A Majority Vote Does Not Suit All Situations

Do you assume a majority decision must always be upheld as a measure of the right decision for all? I used to assume this, but then realised that a majority vote does  not cater for all situations and may not always be fair. Imagine if a jury vote was a majority vote instead of a vote where all must agree? I wrote recently how a single person on a jury may sometimes be the only person standing in the way of an unanimous guilty vote, and may actually have a valid argument for a person's innocence when everyone else has assumed that person's guilt. How many people would be sent innocently to be executed if not for the protective power of a total agreement vote? (See blog article "The Power Of One Voice (Part 2): Making A Stand For Justice In 12 Angry Men")

Majority decision

In a majority vote, a decision is made based on the opinion of the majority of a group, and we assume this to be a fair decision, as most of the people will be happy most of the time. A majority opinion is normally assumed to be the agreement of 51 percent of a group, but in some cases has been set at higher figures, for example in South Africa a two thirds majority is currently required to change the constitution. The word democracy is tied together with majority opinion, as it seems fair to base decisions on what most of a populations wants. Majority opinion of the voting public decides who the next leaders of a country will be. We may use this type of vote in office environments, for example to decide where to hold end of year functions. If 49% of a group disagree with the type of event proposed, this is seen to be acceptable as we have the vote of 51%. Realise though that in the end many of the 49% of the group may not attend the function, and some of the 51% may also not attend the function! We sometimes use a majority vote in families to decide activities, and anyone with children will know this does not work as a child will not watch a movie if he or she actually wanted to go to a park to play! Often the larger the numbers, the more a majority vote is used.

A consensus decision

At odds with a majority decision is a decision based on obtaining the consensus of a group. If there are 10 people in a room making a decision only a show of 10 hands will mean agreement has been reached. This is the same principle as shown by a jury decision. An unanimous decision may mean slow progress in reaching a decision, and may require a facilitated collaborative process. If there's not total agreement then this shows that somewhere there is disagreement, that someone's viewpoint requires further discussion. The group may need to discuss matters again and again and take new ideas into account until total consensus is reached. It is important that each person makes a stand for what they believe in and is not swayed by peer pressure. This type of collaborative decision is most useful in considering matters like human rights. In human rights all people are equally important. All people must be allowed freedom to be who they are, to practice their own culture and religion, to be free of discrimination based on race, age, disability etc. But in writing this I don't mean this gives people free reign to do anything and call it a human right based on cultural or religious practices. Agreed laws need to be adhered to as a first initial step, and then human rights kicks in. As an example, one of the basic human laws is not to murder anyone. If someone then murders someone because of religious or other reasons, this murder cannot be tolerated and must be punished. The law and culture of a country must be upheld first, and then freedom of beliefs. In making decisions that affect human rights, like allowing a change that will impact a sector of society, for example separation of religion from state law or combining religion together with state law, people representing each sector should be involved in making these decisions. Such a constitutional change may have far reaching implications for the culture of a nation and must be made with great care, taking all needs into account. If one person disagrees then further discussion and agreement is called for until all agree.

A simple contrast between majority and consensus decision making

In conclusion

Sometimes a different model to a majority decision is needed. Perhaps a combination of styles should be used. A majority vote is best suited where a quick vote is needed, and where it is not important to take everyone's viewpoint into account, where critical outcomes are not at stake. A majority vote is sufficient to elect a government, as most leaders today will govern well and aim to do the best they can and take the needs of all into account - though as I write this I pause and wonder if the best model for a government might be one that includes all supported political parties, based on each one's percentage support: a collaborative government of national unity as used in South Africa after apartheid, instead of a competitive choice between major parties - perhaps a topic for future debate! An office year end function is not a life and death matter, but a jury decision is a critical decision and overall consensus is needed in decision making. I would suggest that consensus decision making be used where human rights and freedom of a group is impacted, and that any change to a country's constitution impacting a group's human rights should be made via an overall consensus decision. If there is not total agreement in an initial consensus vote then a collaborative process needs to occur until consensus is reached.

Links to related articles on this blog: 

• This article is about a lone voice making a stand for justice and changing the outcome. One jury member believes in a defendant's innocence when all other jury members have already assumed guilt: The Power Of One Voice (Part ): Making A Stand For Justice In 12 Angry Men
• I wrote an article about how useful collaboration might be in our future world, to reuse existing bases instead of competing afresh each time: Collaboration Wins Over Competition
• Minority groups are often forgotten in all the numbers, and here I try to show how important it is to embrace forgotten people, as they have a rich cultural heritage and purpose of their own to give to the world: Ode To The San (Bushmen)
• As part of collaboration I also believe that it is important to support the ethical leaders we have, as constant criticism diverts their attention from the task at hand: Support leaders on all levels of society: united we stand, divided we fall