Suchergebnisse

This book discusses multiple ways of voting in a democratic system and explains the basis of more consensual politics. Without delving into too much technical argument or too many mathematical examples, it aims to show that binary decision-making is blunt, primitive, divisive, and sometimes inaccurate; prove that other methodologies are more accurate and, therefore, more democratic; highlight more inclusive and effective voting procedures; discuss electoral reforms for national parliaments and international forums like the UN Security Council and COP26/27. The book is written not just for academia, or for the politicians and journalists, or for other specialists; it is for the general public: for students still at school, for voters in society at large, and for activists in umpteen NGOs.

Decision-making in Parliaments and Referendums -- Parliamentary and Presidential Elections -- Governance: From Power-dividing to Power-sharing -- Majority Voting in Belfast, Dublin and London -- Continental Europe – Are We All Little Bolshevik? -- Asia, Where Voting was Invented -- Majoritarian Democracy – the Catalyst of Populism

This book discusses voting procedures in collective decision-making. Drawing on well-established election processes from all over the world, the author presents a voting procedure that allows for the speedy but fair election of a proportional, all-party coalition. The methodology - a matrix vote - is accurate, robust and ethno-color blind. In the vote, the counting procedure encourages all concerned to cross the gender as well as any party and/or sectarian divides. While in the resulting executive each party will be represented fairly and, at best, with the consensus of parliament, every minister will be the one most suited to his/her new portfolio. By using preferential voting and thus achieving consensus, the matrix vote will be fundamental to the resolution of conflicts. The matrix vote can also be used when: • two or more parliamentary parties elect a coalition government • one parliamentary party elects a government or shadow cabinet, or organizations in civil society elect their governing boards or executive committees • any group chooses a fixed number of individuals to form a team in which each member carries out a different function

The basis of western democracy is the almost universal belief that controversies shall be resolved by the will of a majority. And quite right too. Unfortunately, this leads many to take decisions by a majority vote, with proposed amendments and then the motion itself all approved or rejected in simple yes-or-no ballots. Other more accurate voting systems have long since been devised, and yet binary voting prevails, not only in democracies, but also in theocracies and autocracies; it is ubiquitous, in politics, business and law. Accordingly, this article analyses its weaknesses, discusses its origins, relates a little history, and refers to some of its worst consequences. It then goes on to describe a non-majoritarian methodology, to compare majority voting to other decision-making voting procedures, and finally to talk of a world where the words ‘majority’, ‘minority’ and ‘veto’ may fade from the political lexicon.

Throughout human history, havoc has been wrought by just a handful of very powerful leaders. The ultimate catastrophe could also be caused by just a few individuals, by unleashing a nuclear war or by ignoring international agreements on climate change. Donald Trump, for example, may renege on the Paris Agreement and commit other ecological blunders, which could spell the end for everyone. In a nutshell, the current democratic process gives him far too much power. The rights of any one citizen or country must be tempered by the rights of all. Alas, current forms of decision-making often fail to involve everyone in the final decision, the most obvious instances relating to decisions taken by a (simple or weighted) majority vote. If instead decision-making were based on the local, national or international consensus, such exclusive decisions could not be taken so easily. It should also be pointed out that majoritarianism – majority rule based on majority voting – has been and still is problematic in numerous inter-communal conflicts. This paper therefore outlines the flaws involved in binary voting; next, as a better methodology, it proposes a more inclusive voting mechanism; and finally, it advocates a structure to ensure that agreements are implemented, with possible penalties for those individuals, organisations or countries that flaunt the international consensus.

And the winner was… devo-max. It was not on the ballot paper; it received just a handful of spoiled votes; but it won. So maybe the two-option, yes-or-no ballot was not the most appropriate decision-making methodology. Rather, a three-option poll might have been the catalyst for a more subtle debate and a more accurate outcome, while a preferential vote on five or six options could have catered for even more sophistication. Accordingly, this article questions the decision to restrict the 2014 referendum to two options. Next, it asks what might have happened if a three-option ballot had been held. It then compares what could happen under different voting procedures before advocating a more inclusive structure. And lastly, consideration is given to multi-option referendums, both in Scotland and abroad.