Leading up to the midterm election, and now, during the fallout, I found myself asking a blasphemous question: is there a better form of government than democracy?

This question may seem incomprehensible to some. Since the election of 2016, and the drama surrounding potential Russian influence in our democratic republic, the typical talking points from news stations all revolve around the sanctity of our nations electoral process.

Democracy is sacred and should be defended at all costs.

Let me reassure you, I’m not claiming that democracy is a bad system, but I want to remind people of when Winston Churchill famously stated that “…it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Just because democracy has kept our country together for hundreds of years does not mean that we should overlook the tyrannical nature of the electoral process.

A good example of democracy’s fallibility is the most recent Florida gubernatorial race. Ron DeSantis narrowly defeated Andrew Gillum by a margin of 34,000 votes; there were over 8,000,000 votes cast in the race. This race has gotten a lot of attention from the press, including large amounts of coverage over Trump’s involvement, comments DeSantis made during a rally, and how Gillum could be a superstar for the democratic party.

Mainstream coverage did not hone in on the inherent unfairness of the system. Regardless of who wins the race, a large portion of Florida’s electorate will not share the views of their governor. Despite millions casting votes, it only took a small margin to give one candidate all of the power. It’s not a stretch to say that the Floridians that voted for Gillum likely won’t be happy with DeSantis’ policy solutions, and the inverse would be true if Gillum had won.

It is not a just system when an incredibly large amount of a state will be governed by rules that are signed into law by representatives that they don’t remotely agree with. Since one candidate won a plurality, they can make changes that impact everyone. That means that a minority of people are ruled at the wishes of the majority, whether they like it or not, all because their own views aren’t popular enough. The majority picks the representative, and the representative is typically bound by the majority to ensure reelection. This leads to the views of the majority imposed on a region.

This subtle tyranny is ever present in our nation, and we’ve accepted it as a fact of life. I’m not proposing that this is worth a revolution, but there are reasons to be concerned when politics is governed by majority rule. People often cite the will of the people in choosing a candidate, as if the procedures we take make our electoral process inherently a moral good. This ignores what actually happens after elections. The majority governs based on their views and impose their new laws, regulations, and policies onto themselves and the minority that voted against the governing party.

All I ask is that we’re more cognizant of the negatives associated with democracy. It isn’t simply that some people lose, it’s that the majority’s political will is forced on the losers, and that shouldn’t be overlooked. When we glorify the electoral process, we ignore that millions of people wouldn’t expressly consent to the government that wins the race, and that isn’t an ethical way to govern a nation.

Our system may be the best system a nation has tried, but that doesn’t mean we should accept the immoral majority rule that persists after every election day.