>> From: LAYTON Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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.
