At 11:06 AM 3/6/2007, Jobst Heitzig wrote: >Dear Abd-ul Rahman, > >you wrote: > > And the very core of my objection is that "the minority" is not a > > fixed group, such that it is deprived by not getting its way. > >Raphfrk just gave us a very prominent example that this indeed can >happen. So I don't understand you still insist that such a thing was >impossible.
This occurs when a single issue is overwhelming, and when representative systems are majoritarian. I've argued many times that *representation* should not be majoritarian. It's an oxymoron. I'm not represented if the majority can essentially shut me out. Now, one might think there is an inconsistency here. What if the majority decides that all elections for representative are to be decided by majority vote? This is the majority exercising its right of decision (which I support) in a quite foolish way. It is action like this that leads to civil war, or prevents the resolution of civil wars.. What it actually does is to eliminate the "minority" from representation, such that decisions made by the resulting assembly *don't* represent true majorities, but rather skewed majorities, i.e., a majority of the ruling party. This is *not* majority rule, it is oligarchy. Has it actually be chosen by the majority? I've never seen an example; rather, political parties and election environments, established for historical or other reasons (such as the maintenance of oligarchical power) have continued or set up such systems. Majority choice has been avoided, actually. I responded with respect to the Irish case, specifically. It is not an example of majority rule. In true majority rule, all decisions are made by majority vote, true majority vote. This is only absolutely the case in a direct democracy, but it can be approached by representative systems. The system in place in Ireland was not such a system. Majority rule is about decisions. The majority cannot decide that pi is exactly 22/7 (though it could certain decide that certain calculations would use that value, were it so foolish). Neither can the majority decide that I'm represented when I'm not. If a majority uses its power to exclude minorities from decision-making, from the measurement of the majority which is essential in most deliberative process, it has essentially decided against democracy. It is "majoritarian" with respect to a narrow decision -- that of who gets elected as "representatives" -- and oligarchical with respect to everything else. And it is everything else that really matters. I'm claiming that in a *direct democracy* where everyone can vote, majority rule is totally appropriate. That is, the majority has the right to make decisions, including the decision of what decisions are to take supermajorities. This is, in fact, Robert's Rules, it is utterly standard. Thus, as I've mentioned, under Robert's Rules the bylaws, which ordinarily take a 2/3 majority for amendment, can be amended *at any time* and *without notice* by an absolute majority. This is an example of the complete and unrestrained freedom of the majority. It can essentially decide the rules *at any time.* But it will wisely avoid this. And the 2/3 rule is there, and notice requirements for amending bylaws, are there with respect to *pluralities*. That is, absolute pluralities, where not all members are available to vote. When an absolute majority is present and voting for something, notice requirements don't apply, because the opinion of the minority -- with one exception -- is moot. The exception is that the minority really should have an opportunity to present its case. However, presumably, a majority will take that into account and, by proceeding to decide, has decided that sufficient opportunity has existed. Once again, who decides what is sufficient and what is not? The majority. An absolute majority. Sometimes it is even less than that. The nuclear option in the Senate, if I'm correct, involves a simple majority of those voting. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to use this arbitrarily without the cooperation of the presiding officer. And assemblies, especially elected ones, may be chary of violating precedent even when they have the power to do so. Do they have the *legal* power to do so? Apparently, yes. That is, no court would overrule the interpretation of the rules by the majority. But they are restrained by the realization that, come another year when they are in the minority, the precedent will have been established, and it *would* be used against them. To my knowledge, the nuclear option has never clearly been used, even though it is legally possible. Once again, we see that the majority *has* the power to rule, but that it will wisely avoid using this power in too blunt a manner. The majority in the U.S. Congress often, in my opinion, does behave foolishly in this respect, and the result is temporary victory and, ultimately, a weak nation. > > The thinking behind this proposal seems to be that every citizen > > deserves to "get their way," > >No, not at all. The thinking behind this is that voting systems that >claim to be "democratic", i.e. let "the people rule", cannot be >majoritarian since that confuses "the people" with "the majority". If >we want everyone to have some (perhaps even equal) power, we cannot use >a majoritarian system in which it can easily happen that 49% have no >power. That's very simple, isn't it? It can't easily happen, not with ab initio systems. It happens when systems *exclude* minorities -- or even majorities -- leaving decisions to be made by an *apparent* majority. This is not majority rule! (If a minority is excluded from voting, then decisions are being made by a majority of a majority, not by an actual majority. And, often, it is not even the majority which is so empowered.) > > yet "getting their way" is not the goal > > of electoral choice systems, the goal is maximization of benefit, > >*Whose* benefit is the main question! We are going in circles, aren't >we? How to define "benefit"... The goal is to make decisions that benefit society. Yes, it's not crisply defined, but healthy societies take care, reasonably, of all their members. Carry around a lot of dead wood is not a formula for success, and that's what you get when you systematically exclude people. > > and > > benefit is maximized by making choices which actually are the best > > for society, > >Here we have another such term, "best" for society. Why are you so >convinced there is such a thing? You know, I'm not going to continue this. Think about it. Is there such a thing as making the "best" decision *at all*? Why not just toss a coin and avoid all this rigamarole? >Minorities being in "error", minority opinion being "noise" -- I get the >impression that you have a completely different way of thinking about >group decision processes than I have. This is a persistent misrepresentation of what I've written. Minority opinion is not noise. Period. Introducing random selection is noise. Literally. From an engineering perspective. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info