Yes, majority rule is the default mechanism (sometimes complemented
with super-majority requirements in key decisions like this).
Are there alternatives to this? In principle also ratings could be
used somewhere to make the decision (if they would just work in
practice), and other methods that are able to elect some consensus
alternative even when there is a majority favouring some other
alternative (tricky). In practice, majority rules.
In addition to this people in good positions in the existing system
typically fight against (or don't eagerly promote) any change that
might change their status to something worse. Election methods are in
the very core of this process from the point of view of parties and
representatives. That is why improvements, even clear and sensible
ones, are seldom effectively promoted and reach majority support.
I tend to trust in open discussions and especially clear formulation
of the alternative options for the future (e.g. by the EM people if
not others). Also activism and movements outside the official
political structure may impact the process. In principle the jointly
agreed political structure should be enough to make things happen, but
sometimes they need some "help to proceed". (Also media, the
scientific process and books and opinions of respected citizens may be
considered to be parts of the established process.)
Juho
On Oct 31, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Juho wrote:
(PR makes sense in general but I wouldn't deny people the right to
achieve the political balance using two-party systems if they so
want.)
How would this decision be made? Majority rule?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
