[EM] Majority rule meaning, continued

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I was called away from the computer yesterday, and didn't finish
replying to this message. So I'm repeating the message in order
to write a more complete reply:

I'd said:

>Blake says that it's dogmatic to say that majority rule is important.

Not necessarily. If you believe that majority rule is important because
you have some argument to that effect, then that isn't dogmatic, and
that is in fact the position I take.

I reply:

There's such a thing as a fundamental standard for voting systems,
just as there are other completely subjective individual preferences
that aren't subject to argument, such as preference for chocolate
over vanilla. Derived standards can be argued for or against, in
terms of fundamental standards &/or other derived standards.

If you prefer chocolate to vanilla, I wouldn't say that's dogmatic,
even if I prefer vanilla to chocolate. Only you would say that.

You continued:

If, however, the belief is based
on the fact that that's what your teacher said in 6th grade, then I
consider it dogmatic.

I reply:

If your 6th grade teacher said something that brought an important
principle to your attention, a principle that you regard as a
fundamental standard, your valuation of that standard isn't dogmatic
even though your teacher brought it to your attention.

But I'm not saying that's what convinced me about majority rule, though
it's a safe bet that some teacher mentioned it at some time.

Did your 6th grade teacher tell you about majority rule?

You continued:

I also think the postmodern approach of saying that all standards are
equally valid tends to lead to a kind of dogmatism

I reply:

Standards are what someone wants from a voting system. You're dogmatic
if you say that everyone should want what you want from a voting system. You 
aren't dogmatic, are you?

Blake continued:

Majority always means more than half, but the question is, more than
half of what? More than half of the people casting a ballot, more than
half of those expressing a preference between the candidates being
compared, or more than half of the electorate? I choose the second one,
and this follows from my reasons for favouring majority rule in the
first place. But if I had no reasons, I might pick something different.

I reply:

Pick whatever you want, but, in the electoral context, majority
means one thing: A majority of the voters. That's how it's always
used. That's what it means.

I'd said:

>Of what relevance is a non-majority of people who don't even bother to
>vote?
Blake replied:

I hope that was a rhetorical question.

I reply:

If you wanted "majority" to mean a majority of those who could
register to vote if they wanted to, then failing to be voted for by
a majority of those, when a majority or near majority of them
don't vote, wouldn't mean much.

But, as I said, going by people who are registered to vote, or
people who could register if they wanted to, to define majority,
when that term is used in the defensive stratetgy criteria, wv would
still pass, and margins would still fail.

I'd said:

>But if few of those who voted consider a particular pairwise
>comparison important enough to vote on, that says something.

Blake replied:

That's why I don't consider a vote of 3 to 1 to be as decisive as 100 to
50 (I know you don't either).

I reply:

Correct. I don't, if those are the X>Y and Y>X figures in X's defeat
of Y.

Mike Ossipoff






_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em