8.8 The Majority Rule

Discussion on the notion of competition for power through history.
Reference to John Locke's theories as foundational in the understanding of majority rule.

Locke is recognized as a theorist of individual rights and an early defender of majority rule.
In his work "Second Treatise of Government":
- Majority rule reflects the collective power of a political community.
- States that a community requires a consensus, primarily driven by the majority, to function effectively.
- Quote from Locke: "Once a community is formed, it acts as a single body determined by majority consent."

Majority rule is seen as the default presumption in political communities.
Alternatives, such as consensus or minority rule, are impractical due to:
- Difficulty in achieving universal agreement
- Increased decision-making time required for consensus
Locke argues that the majority’s power is a natural occurrence in societies built on consent.

Przyborski articulates that majority rule is akin to displaying power dynamics.
Raises concerns regarding the implications of majority tyranny, as highlighted by Tocqueville.

Examines the potential conflict between majority rule and the protection of individual rights.
Locke cites "law of nature and reason" as justification for majority rule:
- Emphasizes the rational basis for preferring majority decisions.

Buchanan and Tullock presented the idea of "Calculus of Consent" in their 1962 book.
- Propose that as the population increases, so does the potential for rights violations.
- Suggests that requiring unanimity could minimize rights violations but increases decision-making costs.
Discusses the balance between decision-making costs and the risk of violating rights:
- Majority rule becomes acceptable when issues are less significant, allowing for practical governance.

As the number of voters increases, decision-making time and complexities rise.
Prioritization of decision importance leads to varying rule preferences:
- For crucial issues, unanimity might be preferred.
- For less significant decisions, majority or simple rules may be acceptable.

Unanimity may lead to stagnation in political processes and reinforce status quo bias.
Suggests a flawed starting point of social contract thinking that hinders collective action.

Review of Brian Barry and Douglas Rae's arguments:
- Preference for majority rule emerges from a veil of ignorance perspective.
- An unbiased starting point makes the likelihood of being on the losing side more probable under unanimity.
Rational preference is to minimize risks associated with potential negative outcomes of the status quo.

Majority rule, while initially appearing as power play, has a rational foundation that seeks to protect against the tyranny of the majority.
It balances the representation of collective interests with the need to protect individual rights, forming an essential aspect of democratic governance.