Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
Abraham Lincoln… unless the king has been elected by unanimous vote, what, failing a prior agreement, is the source of the minority's obligation to submit to the choice of the majority? Whence the right of the hundred who do wish a master to speak for the ten who do not? The majority principle is itself a product of agreement, and presupposes unanimity on at least one occasion.
Jean-Jacques RousseauIn Chapter 4 we argued that the ubiquitous popularity of majority rule might be attributable to the speed with which committees can make decisions using it. This quickness defense was undermined considerably in Chapter 5 by the results on cycling. A committee caught in a voting cycle may not be able to reach a decision quickly, and the outcome at which it eventually does arrive may be arbitrarily determined by institutional details, or nonarbitrarily determined by a cunning agenda setter. Is this all one can say in majority rule's behalf? Does the case for the majority rule rest on the promise that quasi-omniscient party leaders can arrange stable trades to maximize the aggregate welfare of the legislature discussed in Section 5.13.3?
When asked to explain majority rule's popularity, students unfamiliar with the vast public choice literature on the topic usually mention justness, fairness, egalitarian, and similar normative attributes that they feel characterize majority rule.
Review the options below to login to check your access.
Log in with your Cambridge Higher Education account to check access.
If you believe you should have access to this content, please contact your institutional librarian or consult our FAQ page for further information about accessing our content.