[EM] Majority Rule

[Bart Ingles]

Anthony Simmons wrote:
> 
> >> From: Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net>
> >> Subject: Re: Responses to some of Forest's ideas
> 
> >> DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > See *consent of the governed* in the second paragraph of the U.S.A.
> >> > Declaration of Independence.
> >> >
> >> > Democracy means majority rule --- as far as elections are concerned.
> 
> >> Says who?  Maybe as far as two-candidate elections are concerned.  The
> >> phrase 'majority rule' itself seems historically recent.
> 
> And perhaps a bit out of place in a context such as STV,
> which would be, according to the "definition", undemocratic.


Of course, it would depend on where you look within the process. 
Multi-seat STV would do away with any pretense of majority rule within a
district.  But when looking at the makeup of a legislature, it would be
more likely that a party with a majority of voters would control a
majority of seats overall under PR.

But then you have to deal with the decision-making process within the
legislature -- which requires another level of multi-candidate
decision-making.  The current plurality-elected U.S. legislatures tend
to be made up almost exclusively of two parties, so legislative votes
usually do return a majority decision.  PR would tend to undermine
this.  Not that it's a real concern, but all of this just further
illustrates the emptiness of the term 'majority rule'.