Thanks to Bart for this interesting tidbit.
Now suppose that we put aside our preconceptions and ask, "Under what
conditions would it be appropriate for fifty percent plus one of an
organized group to impose decisions binding upon the whole?"
Are there such conditions? Undoubtedly yes.
Are ther
From Merriam-Webster's:
http://www.britannica.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=majority
--
Main Entry: ma·jor·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'jor-&-tE, -'jär-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 1552
1 obsolete : the quality or st
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> Mr. Simmons wrote-
>> But that is neither here nor there, as we shall see when you
>> post the other definitions and the etymology for "democracy".
>> ---
>> D- I will let
On Thu, 10 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mr. Simmons wrote-
>
> Whenever there is a bimodal (polar) distribution of voters on one divisive
> issue and one of the factions has a clear majority, there will probably be
> a majority first place winner from that faction which any common metho
Mr. Simmons wrote-
Whenever there is a bimodal (polar) distribution of voters on one divisive
issue and one of the factions has a clear majority, there will probably be
a majority first place winner from that faction which any common method
including IRV and all the Condorcet methods would pick.
Forest Simmons wrote:
> Suppose that f and g were the same. Then each voter could be asked to
> compare each candidate to herself. This could be very appropriate in
> a representative democracy where the representatives are supposed to serve
> as proxies for the citizens that they represent.
>
>
Mr. Simmons wrote-
But that is neither here nor there, as we shall see when you
post the other definitions and the etymology for "democracy".
---
D- I will let Mr. Simmons do such work and post the results. I have too much
to do to wipe out the existing minority rule legislative body gerrymande
That's why we still need the None of the Above option and write-in
capability :-)
On Thu, 10 May 2001, LAYTON Craig wrote:
> >The ballot could be worded as follows: Check the YES box next to each
> >candidate that you believe would do a better job in the position to which
> >they aspire than you
>The ballot could be worded as follows: Check the YES box next to each
>candidate that you believe would do a better job in the position to which
>they aspire than you yourself would if you had the appropriate technical
>competency and stomach for that kind of work.
Oh dear. What about those of
This is a very interesting idea.
A couple of thoughts:
Suppose that f and g were the same. Then each voter could be asked to
compare each candidate to herself. This could be very appropriate in
a representative democracy where the representatives are supposed to serve
as proxies for the citizens
On Tue, 8 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> From: Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>
> >> One example I had in mind was Rwanda. Majority rule or
> >> minority rule, same result: genocide. Solution:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Mr. Harper wrote in part-
>>
>> 100 A >> B > C
>> 100 C >> B > A
>> 1 B > A = C
>>
> Since none of them gets a YES majority, then none of them should be
> elected
> (even if there was a Condorcet Winner).
>
While I don't agree with Demorep's statement, it did get me
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [EM] Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> Mr. Simmons wrote-
>> Don't you think it's a bit strange to be complaining about
>> how I'm attacking democracy??? Perhaps you're equating
>> majority rule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> D- From my friendly Webster's Dictionary-
>
> de-moc-ra-cy
> 3. majority rule
>
> ma-jor-i-ty
> 1. the greater part or larger number; more than half of a total.
>
> (Each word has some other definitions).
>
> The good old Oxford Dictionary of the English Language lists
>> From: Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> One example I had in mind was Rwanda. Majority rule or
>> minority rule, same result: genocide. Solution: compromise
>> candidate with approval from both extremes.
---
D
Mr. Simmons wrote-
Don't you think it's a bit strange to be complaining about
how I'm attacking democracy??? Perhaps you're equating
majority rule and democracy? They're not the same thing, you
know.
---
D- From my friendly Webster's Dictionary-
de-moc-ra-cy
3. majority rule
ma-jor-i-ty
1. t
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Rob LeGrand wrote:
> Forest wrote:
> > When the only information available is simple preference, then majority
> > rule would be the only democratic choice. But that's not the context of
> > the posting to which Demorep replied below.
> >
> > Suppose that you know strength
On Sat, 5 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mr. Simmons wrote--
>
> When the only information available is simple preference, then majority
> rule would be the only democratic choice. But that's not the context of
> the posting to which Demorep replied below.
>
> Suppose that you know stren
>> From: Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> One example I had in mind was Rwanda. Majority rule or
>> minority rule, same result: genocide. Solution: compromise
>> candidate with approval from both extremes.
Yow!
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> Mr. Simmons wrote-
>> For this reason, I don't consider it sufficient that the
>> majority have its way.
>>
>> D- Either the majority or the minority has its way (s
One example I had in mind was Rwanda. Majority rule or minority rule,
same result: genocide. Solution: compromise candidate with approval from
both extremes.
Forest
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Anthony Simmons wrote:
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Ma
> Mr. Harper wrote in part-
>
> 100 A >> B > C
> 100 C >> B > A
> 1 B > A = C
>
> D- I again suggest a simple YES or NO vote on each choice.
>
> Who, if anybody, in the example could get a YES majority ???
Mr. Harper-
The ">>" corresponds to the divide between YES and NO, in the usual wa
Mr. Simmons wrote-
For this reason, I don't consider it sufficient that the majority have its
way.
D- Either the majority or the minority has its way (since unanimous votes are
few and far between) (pending utopia wherein nobody interferes in the life,
liberty or property of anybody else)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mr. Harper wrote in part-
>
> 100 A >> B > C
> 100 C >> B > A
> 1 B > A = C
>
> D- I again suggest a simple YES or NO vote on each choice.
>
> Who, if anybody, in the example could get a YES majority ???
The ">>" corresponds to the divide between YES and NO, in
Mr. Harper wrote in part-
I presume your "instability" problem is that, given the existance of a
Sincere Condorcet Winner, if you elect someone who isn't the SCW, then a
majority would prefer to replace the person who you elected with the
SCW. However, a similar phenomenon can happen even if y
>> From: Martin Harper
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> Anthony Simmons wrote:
>> > Regarding the danger of getting into political debate, I
>> > think politics has to be considered, if not debated.
>> I agree entirely: I just didn't wan
Anthony Simmons wrote:
> Regarding the danger of getting into political debate, I
> think politics has to be considered, if not debated.
I agree entirely: I just didn't want responses from those who believe
that some specific example that I gave doesn't represent a tyrany of a
majority. The in
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> >> D- How often do > 50 percent majorities tyrannize themselves
>> >> (for decades or centuries) as compared to thousands of
>> >> years of tyranny by monarchies / oli
>> From: Martin Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
Your post, quoted below, pretty much says it. To many
people, democracy is a matter of trying to grab power, and
the largest mob makes whatever rules suit it.
Regarding the danger of gett
>> D- How often do > 50 percent majorities tyrannize themselves
>> (for decades or centuries) as compared to thousands of
>> years of tyranny by monarchies / oligarchies ???
Mr. Simmons wrote-
How often do absolute monarchs tyrannize themselves?
D- Never. They tyrannize others. Ask all the dead
Anthony Simmons wrote:
> Here's the question I would ask: Does the majority tend to
> tyrannize the minority?
It's exceptionally bad taste to even begin to mention it, but I suspect
that in Nazi Germany the majority of Aryans tyrannizing the minority of
Jews would be an example. Some commenta
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
>> How often to > 50 percent majorities tyrannize themselves
>> (for decades or centuries) as compared to thousands of
>> years of tyranny by monarchies / oligarchies ???
How often do absol
"Majority rule" would mean more if the term "majority" had a consistent
historical meaning. The definition " > 50% " appears to be fairly
recent.
As far as I know, there has never been any requirement or expectation
that democracy imply > 50%.
Check definitions #1, 3c, and 4:
http://www.bri
Mr. Simmons wrote--
When the only information available is simple preference, then majority
rule would be the only democratic choice. But that's not the context of
the posting to which Demorep replied below.
Suppose that you know strength of preferences:
51 A > B >> C
49 B > C >> A
The majorit
Also note the fairly recent date associated with the phrase "majority
rule":
http://www.britannica.com/cgi-bin/dict?va=majority+rule
"Majority rule" would mean more if the term "majority" had a consistent
historical meaning. The definition " > 50% " appears to be fairly
recent.
As far as I know, there has never been any requirement or expectation
that democracy imply > 50%.
Check definitions #1, 3c, and 4:
http://www.br
Forest wrote:
> When the only information available is simple preference, then majority
> rule would be the only democratic choice. But that's not the context of
> the posting to which Demorep replied below.
>
> Suppose that you know strength of preferences:
>
> 51 A > B >> C
> 49 B > C >> A
>
e magical 51%.
That's why I changed my tune recently and started advocating the Approval
winner unabashedly (for elections based on these kinds of ballots).
The expression "Tyranny of the Majority" does not refer to some imaginary
problem. In multiwinner elections, Proportional Rep
38 matches
Mail list logo
