Majority voting is a process that does not consider consensus during election. Its ideology is the majority number of people have a final say to determine the decision to be undertaken. Majority voting does not allow for compromise…
Download file to see previous pages...
Majority voting is a process that does not consider consensus during election. Its ideology is the majority number of people have a final say to determine the decision to be undertaken. Majority voting does not allow for compromise. This is a useful factor in decision making for such matters as those of technicality than just face reasons fuelled by emotion, impulse and personal interest (Emerson 1994). Majority rule inspires alliance building. It encourages challenges amongst these groups and brings out the best qualities in the final choice. This is because competition among coalition pushes for the most refined options compared to its alternatives. Challenges as these are useful in avoidance of situations where there is ‘tyranny by the majority’ to pursue their own personal interests. Alliances formed by the minority have been known to watch dog over the welfare of the society in frameworks like this. The election process requires that the community be informed on alternative sets than all other individuals. Final decisions made are resourceful and useful for incorporating collective ideas of aggregate persons. In economics, majority voting is especially popular for market creation. When consumers decide to cast currency votes for an item of consumption businesses are forced to produce more of it in order to make profit. The decision on such goods by consumers reflect their preference on products. Majority rule voting however, only applies in a few of market products. This is because it is not applicable where the market item in question is a public good due to the free riding problem. While majority rule is often associated with democracy, plurality is concerned with the large numbers as a sample of the population’s interest. Plurality considers ideas of the most population without taking into account the overall effect proportionately. Majority rule is therefore a creation of the population’s interest compared against standards of quality so that more than half of the population agrees to the idea voted. Plurality on the other hand is a matter of the numbers whether less than half or more, this overlooks non-voters. Majority rule motivates the entire population to take part in a voting process and solidifies the final decision. To benefit from final decisions in majority rule, parties agree on the best outcome, whether the outcomes are favourable or not as long as they are outvoted. Majority rule does not provide an equilibrium decision. The concept of voting has inspired models with mathematical explanations to the given systems involved in the elections (Tideman, N 2006). In most situations, voters identify with characteristic qualities of the options in the set to be selected. When aggregate role in decision-making may de-motivate the will to participate in decision making for most of the members of the minority and the majority group, the final decision may as well be motivated by factors other than contribution and the numbers. This will include reflective concepts of the parties voting on real need to deal with facts than just numbers during decision-making. Most of the population will therefore end up making a sober and weighted decision. Majority rule addresses contrasting preferences and often results in an arbitrary choice. This gives an advantage to democratic administrative policies in governance. Democratic Rule relates to the majority rule in a paternalistic manner but has implications that could lead to instability; therefore, the democratic governance is useful when it undertakes the least (Nitzan, S.2010). This again gives the advantage of ruling to the majority cause. Democracy should restrain majority
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Though different methods of electing people in leadership positions have been tried in the course of human civilization, Lijphart (1999,pp 57-61)argues that voting is one of the oldest methods and it has undergone a lot of transformation to the current period.
USA wants to make itself a model for other democracies. It is a well-known fact that democratic governments are run by the people, and they are accountable for every action. In direct democracy, usually people vote for every issue that surfaces. Nonetheless, there is no perfect model of direct democracy in the world.
Dr. Herman H.H. van Erp (1999) claims that democracy must "legitimize itself by an appeal to some conception of the common good and not by majority interests. Nevertheless, it requires an implementation of the common good through some kind of majority rule"2.
They didn't know anything about the candidates. These same individuals will claim later as their Social Security payments, educational benefits, or gas prices soar that they were victims of circumstance from the bad policies of corrupt politicians. However, Americans are not feathers on the wind of government.
So, we can say that the major difference in voting system occurs among the three voting systems, and not within them. Some of the details and description of three kinds of voting systems which is given below will help us in understanding the phenomenon of each voting system.
Madison asserts, "The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But this is not found in either the Executive or Legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority" (par.
Miller argues that he "doesn't want some idiot who doesn't know anything about the issue deciding who will be president or whether to raise my taxes"; rather he has confidence in the mature and intelligent people who turn out to vote. Miller claims "to change that would be a recipe for disaster." In my opinion, Miller is correct in his assessment of the present state of affairs working well as is and that lowering the voting age would not be beneficial; however changes in our current voting laws to offer an incentive could be implemented to make them more effective.
On the other hand, the United States of America Constitution characterize minorities clearly too either be a product of culture, religion, topography, and earnings, otherwise those who suffered political or election defeat. These categories of people were provided the fundamental rights that all the other citizens enjoy.
Indeed, there are several places in the Constitution where suspicion of unchecked majority power is evident - from the Bill of Rights to the structure of the Senate to the Electoral College. To be sure, some historical events that ran relatively concurrent with the birth of the United States, primarily the French Revolution and its associated "Reign of Terror," provided ample illustration of the potential for majority rule to degenerate into mob rule.