Majority rule

Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including all the legislatures of democratic nations.

Distinction with plurality

Though plurality (first-past-the post) is often mistaken for majority rule, they are not the same.[1] Plurality makes the option with the most votes the winner, regardless of whether the fifty percent threshold is passed. This is equivalent to majority rule when there are only two alternatives. However, when there are more than two alternatives, it is possible for plurality to choose an alternative that has less than fifty percent of the votes cast in its favor.

Use

Majority rule is used pervasively in many modern western democracies. It is frequently used in legislatures and other bodies in which alternatives can be considered and amended in a process of deliberation until the final version of a proposal is adopted or rejected by majority rule.[1] It is one of the basic rules prescribed in books like Robert's Rules of Order.[2] The rules in such books and those rules adopted by groups may additionally prescribe the use of a supermajoritarian rule under certain circumstances, such as a two-thirds rule to close debate.[3]

Many referendums are decided by majority rule.

Properties

May's Theorem

According to Kenneth May, majority rule is the only reasonable decision rule that is "fair", that is, that does not privilege voters by letting some votes count for more or privilege an alternative by requiring fewer votes for its passing. Stated more formally, majority rule is the only binary decision rule that has the following properties:[4][5]

  • Fairness: This can be further separated into two properties:
    • Anonymity: The decision rule treats each voter identically. When using majority rule, it makes no difference who casts a vote; indeed the voter's identity need not even be known.
    • Neutrality: The decision rule treats each alternative equally. This is unlike supermajoritarian rules, which can allow an alternative that has received fewer votes to win.
  • Decisiveness: The decision rule selects a unique winner.
  • Monotonicity: The decision rule would always, if a voter were to change a preference, select the alternative that the voter preferred, if that alternative would have won before the change in preference. Similarly, the decision rule would never, if a voter were to change a preference, select a candidate the voter did not prefer, if that alternative would not have won before the change in preference.

Strictly speaking, it has been shown that majority rule meets these criteria only if the number of voters is odd or infinite. If the number of voters is even, there is the chance that there will be a tie, and so the criterion of neutrality is not met. Many deliberative bodies reduce one participant's voting capacity—namely, they allow the chair to vote only to break ties. This substitutes a loss of total anonymity for the loss of neutrality.

Other properties

In group decision-making it is possible for a voting paradox to form. That is, it is possible that there are alternatives a, b, and c such that a majority prefers a to b, another majority prefers b to c, and yet another majority prefers c to a. Because majority rule requires an alternative to have only majority support to pass, a majority under majority rule is especially vulnerable to having its decision overturned. (The minimum number of alternatives that can form such a cycle (voting paradox) is 3 if the number of voters is different from 4, because the Nakamura number of the majority rule is 3. For supermajority rules the minimum number is often greater, because the Nakamura number is often greater.)

As Rae argued and Taylor proved in 1969, majority rule is the rule that maximizes the likelihood that the issues a voter votes for will pass and that the issues a voter votes against will fail.[1]

Schmitz and Tröger (2012) consider a collective choice problem with two alternatives and they show that the majority rule maximizes utilitarian welfare among all incentive compatible, anonymous, and neutral voting rules, provided that the voters’ types are independent.[6] Yet, when the votersʼ utilities are stochastically correlated, other dominant-strategy choice rules may perform better than the majority rule. Azrieli and Kim (2014) extend the analysis for the case of independent types to asymmetric environments and by considering both anonymous and non-anonymous rules.[7]

Limitations

Arguments for limitations

Minority rights

Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a "[tyranny of the majority]". Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, and privilege it against being overturned by a mere majority. To use the example of the US Senate, if a majority votes against cloture, then the filibuster will continue, even though a minority supports it. Anthony McGann argues that when there are multiple minorities and one is protected (or privileged) by the supermajority rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority won't be one that is already privileged, and if nothing else it will be the one that has the privilege of being aligned with the status quo.[1]

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including who can vote, which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act,[8] by charter or constitution. Thereafter, any decision that unfairly targets a minority's right could be said to be majoritarian, but would not be a legitimate example of a majority decision because it would violate the requirement for equal rights. In response, advocates of unfettered majority rule argue that because the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is generally some sort of supermajoritarian rule, this solution inherits whatever problems this rule would have. They also add the following: First, constitutional rights, being words on paper, cannot by themselves offer protection. Second, under some circumstances, the rights of one person cannot be guaranteed without making an imposition on someone else; as Anthony McGann wrote, "one man's right to property in the antebellum South was another man's slavery". Finally, as Amartya Sen stated when presenting the liberal paradox, a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off.[9]

Erroneous priorities

The erroneous priorities effect (EPE) states that groups acting upon what they initially consider important are almost always misplacing their effort. When groups do this they have not yet determined which factors are most influential in their potential to achieve desired change. Only after identifying those factors are they ready to take effective action. EPE was discovered by Kevin Dye after extensive research at the Food and Drug Administration.[10][11] The discovery of EPE led to the recognition that even with good intentions for participatory democracy, people cannot collectively take effective actions unless they change the paradigm for languaging and voting.[12] EPE is a negative consequence of phenomena such as spreadthink and groupthink. Effective priorities for actions that are dependent on recognizing the influence patterns of global interdependencies, are defeated by the EPE, when priorities are chosen on the basis of aggregating individual stakeholder subjective voting that is largely blind to those interdependencies. Dye's work resulted in the discovery of the 6th law of the science of structured dialogic design,[13] namely: "Learning occurs in a dialogue as the observers search for influence relationships among the members of a set of observations."

Other arguments for limitations

Some argue that majority rule can lead to poor deliberation practice or even to "an aggressive culture and conflict".[14] Along these lines, some have asserted that majority rule fails to measure the intensity of preferences. For example, the authors of An Anarchist Critique of Democracy argue that "two voters who are casually interested in doing something" can defeat one voter who has "dire opposition" to the proposal of the two.[15]

Voting theorists have often claimed that cycling leads to debilitating instability.[1] Buchanan and Tullock argue that unanimity is the only decision rule that guarantees economic efficiency.[1]

Supermajority rules are often used in binary decisions where a positive decision is weightier than a negative one. Under the standard definition of special majority voting, a positive decision is made if and only if a substantial portion of the votes support that decision—for example, two thirds or three fourths. For example, US jury decisions require the support of at least 10 of 12 jurors, or even unanimous support. This supermajoritarian concept follows directly from the presumption of innocence on which the US legal system is based. Rousseau advocated the use of supermajority voting on important decisions when he said, "The more the deliberations are important and serious, the more the opinion that carries should approach unanimity."[16]

Arguments against limitations

Minority rights

McGann argues that majority rule helps to protect minority rights, at least in settings in which deliberation occurs. The argument is that cycling ensures that parties that lose to a majority have an interest to remain part of the group's process, because the decision can easily be overturned by another majority. Furthermore, if a minority wishes to overturn a decision, it needs to form a coalition with only enough of the group members to ensure that more than half approves of the new proposal. (Under supermajority rules, a minority might need a coalition consisting of something greater than a majority to overturn a decision.)[1]

To support the view that majority rule protects minority rights better than supermajority rules McGann points to the cloture rule in the US Senate, which was used to prevent the extension of civil liberties to racial minorities.[1] Ben Saunders, while agreeing that majority rule may offer better protection than supermajority rules, argues that majority rule may nonetheless be of little help to the most despised minorities in a group.[17]

Other arguments against limitations

Some argue that deliberative democracy flourishes under majority rule. They argue that under majority rule, participants always have to convince more than half the group at the very least, while under supermajoritarian rules participants might only need to persuade a minority.[17] Furthermore, proponents argue that cycling gives participants an interest to compromise, rather than strive to pass resolutions that only have the bare minimum required to "win".[9]

Another argument for majority rule is that within this atmosphere of compromise, there will be times when a minority faction will want to support the proposal of another faction in exchange for support of a proposal it believes to be vital. Because it would be in the best interest of such a faction to report the true intensity of its preference, so the argument goes, majority rule differentiates weak and strong preferences. McGann argues that situations such as these give minorities incentive to participate, because there are few permanent losers under majority rule, and so majority rule leads to systemic stability. He points to governments that use majority rule which largely goes unchecked—the governments of the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden, for example—as empirical evidence of majority rule's stability.[1]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Anthony J. McGann (2002). "The Tyranny of the Supermajority: How Majority Rule Protects Minorities" (PDF). Center for the Study of Democracy. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
  2. ^ Robert, Henry M.; et al. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-306-82020-5. The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote. . .
  3. ^ Robert 2011, p. 401
  4. ^ May, Kenneth O. 1952. "A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decisions", Econometrica, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 680–684.
  5. ^ Mark Fey, "May’s Theorem with an Infinite Population", Social Choice and Welfare, 2004, Vol. 23, issue 2, pages 275–293.
  6. ^ Schmitz, Patrick W.; Tröger, Thomas (2012). "The (sub-)optimality of the majority rule". Games and Economic Behavior. 74 (2): 651–665. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2011.08.002. ISSN 0899-8256.
  7. ^ Azrieli, Yaron; Kim, Semin (2014). "Pareto efficiency and weighted majority rules". International Economic Review. 55 (4): 1067–1088. doi:10.1111/iere.12083. ISSN 0020-6598.
  8. ^ A Przeworski, JM Maravall, I NetLibrary Democracy and the Rule of Law (2003) p. 223
  9. ^ a b McGann, Anthony J. The Logic of Democracy: Reconciling, Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2006. ISBN 0-472-06949-7.
  10. ^ Dye, K.M. and Conaway, D.S. (1999) 'Lessons learned from five years of application of the cogniscope', Approach to the Food and Drug Administration, CWA Report, Interactive Management Consultants, Paoli.
  11. ^ Dye, K. (1999). Dye's law of requisite evolution of observations, in Christakis, A.N. and Bausch, K. (Eds.): How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp.166–169.
  12. ^ Flanagan, T.R., and Christakis, A.N. (2010) The Talking Point: Creating an Environment for ExploringComplex Meaning, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
  13. ^ Christakis, A.N. and Bausch, K. (2006). How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
  14. ^ "What's wrong with majority voting?". Consensus Decision Making. Seeds for Change. 2005. Retrieved 2006-01-17.
  15. ^ "An Anarchist Critique of Democracy". 2005. Archived from the original on 2008-04-29. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
  16. ^ Rousseau. The Social Contract. bk. 4, ch. 2.
  17. ^ a b Ben Saunders (2008). "Democracy-as-Fairness: Justice, Equal Chances, and Lotteries" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2008. Retrieved September 8, 2013.

Further reading

1979 Rhodesian constitutional referendum

A constitutional referendum was held in Rhodesia on 30 January 1979. It followed the Internal Settlement drawn up between Prime Minister Ian Smith and Abel Muzorewa, leader of the non-violent UANC. The new constitution would bring in black majority rule in the country, which would be renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia. The settlement was supported by the ruling Rhodesian Front, but opposed by the Rhodesian Action Party, which had broken away from the Front.

The referendum was open only to white voters, passing by 85%. Voter turnout was 71.5%.Despite the transition to majority rule following elections in March, the country remained unrecognised by the international community, and the Patriotic Front parties continued the Bush War until the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement and fresh elections in 1980.

Bone Thugs-n-Harmony

Bone Thugs-n-Harmony is an American rap group. It consists of rappers Bizzy Bone, Wish Bone, Layzie Bone, Krayzie Bone, and Flesh-n-Bone. American West Coast rapper Eazy-E signed Bone Thugs-N-Harmony to Ruthless Records in late 1993, when Bone Thugs debuted with their EP Creepin on ah Come Up. The EP included their breakout hit single "Thuggish Ruggish Bone".

In 1995, the group released its second album, E. 1999 Eternal, which included hits "1st of tha Month" and "East 1999". A tribute to then-recently deceased Eazy-E, titled "Tha Crossroads", won a Grammy award in 1997. The Art of War, the group's third album, was also released in 1997. Bone Thugs is the only group that has worked with 2Pac, Notorious B.I.G., Eazy-E, and Big Pun while they were still alive. The editors of About.com ranked them #12 on their list of the "25 Best Rap Groups of All Time", and MTV called them "the most melodic hip-hop group of all time."In 2000, BTNHResurrection reached platinum in one month, while 2002's Thug World Order received more moderate sales and promotion, going gold and peaking at #3 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart. After that album, the group went on hiatus from their label and released their sixth studio album, Thug Stories, independently in 2006. In 2007 they had another major-label release, Strength & Loyalty, on Swizz Beatz's label Full Surface Records. Bone Thugs-N-Harmony "officially" returned with their 2010 album Uni5: The World's Enemy, released by their own record label, BTNH Worldwide, with distribution by Warner Bros.

Due to conflicts within the group, longtime members Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone officially left the group in April 2011 to work with their independent label, The Life Entertainment. They would later return, officially re-unifying the group. In August 2013, however, Layzie Bone announced that he would be stepping aside to work more on his solo career. In the same month, BTNH signed with eOne Entertainment (formerly known as Koch Records), who they had previously partnered with to release 2006's Thug Stories. Layzie Bone has since re-united with the group. On April 28, 2018, the entire group performed a show in Biloxi, Mississippi along with Juvenile and Nelly. On June 1, 2018, Bone Thugs reunited for a show at the Wonderland Ballroom in Revere, Massachusetts. On June 22, 2018, the group also performed a show in Kansas City, Missouri at the CrossroadsKC with longtime friend Twista. All five members were present. All five members also performed at Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View CA on October 13, 2018 with Too Short & Ice Cube on the How the West Was Won tour, and on Friday October 19 at the Stockton Arena in Stockton, CA with JJ Fad, Tag Team, Lighter Shade of Brown, Digital Underground, and DJ Quik. Bone Thugs are still currently on tour and have 12 concerts scheduled 2018-2019.

Charm City Art Space

Charm City Art Space 39°18′33.5″N 76°37′4″W is a music venue/art space located at 1731 Maryland Avenue, in Baltimore, Maryland, in the Station North arts district. This area is home to several do it yourself (DIY) projects, including the Velocipede Bike Project, and the Jerk Store. It is also known as the space, the art space, or CCAS.

The CCAS opened in summer 2002 to be a community-run facility where artists and musicians could showcase their work. The CCAS is a mixed-used facility with frequent art exhibits and a large zine library, but it has functioned primarily as a music venue for smaller independent music acts. It hosted its first show July 1. As of October 2009, it had hosted more than 1000 shows, mostly hardcore punk and indie acts, including The Thermals, Modern Life Is War, Majority Rule.

It has outlasted similar venues in the area.

The CCAS is collectively run, and allows members to teach and book shows. At monthly meetings, members discuss finances, membership, and maintenance and repair of the space. It is a non-discriminatory venue where people of all ages, genders, races, and religions may come and feel welcome. The venue is also drug- and alcohol-free.

The CCAS has drawn inspiration from larger independent music venues such as 924 Gilman, and ABC No Rio, and the Mr. Roboto Project.

Congress Alliance

The Congress Alliance was an anti-apartheid political coalition formed in South Africa in the 1950s. Led by the African National Congress, the CA was multi-racial in makeup and committed to the principle of majority rule.

Consensus decision-making

Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together. It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of applying this process.

Hastert Rule

The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House. Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he or she may break it at his or her discretion. Speakers have at times broken the Hastert Rule and allowed votes to be scheduled on legislation that lacked majority support within the Speaker's own party. Hastert described the rule as being "kind of a misnomer" in that it "never really existed" as a rule.

Under House rules, the Speaker schedules floor votes on pending legislation. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within his or her party—even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it. The rule keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a minority of majority party members. In the House, 218 votes are needed to pass a bill; if 200 Democrats are the minority and 235 Republicans are the majority, the Hastert Rule would not allow 200 Democrats and 100 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 100 Republican votes is short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.

History of Rhodesia (1965–79)

The history of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1979 covers Rhodesia's time as a state unrecognised by the international community following the predominantly white minority government's Unilateral Declaration of Independence on 11 November 1965. Headed by Prime Minister Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Front remained in government until 1 June 1979, when the country was reconstituted as Zimbabwe Rhodesia.

Majoritarianism

Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda that asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under growing criticism and democracies have increasingly included constraints in what the parliamentary majority can do, in order to protect citizens' fundamental rights.This should not be confused with the concept of a majoritarian electoral system, which is a simple electoral system that usually gives a majority of seats to the party with a plurality of votes. A parliament elected by this method may be called a majoritarian parliament (e.g., the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of India).

Under a democratic majoritarian political structure, the majority would not exclude any minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism is sometimes pejoratively referred to by its opponents as "ochlocracy" or "tyranny of the majority". Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, which may refer to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule.

No independence before majority rule

No independence before majority rule (abbreviated NIBMAR) was a policy adopted by the United Kingdom requiring the implementation of majority rule in a colony, rather than rule by the white colonial minority, before the empire granted its colony independence. It was sometimes reinterpreted as no independence before majority African rule.In particular, this position was advocated with respect to the future status of Rhodesia as an independent state. British prime minister Harold Wilson was pressured into adopting the approach during a conference in London. Wilson was not initially inclined to do so, fearing it would slow down the rate at which Rhodesia could be granted independence, but Lester Pearson, the Prime Minister of Canada, formulated a draft resolution committing Wilson to NIBMAR. Wilson defended the policy when it was attacked as disastrous by opposition Conservatives.

The accomplishment was short-lived, however, as Wilson continued to extend offers to Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minister, which Smith ultimately rejected. This led Smith's government to declare Rhodesia's independence without British consent.

Non-Prophets

Non-Prophets was a hip-hop duo consisting of rapper Sage Francis and producer Joe Beats.

Nuclear option

The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent.

This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.As of March 2019, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation.

Oregon Ballot Measures 47 and 50

Ballot Measure 47 was an initiative in the U.S. state of Oregon that passed in 1996, affecting the assessment of property taxes and instituting a double majority provision for tax legislation. Measure 50 was a revised version of the law, which also passed, after being referred to the voters by the 1997 state legislature.

Measure 47, sometimes referred to as a "cut and cap" law, reduced property taxes to the lesser of the 1994–95 tax or the 1995–96 tax minus 10 percent and limited future increases in assessed property values, except for new construction or additions, to 3 percent per year. It also instituted a "double majority" rule requiring at least a 50-percent voter turnout for all local tax measures in most elections (partially repealed in 2008 by Measure 56). It strengthened state constitutional limits, first imposed by Measure 5, on property taxes on real estate.

Measure 47 was placed on the ballot by initiative petition by anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore and approved by voters in the November 1996 general election, with 704,554 votes in favor and 642,613 votes against.The law enacted by Measure 47 was amended in 1997, when the Oregon Legislative Assembly referred Measure 50 to voters to clarify that Measure 47 was intended to limit increases in real-estate assessments to 3 percent per year. The measure passed.

P. W. Botha

Pieter Willem Botha, (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ˈpitər ˈvələm ˈbʊəta]; 12 January 1916 – 31 October 2006), commonly known as "P. W." and Die Groot Krokodil (Afrikaans for "The Big Crocodile"), was the leader of South Africa from 1978 to 1989, serving as the last Prime Minister from 1978 to 1984 and the first executive State President from 1984 to 1989.

First elected to Parliament in 1948, Botha was an outspoken opponent of majority rule and international communism. However, his administration did make concessions towards political reform, whereas internal unrest saw widespread human rights abuses at the hands of the government. Botha resigned as leader of the ruling National Party (NP) in February 1989 after suffering a stroke and six months later was also coerced to leave the presidency.

In F. W. de Klerk's 1992 apartheid referendum, Botha campaigned for a No vote and denounced De Klerk's administration as irresponsible for opening the door to black majority rule. In early 1998, when Botha refused to testify at the Mandela government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), he was supported by the right-wing Conservative Party, which had earlier contested his rule as the official opposition. For his refusal, he was fined and given a suspended jail sentence for crimes against humanity. The sentence was overturned on appeal. Shortly before his death in late 2006, he renewed his opposition towards egalitarian democracy in favour of a confederate system based upon the principles of "separate development".

Politics of Rhodesia

This article relates to Southern Rhodesia up to 1964 and Rhodesia thereafter. For other uses of the name, see Rhodesia (disambiguation)Rhodesia had limited democracy in the sense that it had the Westminster parliamentary system with multiple political parties contesting the seats in parliament, but as the voting was dominated by the White settler minority, and Black Africans only had a minority level of representation at that time, it was regarded internationally as a racist country.

The political party that held sway in the years after the unilateral declaration of independence was the Rhodesian Front, later known as the Republican Front. Ian Smith remained as Prime Minister until the country became Zimbabwe Rhodesia in 1979.

Principles of parliamentary procedure

Parliamentary procedure is the body of rules, ethics, and customs governing meetings and other operations of clubs, organizations, legislative bodies, and other deliberative assemblies. General principles of parliamentary procedure include rule of the majority with respect for the minority.

Rhodesia

Rhodesia (, ) was an unrecognised state in southern Africa from 1965 to 1979, equivalent in territory to modern Zimbabwe. Rhodesia was the de facto successor state to the British colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since achieving responsible government in 1923. A landlocked nation, Rhodesia was bordered by South Africa to the south, Bechuanaland (later Botswana) to the southwest, Zambia to the northwest, and Mozambique (a Portuguese province until 1975) to the east.

In the late 19th century, the territory north of the Transvaal was chartered to the British South Africa Company, led by Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes and his Pioneer Column marched north in 1890, acquiring a huge block of territory that the company would rule until the early 1920s. In 1923, the company's charter was revoked, and Southern Rhodesia attained self government and established a legislature. Between 1953 and 1963, Southern Rhodesia was joined with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The decolonisation of Africa in the early 1960s alarmed a significant proportion of Rhodesia's white population. In an effort to delay the transition to black majority rule, Rhodesia's predominantly white government issued its own Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom on 11 November 1965. (The government of the United Kingdom supported Rhodesia's transition to a multiracial democracy.) The UDI administration initially sought recognition as an autonomous realm within the Commonwealth of Nations, but reconstituted itself as a republic in 1970. The Rhodesian Bush War, which pitted the government against two African nationalist organisations, ZANU and ZAPU, intensified in the 1970s, prompting Rhodesian premier Ian Smith to concede to multiracial democracy in 1978. However, a provisional government subsequently headed by Smith and his moderate colleague Abel Muzorewa failed in appeasing international critics or halting the bloodshed. By December 1979, Muzorewa had replaced Smith as Prime Minister and secured an agreement with the militant nationalists, allowing Rhodesia to briefly revert to colonial status pending elections under a universal franchise. It finally achieved internationally recognised independence in April 1980 as the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Rhodesia's largest cities were its capital, Salisbury, and Bulawayo. The white population, which grew to nearly 300,000, dominated the country's politics and economy, though they never made up more than 8% of the total population. Rhodesia developed an economy largely dependent on agriculture, manufacturing, and mining. Its largest exports were chromium, tobacco, and steel. International sanctions put increasing pressure on the country as time went on. The Parliament of Rhodesia, which included the lower House of Assembly and later a senate, was predominantly white, with minority of seats reserved for blacks. After 1970, the country used a semi-presidential system, with a president, prime minister, and cabinet.

State President of South Africa

The State President of the Republic of South Africa (Afrikaans: Staatspresident) was the head of state of South Africa from 1961 to 1994. The office was established when the country became a republic in 1961, and Queen Elizabeth II ceased to be monarch of South Africa. The position of Governor-General of South Africa was accordingly abolished. From 1961 to 1984, the post was largely ceremonial. After constitutional reforms enacted in 1983 and taking effect in 1984, the State President became an executive post, and its holder was both head of state and head of government.

The office was abolished in 1994, with the end of Apartheid and the transition to democratic majority rule. Since then, the head of state and head of government is known simply as the President of South Africa.

The Orville

The Orville is an American science fiction comedy-drama television series created by and starring Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Broadcasting Company. The series premiered on Sunday, September 10, 2017. MacFarlane stars as Ed Mercer, an officer in the Planetary Union's line of exploratory space vessels. After his career takes a downturn following his divorce, he is given the ship Orville as his first command, only to discover that his ex-wife, Kelly Grayson (Adrianne Palicki), has been assigned as his first officer. Inspired by several sources, including Star Trek and The Twilight Zone, the series tells the story of Mercer, Grayson, and the crew of the Orville as they embark on various diplomatic and exploratory missions.The Orville is a joint production by Fuzzy Door Productions and 20th Century Fox Television and syndicated by 20th Television.

New episodes aired Thursdays on Fox during the 2017–18 season. On November 2, 2017, Fox renewed the series for a second season, which premiered on December 30, 2018. On May 11, 2019, Fox renewed the series for a third season.

Tyranny of the majority

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon or population centers. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:

Centralization excess: when the centralized power of a federation make a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle. Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority and supermajority rules.

Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence". The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.

Single-winner voting system
Proportional representation
Semi-proportional representation
Usage
Voting system criteria
Voting system quotas
Other

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.