Majority Rule

MAJORITY RULE IS a rational mechanism by which the outcome of an election is fairly determined based on a majority of voters or countries agreeing. It varies with the requirements of the voting process, where matters that are considered of the greatest social importance, such as amending the constitution, demand a higher majority percentage. The difference lies between simple and special majorities, with the former setting the benchmark at half a percent and one percent, while the other needs two-thirds or three-quarters of the support. A mere plurality can be the determining factor in most elections.

Majority rule was used throughout the ancient Greek city-states as a means of not allowing a mob or minority to undo the will of the people respecting the agreed-upon procedures. It was originally introduced in the political thought of John Locke as the principle of the Greater Force, giving decision-making power to the largest portion of society enjoying consensus. But it has more notoriously been identified with the history of American politics as the long held mode of electing leaders.

This differs from a majoritarian electoral system where the focus is upon single-member constituencies. Majority rule is identified with the philosophy of majoritarianism, which holds that those who have reached the most influential agreement deserve the primacy of representing the entire people. But there is always a minority that remains on the periphery that has their interests collapsed into the generated social policy outcome. Restrictions that do not express the majority's will are viewed as antidemocratic. Democratic as well as non-democratic elements are established in the practice. But even in free or popular forms of government, there must be procedures by which the opinion or voice of the populace can be expressed.

One of the oldest and most familiar standards to be used in discerning the outcome of a voting election is majority rule. The practice calls for a majority of any organized group to act or make decisions on behalf of the entire group. With it always comes the danger of “tyranny of the majority,” or the advancement of the many at the expense of the few. No government is foolproof; there is always the danger of oppressive measures being promulgated under the guise of the “people.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, widely known for his Democracy in America, dealt with this problem at length due to its possible rise in an ever more independent world. Because every society will always have the distinction between rich and poor, De Tocqueville reasoned that the latter would always outweigh the former in sheer force and manpower. He argues against tyranny of the majority by appealing to the interests of the masses, claiming that it would only ruin them to plunder the “wealth” and “intelligence” of the few. Locke was not completely correct, then, in grounding “power” and “force” strictly in multitude or number. By focusing on the resources of the community, instead of simply on the self-interest of individuals, De Tocqueville sought to encourage involvement in democracy beyond going to the polls. For this reason, a “simple majority” is not allowed for fundamental matters of constitutional importance, such as passing amendments in the U.S. legal process.

...