Everyone has used majority rule to decide things at one time or another, haven’t they?
Majority rule is used to make decisions at work, at school, with a group of friends, or even on a national scale.
Majority rule is used in many situations like this, but there are also many opinions that point out its problems.
I often hear the following arguments against majority rule. “It’s killing off minority opinions!” or “More respect for minority opinions!” or “Just because you use majority rule doesn’t mean you’ll get the right result!“
I think majority rule is not so good because it results in the minority’s opinion being ignored.
I don’t think it’s good to have a system that allows the majority to do whatever they want
However, I think that majority rule is an essential part of decision making, and that it is because of majority rule that things are decided and the situation moves forward.
I’ll explain that in more detail below.
Majority rule does not determine rightness
In the first place, majority rule is not about deciding which is right.
It does not mean that the majority opinion is right, nor does it mean that the minority opinion is wrong.
Majority rule is a way of deciding like “Let’s try this one for now!”
I mean, for example, let’s say a group decides whether to go to a dog park or a cat park.
The question of whether to go to the dog park or the cat park is not like a math problem where there is a fixed answer.
It is up to each person to decide which park they want to go to, some want to go to the dog park, some want to go to the cat park.
If you are debating which way to go on a problem like this, which has no fixed right answer, you will never get an answer and the day will be over before you know it.
In the worst case, the discussion could break down and end up going nowhere.
Majority rule is the tool used to settle a problem that has no right answer.
This “go to dog park or cat park” question does not have one clear answer like the math problem.
Which park people want to go to is different for each person, some want to go to the dog park and some want to go to the cat park.
Even if people are discussing the issue that they don’t know the correct answer at this point, they won’t be able to give an answer, and if they realize it, the day will be over.
In the worst case, it will break down and you will not go to both the dog park and the cat park.
In such a case, the majority vote is the tool used to settle a problem that has no correct answer.
If they use a majority vote, they’ll get an answer as to which way to go, so the day won’t end without deciding the answer.
They can move the situation forward for now.
It is used to move things forward, rather than deciding which is right or wrong.
Certainly, even if you always say “this is good” or “that is good”, there is no end to it.
Also, people who wanted to go to the cat park might say that “dog park was surprisingly interesting!”.
There are many problems in the world where the correct answer is unknown and opinions are divided due to differences in individual thinking.
In order to solve such problems, we have to decide a policy once.
And if you use a system called majority voting, you can decide once.
In this way, the majority vote emphasizes “deciding”.
It is important for the minority to submit to the decisions of the majority
However, when you decide things by majority vote, you will always be shouted out, “Respect the opinions of the minority!” or “Don’t eliminate the opinions of the minority!“
Certainly, I think it is necessary to respect the opinions of the minority.
But shouldn’t we have to respect the opinions of the majority more than that?
When thinking about a problem for which we don’t know the correct answer, I think it’s conceited to take the attitude that “my idea is absolutely correct”.
And I think the group would not be united without the following attitude “because everyone decided by using a majority vote, I’ll follow the result of the majority vote even if it is different from my opinion”.
When the group got lost, after taking a majority vote on “go to the right road or the left road”, the minority replied, “No, I’m going here!” And the group split.
Hmmm, if the minority doesn’t follow the decision, the group will collapse.
If you don’t know the correct answer, you can make a mistake no matter which way you go.
And if you fail by the majority’s decision, the group would be able to more convince rather than when the group follows the minority
Respecting the opinions of the minority is certainly important, but if you insist on only that, things won’t move forward and things will get worse.
I think it is very important that the minority also follow the decision of the majority.
There are many questions that we don’t know what is the correct answer, so I don’t think my opinion is absolutely correct, and in the end it’s important to follow the majority vote for the time being!
I have to be humble and listen to the opinions of others.
I can’t quite do it
A minority rebelled against Lincoln’s election, and the Civil War broke out
In the United States, Lincoln who was against slavery was elected president in the 1860 presidential election.
Lincoln’s election as president means he has received the support of many.
However, the opposition minority still wanted to maintain slavery, and the minority left the United States in opposition to the result of the presidential election.
Then a war began between the majority and the minority, eventually resulting in a large-scale war that killed more than 500,000 people.
If the minority does not follow the decisions of the majority, it will be out of order and cause great confusion.
The Civil War example is a large one, but even a small group would be similarly confused if the minority opposes the result of the majority vote.
I think it can be said that the minority needs to respect the will of the majority and follows the decisions of the majority so that the minority will not suffer any disadvantages in isolation.
The quality of those who use majority rule is also questioned
Those who say, “The will of the majority may become out of control!” often point out the danger of a majority vote by citing the example of the Nazis led by Hitler.
Sure, the majority of the German people at that time produced Hitler, but the situation in Germany at that time was unusual.
As a result of World War I, Germany was incurred a huge amount of compensation which is for 20 years of Germany’s national budget at that time.
And if Germany could not repay its debt, Germany’s territory would be taken over by another country, hyperinflation occurred in the German economy and the German economy was tattered, and then the Great Depression occurred and the German economy was tattered again.
There are more than 6 million unemployed and the unemployment rate was 44%, so the situation in Germany at that time was quite harsh.
In such a situation, Hitler who tried to break down the old politics and called for the revival of Germany gained the support of the people.
The German economy is tattered and the lives of the people are difficult, the territory of Germany is taken by another country, and even if the Great Depression occurs, the other countries are thinking only about themselves.
In such a situation, I think it can be said that the anger of the German people produced Hitler.
In a sense, it can be said that this is the result of democracy working, for better or for worse.
Democracy speaks for the will of the people, and it can be said that Hitler merely spoke for the will of the people’s dissatisfaction and anger.
So, I think it’s a little strange to give Hitler’s example and completely deny the majority vote.
I don’t think the majority vote is bad, but the quality of the majority voter is just as important.
For example, if a good chef uses a kitchen knife, he can make food that makes people happy, but if a person who has a grudge against a person uses a kitchen knife, the worst result can be achieved.
Kitchen knives can be good or bad depending on how they are used, and I think the majority vote can be said to be the same.
Also, it can’t be a good result if bad personalities start a majority vote to decide who to tease.
After all, nothing is perfect, and the advantages and disadvantages exist at the same time.
I think it’s only natural that the same thing will have different results if it is used differently.
The quality of the majority vote is also a question, so I think it is a little strange to give Hitler’s example and completely deny the majority vote .
As mentioned above, I wrote an article with the purpose of “Isn’t it strange to completely deny the majority vote?”
If people completely deny the majority vote, then I would like to ask them what other way of decisions they have.
Will it be decided by coins?
Or will only some elites decide things?
After all, I think the majority vote is better.
It turned out that the majority vote wasn’t about deciding what was right, it was a way to go further, so my distrust of the majority was pretty much dispelled!
There are many other ways to decide on a majority vote, so if you’re curious, you should look into it more!
I’m a little interested, but I have a headache, so I’m going to sleep
The majority vote is simple, so it’s deep.
I write for a long time and also have a headache, so I sleep a little.
Thank you for reading!
See you next time 🙂