastrous levels as polar ice melts.
Science does predict things. When science can predict things it's called a "law" of science because nature obeys it. Gravity is a "law" because scientists can predict with a high degree of accuracy what nature will do influenced by gravity.
Often what scientists do is merely explain what has already happened. When the sea level rises, if it rises, a little bit, enough to get the attention of serious thinking people, then science will attempt to explain why. Then further and disastrous rising will be avoided with the help of far more people. Meanwhile the predictions are not science because there is no "law of climate change" yet.
Henry Cavendish is given credit for finding the "gravitational constant" because he was able to measure the gravitational force between lead balls in an experiment. That force is extremely small and very sensitive and precise equipment was needed. That sort of precision is not possible on the global scale of shifting and remore air masses.
An entirely separate issue is the level of fossil fuels remaining on Earth. The level is very important to monitor because fossil fuels are not renewable. It remains unclear whether they will run out before the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by burning them present a danger to human life. Meanwhile carbon dioxide is essential to plant life.
Vast numbers of people including many religious and devout believe that if a god did create life on Earth it was careful to leave no evidence of such activity. That is not the truth. That there was an intelligent designer is as certain as gravity. This was finally concluded early in 2012 in this article, Intelligent Design Is Scientific Fact!
The most intelligent people have long suspected there had to be an intelligent designer even before this proof, but they were not rewarded for their intelligence. Instead the less intelligent people have been rewarded for having the good "sense" to argue against the existence of a god.
That is probably much of the reason the tyrannical majority has become so unscientific and unruly year after year.
It has led to the incorrect assumption that government and public policy are more "scientific" than has been actually demonstrated.
Now that you've met and become thoroughly acquainted with the tyrannical majority, you can probably guess how they will vote. They will probably vote Democratic. The Democratic nominee will likely be Hillary Clinton. So they will likely vote for her.
If the Republican Party wants to stop Hillary Clinton, they need to devise a plan to educate the tyrannical majority in real science. Many members of the tyrannical majority already sat through four years of college and still haven't learned anything, how much can a candidate do for them in a few months?
It's likely no surprise to some of you that there are more and less godly people in the Republican Party. The less godly want to win the election without recourse to establishing Intelligent Design. The more godly might be afraid to make such a historic change as establishing Intelligent Design only for it to be followed by the election of a Democrat whose stance on most policy is not the "godly" they understand. Some of the less godly Republicans want Hillary to win, which complicates Republican strategy beyond the scope of any human ingenuity.