Majority Rule

History of theory and practice

Contemporary issues

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The term “majority rule” stands for a rule of decision making within a specified group. At its simplest, the rule requires that the vote of each member shall be counted as equal to that of every other and that no vote or decision by a minority may override that of a majority. By extension, majority rule is sometimes contrasted with any rule requiring that decisions be unanimous or by any number larger than a simple majority. According to this extended version, then, not only may a minority never override a majority but also it can never check a majority: a majority vote is conclusive for the whole group. It is common to distinguish this usage by referring to it as “bare majority” rule, rule by “simple majority,” or “strict majoritarianism.” Within democratic regimes most of the controversies about majority rule relate to whether it is desirable to apply the “bare majority” rule at some particular stage of the political process, or even whether the ethical premises of democracy demand its application. For electoral purposes it is common, especially where a twoparty system prevails, to permit choice (election) by a plurality that is less than a majority. Strictly speaking, this procedure violates the majority principle, and such devices as run-off elections are often used to increase the probability that the elected candidate will have majority support.

History of theory and practice

Among the ancient Greeks, democracy entailed rule by majority vote of a popular assembly, of which all adult male citizens were members. Even in democratic Athens, however, there were institutional as well as practical limits on the power of majorities. A select group determined the agenda of the assembly, thus playing a significant role in framing the issues. Moreover, many important officials were selected by lot rather than by vote. This practice tended to limit the power of an organized majority or of a class or interest that comprised a majority, because in accordance with the laws of chance it gave proportionate representation to minority groups, as simple majority rule fails to do.

During the medieval period, whether in the great council of the church, in abbey chapter, or in secular parliament, decision by a bare or simple majority was slow to gain acceptance in practice and even slower to be vindicated in principle. The concurrence of all, the unanimity principle, seems universally to have been considered the ideal for positive action. It was common, however, to recognize that action could not be taken against the expressed wishes of a majority. (In this basic sense, majority rule prevailed.) The result was a kind of rule by “concurrent majorities” (Calhoun [1851] 1953, pp. 16-31). Typically, there was no fixed, mechanical formula for determining when a decision could be made, but unanimity was sought even if it could be obtained only by the process of wearing down and shouting down the dissenters—or by resort to threats or physical force. It was not until the sixteenth century that the ideal of unanimity and the practice of “veto groups” (the requirement of concurrence of the representatives of each town, county, etc.) gave way to the rule that the vote of a majority of individual representatives should prevail for positive as well as for negative action. Doubtless the rising ndividualism of this period, reinforced by the practical necessities of a state in which legislation was playing a far more important role than it had in the medieval period, led to this development.

The doctrine that the state should be based upon the consent of the majority of the people and that the specific acts of government should express the will of the majority (of adult males) was most systematically expounded and justified in the writings of John Locke (1690). Locke’s fundamental position was founded upon the equality principle, which he assumed to be self-evident and which seemed to him to dictate the majority principle as opposed to any form of minority rule. Popular acceptance of this decision-making rule, he felt, was based upon both convenience and the superior strength of a majority.

This theory spread rapidly and became the foundation of political liberalism. Rousseau adopted it, with the important refinement that he specifically indicated that the support of more than a bare majority for all important political decisions should be insisted upon, unless the urgency of reaching a decision dictated otherwise [seeRousseau]. In England, Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarian school accepted the equalitarian principle unquestioningly and, as a corollary, accepted also the rule that for all political decisions the concurrence of a majority should be a sufficient as well as a necessary condition [seeBentham]. The theory and practice of constitutional democracy, however, as it spread throughout most of the Western world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, generally recognized certain individual and minority rights and gave them some form of constitutional protection, thus placing limitations on bare majorities. [SeeConstitutions and Constitutionalism.]

Contemporary issues

Today, within the context of democratic principles, majority rule as the rule for decision making is the subject of continuing analysis and discussion from two points of view. One debate relates to whether it is legitimate, from the point of view of the democratic ethic, to require more than a bare majority for certain decisions. The other area of discussion deals with the question of whether majority rule is, in any sense of that difficult word, the best, most “rational” technique for expressing the equality principle, maximizing satisfaction, or attaining any other posited objective of democratic government.

Merits of majoritarianism . Various writers have argued that the essence of the democratic ethic requires that the will (vote) of a simple majority should always prevail over the opposition. Any other rule, they urge, places a minority in a position to frustrate a majority and thus, in a sense, to rule. Accordingly, the logical and only legitimate derivative of the equalitarian, democratic assumption is held to entail bare majority rule.

Others defend the same decision-making rule on more pragmatic grounds. They maintain that a requirement, for any purpose, of more than a simple majority places undesirable obstacles in the way of government. The dice are sufficiently loaded against progressive change without placing in the hands of self-interested or traditionally oriented minorities a powerful instrument of obstructionism. As long as opportunity for free association, discussion, and deliberation prevails, they argue, the rights of minorities will not be trampled upon. In a fluid and pluralistic society, a majority will not consist of a solid, fixed interest but will be made up of shifting coalitions of groups well aware of the fact that tomorrow they may be part of a minority and, therefore, sensitive to the interests and rights of minorities.

Opponents of strict majoritarianism advance numerous arguments. First, they point out that the majoritarian principle might be used to destroy the conditions of its own existence, such as freedom of association and expression. Moreover, other individual rights widely accepted as fundamental, such as the right to freedom of religion, the protection of fair procedure (“due process”), or property rights, might not always be respected by the majority. They also contend that bare majority rule is potentially unfair: it does not really institutionalize the equality principle, for instead of giving to the minority its rightful proportionate weight, it gives it none at all. The strict majoritarian position is questioned on still another ground: not only does it fail to give weight to minorities; it also takes no account of the intensity of interest or demand. Finally, quite apart from the equality principle, the desirability of rule by a bare majority may be challenged on purely pragmatic grounds. Where feelings are intense, a decision to override a large minority poses a serious threat to basic consensus. On the question of racial segregation in United States public schools, for instance, the minority feels so intensely that the basis for law and order itself is threatened when the attempt is made to compel complete integration.

Majoritarians have frequently argued in an abstract manner that renders at least part of their position so unrealistic as to be inapplicable in real life. If it is the majority that should in all situations and at every turn rule, because of the principle of political equality, presumably it is the majority of the electorate who should rule. In other words, nothing short of direct democracy could satisfy this condition, for representatives do not always express the will of the majority of their constituents. Even if each representative did always vote the wishes of a majority of his constituents and if all constituencies contained exactly the same number of voters, the majority might not rule because minorities might be unevenly dispersed among the electoral districts. Moreover, on most questions that confront legislatures, many or most of the voters have no opinion, as opinion surveys are continually showing. The majority principle under these circumstances leads to pursuit of a will-o’-the-wisp. From these and similar considerations emerges the conclusion that the principle of political equality cannot lead to any clear and invariable rule for decision making. What institutional and voting arrangements should be adopted becomes a pragmatic matter, whether the goal is to reflect the desires of the greatest number of voters or whether different objectives, such as preservation of consensus and other conditions for continuing democracy and giving effect to intensity as well as numbers of opinions or desires, are taken into account.

Rational decision making . The other approach from which the problem of majority rule is currently being studied is a refinement of one of the arguments enumerated above, using the techniques of mathematics and of game theory. Even with models assuming rational men (denned as men who know what they want and pursue their ends by the most efficient means available), it appears that majority rule is not always an optimal decision-making process’that is, it does not maximize satisfaction. In particular, where the problem is one of allocation of goods, the results of majority decisions may be quite fortuitous, because everything depends upon the procedure adopted for proposing alternatives and submitting them for decision. Moreover, under certain circumstances, majority decisions may consistently lead to results that are less satisfactory (e.g., by the standard of the “Pareto optimum”) than decisions arrived at in some other way (Buchanan & Tullock 1962, chapter 12; Ward 1961).

Serious problems could arise where voters’ preferences are socially intransitive—that is, where the ways in which different voters would rank a series of possible choices are scrambled rather than patterned. For example: X prefers A to B, B to C, and A to C. Y prefers B to C, C to A, and B to A. Z prefers C to A, A to B, and C to B. It will be seen that a majority prefer A to B and B to C. It would seem, then, that the community, if it is rational, prefers A to C. But in fact a majority prefer C to A; and this result (known as the “voters’ paradox”) would be arrived at by the normal legislative procedure of voting on each of the possible pairs in turn (Arrow 1951, p. 3). This analysis suggests an important question: How often are preferences affecting political decisions in fact distributed in this socially intransitive fashion? Currently data bearing on this question are almost wholly lacking [seeDecision Making].

Evaluation

It has been shown that it would be impossible to carry majority rule to its logical conclusion—to insist that all public policies be determined by majority will. Further, many arguments have been adduced that suggest serious ethical and practical limitations to the principle. Although the shortcomings of the principle are increasingly recognized, disagreement and sheer puzzlement as to desirable substitutes still prevail. Clearly no single alternative is acceptable. Beyond this point, generalization becomes difficult. Liberal democrats are widely agreed that individual and minority rights should have some protection against tyrannous majorities. Most constitutional democracies today seek to give a special status to some of these rights, protecting them from infringement by simple majorities. The government of Great Britain comes closer than most to enthroning simple majorities, yet even there the House of Lords remains as a slight check upon pure majoritarianism, while strong traditions of constitutional morality, fair play, and respect for minority rights place even more effective checks upon majorities. Many contend that informal checks are enough and that legal checks, whether in the form of requirements for extraordinary majorities or of the concurrence of different branches of a government responsible to separate constituencies, are unnecessary and undesirable. Some would cite the British experience in support of this position, but others would maintain that all depends upon the conditions of the country in question. In France under the Fourth Republic, for instance, institutional arrangements not very different from those that prevail in Britain permitted (and some would say encouraged) a degree of governmental instability that eroded consensus and respect for government to the point that the regime collapsed.

Granted, however, that constitutional devices to limit majorities may be desirable, it is difficult to show what devices are best, even under a given set of circumstances. Protection for the freedoms necessary for the continued effective functioning of majority rule are easily defended, but even here there is room for dispute as to means. It is difficult to determine whether requirements for extraordinary majorities, for bicameralism, or for the separation of powers are more or less likely to give proper weight to intense desires and to maximize satisfaction. Such devices do, however, have one important virtue, from the democratic point of view: they compel delay, giving time for deliberation; they force the majority, or those who are seeking governmental action, to try to win support for their proposal. This process is likely to contribute to the dissemination of information, to analysis of the probable effects of alternative courses of action, and to considered judgment of the various values and disvalues that may be involved. On such questions, however, one must rely at best on highly qualitative judgments. The need for research in this area is great.

Since modern industrial societies are typically highly pluralistic, majorities for any course of action can normally be obtained only by aggregating the support of a number of powerful groups. This process requires educational campaigns, argumentation, and deliberation. In itself it may meet the needs pointed out in the criticisms of majoritarianism, and it may do so without offering minority interests the opportunities for obstructionism provided by the numerous constitutional restraints embodied in, say, the constitution of the United States.

With respect to the shortcomings of the majority principle as a means for solving allocation problems in a way that maximizes satisfaction, a similar dilemma appears. It is easier to criticize the principle than to offer a better one. Here, again, the need for research and speculative imagination is great. Can ways be found to obtain fairer results without sacrificing the protection that majority rule provides against a consolidated and tyrannous minority? Can this be done without also giving up the values of popular interest and participation in the policymaking process? Ideally, different decision-making rules would be demanded for different situations, depending upon such variables as the type of question to be decided and the nature of the prevailing party and pressure-group systems.

One concluding point helps place the subject in perspective. Relatively small groups whose members view each other with respect and as equals tend to make their decisions unanimously, especially on important matters and, where unanimity is impracticable, to approach it as closely as possible. At the other extreme, small groups whose consensus is low are also likely to insist upon unanimity, more from mutual distrust than from mutual respect. In large groups unanimity is impracticable. If consensus is high, as in Great Britain, the polity may tolerate rule by simple majority. Where the society is more heterogeneous, or the divisions are sharper, concurrence by more than a simple majority will often be required and will, in fact, be essential for the preservation of a viable polity.

J. Roland Pennock

[See alsoConsensus; Democracy; Elections; Equality; Liberalism; Representation.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aarow, Kenneth J. (1951) 1963 Social Choice and Individual Values. 2d ed. New York: Wiley.

Baty, Thomas 1912 The History of Majority Rule. Quarterly Review 216:1-28.

Black, Duncan 1958 The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Buchanan, James M.; and Tullock, Gordon 1962 The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.

Calhoun, John C. (1851) 1953 A Disquisition on Government, and Selections From the Discourse. New York: Liberal Arts Press. ? Published posthumously.

Clarke, Maude V. (1936) 1964 Medieval Representation and Consent: A Study of Early Parliaments in England and Ireland With Special Reference to the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum. New York: Russell.

De grazia, Alfred 1963 Apportionment and Representative Government. New York: Praeger. ? A paperback edition was published in 1963 by the American Enterprise Institute.

Friedrich, Carl J. 1942 The New Belief in the Common Man. Boston: Little. ? See especially Chapter 4.

Heinberg, John G. 1932 Theories of Majority Rule. American Political Science Review 26:452–469.

Kendall, Willmoore 1950 Prolegomena to Any Future Work in Majority Rule.Journal of Politics 12:694–713.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1965 The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. New York: Free Press.

Locke, John (1690) 1964 The Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government. Pages 283–446 in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mcclosky, Herbert 1949 The Fallacy of Absolute Majority Rule. Journal of Politics 11:637–654.

Mims, Edwin jr. 1941 The Majority of the People. New York: Modern Age.

Pennock, J. Roland 1952 Responsiveness, Responsibility and Majority Rule.American Political Science Review 46:790–807.

Ranney, J. Austin; and Kendall, Willmoore 1951 Democracy: Confusion and Agreement.Western Political Quarterly 4:430–439.

Riker, William H. 1961 Voting and the Summation of Preferences: An Interpretive Bibliographical Review of Selected Developments During the Last Decade. American Political Science Review 55:900–911.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1762) 1962 The Social Contract. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. ? First published in French. See especially Book 4, Chapter 2.

Ward, Benjamin 1961 Majority Rule and Allocation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 5:379–389.