Majority Rule

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Cretney wrote-

I agree, however, that you shouldn't just take First Past the Post out
of the Westminster system and plonk in PR with everything else
unchanged.  Although, many countries have done essentially that, with
varying degrees of success.  The result is that parties have to work a
lot to form majority coalitions, in order to create a Westminster-like
situation of a majority government.
---

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the 
same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, 
self-appointive, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of 
tyranny.

James Madison in Federalist No. 47, para. 3.

D-  Parliamentary forms of government are at least two-thirds tyrannical.

Obvious remedy ---   separate nonpartisan nomination and election of the more 
important executive officers --- who should be busy enough with public 
business NOT to be messing around inside legislative bodies.

Any *controversial* bill in a P.R. legislative body will or will not be 
enacted -- which can obviously be made a campaign issue in the NEXT public 
election.

There is no need for an emergency election crisis because some bill does or 
does not pass in a legislative body.

Public elections are obviously about making choices about public policies 
(i.e. the public laws).

It is the current gerrymander (indirect minority rule) rigged nature of the 
elections for the U.S.A. Congress, the 50 State legislatures, the Canada 
House of Commons and the U.K. House of Commons that is a very major problem 
in the world.

FFrom election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com  Mon Jul 30 15:45:13 2001
Received: (from smartlst at localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14197;
	Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:44:27 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:44:27 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.20010730154259.265f7e62 at krl.org>
X-Sender: asimmons at krl.org (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:42:59
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
From: Anthony Simmons <bbadonov at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Rule
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"OaTbk.0.fT3.ADUPx"@mx1>
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/6408
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

>> From: Blake Cretney <bcretney at postmark.net>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Rule

> forced into coalitions to create a two-party system.  It should be noted
> that much of this system is based on traditions and motions and regulations
> passed by parliament, rather than on the constitution or common law, so
> there is no easy way to change it.  If it is desirable to change it, that
> is.

>> I'm not sure I follow you.  If it's just a regulation
>> passed by parliament, it can be amended by parliament.
>> You seem to view normal laws as being harder to change
>> than the constitution.

I'm not sure this is relevant, since I don't think I'm really
addressing Craig's point, but from my perspective as an
American, the Australian political process is very alien.
According to the Australian constitution (which was actually
an act of a foreign parliament, a strange enough notion to an
American), the Queen is an absolute monarch, and must give
her approval to all laws, which isn't quite how it works out
in practice.  Tradition is palpable in determining the form
of government, rather than having everything spelled out as
in the U.S.  For example, there is no mention at all of the
Prime Minister in the constitution.  But like I said, this
probably isn't what Craig was referring to.

rom election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com  Mon Jul 30 15:45:13 2001
Received: (from smartlst at localhost)
	by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id PAA14220;
	Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:44:28 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:44:28 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.20010730154301.265fa52c at krl.org>
X-Sender: asimmons at krl.org (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:43:01
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
From: Anthony Simmons <bbadonov at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Rule
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-Message-ID: <"aaSWj.0.7U3.CDUPx"@mx1>
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/6409
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

>> From: LAYTON Craig <Craig.LAYTON at add.nsw.gov.au>
>> Subject: RE: [EM] Majority Rule

>> >I think people have just come to associate majorities with
>> >democracy, through the simple case of two alternatives, where
>> >majority rule makes a kind of sense, but only as a special
>> >case.

>> Unfortunately, the Westminster(ish) systems of Government;
>> UK, Australia, Canada; depend on the concept of
>> parliamentary majority to operate.  In order to make a
>> government/appoint a cabinet, you need to demonstrate that
>> you have the backing of the majority of the lower house.
>> Where this isn't possible, the parliament gets dissolved
>> and goes back to the polls.  While minority governments
>> are possible, they are rare - parties are normally forced
>> into coalitions to create a two-party system.  It should
>> be noted that much of this system is based on traditions
>> and motions and regulations passed by parliament, rather
>> than on the constitution or common law, so there is no
>> easy way to change it.  If it is desirable to change it,
>> that is.

I wasn't suggesting that nothing should be based on majority,
but rather that it's not definitive of democracy.  PR is a
good example of a democratic procedure that does not depend
on democracy.  Of course, in a body like the Senate, a
majority is still required in a vote, regardless of how the
Senators are elected, but that's a bit different since there
are only two alternatives.  But a majority is not required to
elect a Senator.  Thus, a majority is sometimes required, but
by the situation, not as an inherent requirement of
democracy.

On the other hand, perhaps the Senate might be considered
nothing more than a condensed version of the electorate, while
the democratic process of lawmaking still requires a majority
vote of this proxy electorate.