Democracy and Morality

[Kimberly_L]

I was wondering if you all could help me with with these questions.
Explain why simple majority rule voting to make decisions in social context is immoral.
Suppose a society uses an 80% majority rule voting procedure to adopt rules, regulations, and laws. Explain the pros and cons of this alternative to simple majority rule.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I think discussion of these questions may be beyond the scope of this forum. Each society can decide whatever rules it wants.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

It is absurd to say that majority rule is immoral. These sound like test questions and make me wonder what sort of befuddled class you might be taking.

[J. J.]

I normally say, "I don't do legal."   I don't do moral either. 

I think that the majority can make a decision that is immoral.  Parliamentary law, however, deals with the process used to reach the decision.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/3/2017 at 3:12 PM, Kimberly_L said:

I was wondering if you all could help me with with these questions.
Explain why simple majority rule voting to make decisions in social context is immoral.
Suppose a society uses an 80% majority rule voting procedure to adopt rules, regulations, and laws. Explain the pros and cons of this alternative to simple majority rule.

The 80% threshold is often referred to as "consensus" voting.  Here's what RONR has to say about the practice.  (emphasis added) :

 

Quote

Robert was surely aware of the early evolutionary development of parliamentary procedure in the English House of Lords resulting in a movement from “consensus,” in its original sense of unanimous agreement, toward a decision by majority vote as we know it today. This evolution came about from a recognition that a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly that tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings—reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity—can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudoconsensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility. Furthermore, what is apparently taken to be the sense of the meeting may well be little more than a “least common denominator” of such generality as to contribute little to the solution of the practical problem involved, thereby leaving such matters to officers or staff or the meeting’s organizers to work out according to their own intentions. Robert saw, on the other hand, that the evolution of majority vote in tandem with lucid and clarifying debate—resulting in a decision representing the view of the deliberate majority—far more clearly ferrets out and demonstrates the will of an assembly. It is through the application of genuine persuasion and parliamentary technique that General Robert was able to achieve decisions in meetings he led which were so free of divisiveness within the group.

Edited to add:

If it's any help, I've promised myself that I would never again join an organization that used anything other than majority voting and open debate, for the simple reason that I've had experience with "consensus" decision making and mourn the many wasted hours I will never get back dealing with watered-down defaults and least-common-denominator thinking. 

Edited November 5, 2017 at 03:46 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Hieu H. Huynh]

And the above quote is found in the Introduction of RONR on page l (lowercase "L").

[Josh Martin]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:12 PM, Kimberly_L said:

I was wondering if you all could help me with with these questions.
Explain why simple majority rule voting to make decisions in social context is immoral.
Suppose a society uses an 80% majority rule voting procedure to adopt rules, regulations, and laws. Explain the pros and cons of this alternative to simple majority rule.

RONR would disagree strongly with the notion that simple majority rule voting is immoral. A majority vote is the requirement for most decisions in RONR. In some cases, RONR requires a higher threshold, or suggests that a society adopt a higher threshold, such as a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, a majority vote with previous notice, or even a 2/3 vote with previous notice. Such cases generally involve motions which involve limiting the rights of members, suspending or amending the rules, or altering action previously taken by the assembly. RONR does not require or suggest a 4/5 (80%) vote for anything.

I work with an organization that has a 2/3 voting requirement for almost all of its business. The effects tend to be that when the assembly does make a decision, the organization is more firmly behind it, but it also means that it is difficult for the organization to make a decision. This generally means that if a topic is controversial, no action is taken one way or the other. It tends to lead to very long meetings when action must be taken, such as adopting a budget or electing officers. Due to these difficulties, the organization recently lowered the requirement for the election of officers to 3/5. As I understand it, the organization adopted these rules due to disagreements between the organization’s constituent units, and there was concern that using a simple majority vote would lead to significant conflict, or even the dissolution of the organization, due to intense disagreements.

I get the impression that your questions are about “societies” in the sense of nations, not private organizations, however, so the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and James Madison will likely be more relevant to the subject.

Edited November 5, 2017 at 03:30 PM by Josh Martin

[g40]

Quote

If it's any help, I've promised myself that I would never again join an organization that used anything other than majority voting and open debate, for the simple reason that I've had experience with "consensus" decision making and mourn the many wasted hours I will never get back dealing with watered-down defaults and least-common-denominator thinking.

There are many fine organizations (I am part of several) that hold various types of elections decided by plurality. I don't know if plurality elections would cause you to not participate in such organizations. Note also that, according to RONR, some actions require a 2/3 vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

I would not draw a hard line against joining a group that used plurality elections; after all, I vote in public elections.

But if the matter were up for debate, I would be in favor of using majority voting as described in RONR.

(Yes, of course I understand and support the use of 2/3 vote where appropriate.)

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 12:32 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If it's any help, I've promised myself that I would never again join an organization that used anything other than majority voting and open debate, for the simple reason that I've had experience with "consensus" decision making and mourn the many wasted hours I will never get back dealing with watered-down defaults and least-common-denominator thinking. 

 

17 hours ago, g40 said:

There are many fine organizations (I am part of several) that hold various types of elections decided by plurality. I don't know if plurality elections would cause you to not participate in such organizations. Note also that, according to RONR, some actions require a 2/3 vote.

 

I think that virtually everyone (except, apparently, g40) understood that Mr. Novosielski was not saying that he would never join an organization in which elections may be decided by plurality vote, or in which some motions require a two-thirds vote for their adoption. He was obviously referring to an organization in which "consensus", instead of a majority vote, is the basic requirement for decision making. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/4/2017 at 11:32 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

If it's any help, I've promised myself that I would never again join an organization that used anything other than majority voting and open debate, for the simple reason that I've had experience with "consensus" decision making and mourn the many wasted hours I will never get back dealing with watered-down defaults and least-common-denominator thinking. 

I, on the other hand, would accept election to the Senate.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, I guess I was wrong. Apparently Mr. Katz also misunderstood Mr. Novosielski's post. 

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, I guess I was wrong. Apparently Mr. Katz also misunderstood Mr. Novosielski's post. 

Isn't the basis of the filibuster the notion that the Senate is a deliberative body which seeks consensus rather than simple majority rule?  

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Isn't the basis of the filibuster the notion that the Senate is a deliberative body which seeks consensus rather than simple majority rule?  

No, I don't think so. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/7/2017 at 8:05 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, I guess I was wrong. Apparently Mr. Katz also misunderstood Mr. Novosielski's post. 

Maybe not.  I think Mr. Katz was referring to the fact that, once elected, he would be bound by the rules of the Senate, which do not always operate on the basis of a majority vote.

[Dan Honemann]

19 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Maybe not.  I think Mr. Katz was referring to the fact that, once elected, he would be bound by the rules of the Senate, which do not always operate on the basis of a majority vote.

Neither do organizations operating under the rules in RONR, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

[Gary Novosielski]

49 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Neither do organizations operating under the rules in RONR, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

I don't know the price of eggs.  (I have chickens.)

[Dan Honemann]

17 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't know the price of eggs.  (I have chickens.)

Well, I can 't imagine that anyone would suppose that the Senate uses "consensus" (in the sense referred to in the last paragraph of RONR's Introduction) as the requirement for the passage of bills. 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, I can 't imagine that anyone would suppose that the Senate uses "consensus" (in the sense referred to in the last paragraph of RONR's Introduction) as the requirement for the passage of bills. 

 

No, but it becomes a matter of degree at some point.  The introduction uses "unanimity or near unanimity" as the requirement, and I've seen 80% commonly used, usually as a fallback position when even the consensus zealots realize that unanimity in any group of thinking people is unachievable, and often inversely proportional to the triviality of the question.  I've seen a religious congregation nearly torn apart over the proposed color of the carpeting in the sanctuary.  The group was united on large questions such as the inherent worth and dignity of humankind, but the range of opinions on carpet was stunning, leading to actual table-pounding during Board meetings, accompanied by demands to state "for the record" that "Autumn Rose" was the "only appropriate color for this congregation!" with a veiled threat to resign (yes, this was the minister) thrown in for good measure.  You can't make this up.

Using the words "consensus" and "Senate" in the same sentence may seem delightfully quaint, but the filibuster nowadays amounts to a 60-vote "supermajority" requirement for substantive motions. It's less than 80 and more than 50, so in a sense it requires more consensus than is needed in the House.  

In my view, there is no such thing as a "supermajority'.  There is either majority rule, or there is minority rule.  If it takes 80% consensus to pass something, then a 20% minority is in control of the agenda, and it doesn't take them more than ten minutes to realize it, and act accordingly, i.e., badly, ruling by obstruction. 

If majority rule is in effect, then the surest way for would-be obstructionists to prosper is to debate and offer amendments in good faith, so that what finally gets passed is something they can live with.  Sitting and pouting has no payoff, since something even less palatable is likely to be the result.

[Dan Honemann]

32 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Using the words "consensus" and "Senate" in the same sentence may seem delightfully quaint, but the filibuster nowadays amounts to a 60-vote "supermajority" requirement for substantive motions. It's less than 80 and more than 50, so in a sense it requires more consensus than is needed in the House.  

But confusing the vote required to end debate and the vote required for the passage of substantive motions, as you seem to be doing here, doesn't help matters.  

[Gary Novosielski]

39 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But confusing the vote required to end debate and the vote required for the passage of substantive motions, as you seem to be doing here, doesn't help matters.  

The point is well-taken, and the case could certainly be made that the Senate cloture vote threshold is less onerous than RONR's 2/3 vote for the Previous Question. But since the filibuster or threat of one seems to have become a defacto standard for any piece of substantive legislation, and since the Senate has few default or natural limits on debate, failing to obtain a "consensus" of 60 percent will serve to kill a bill.  

I will plead guilty to adding to the confusion, but I would point to 100 potential co-defendants of that crime.