What Does Majority Agreement Mean

In the group decision, it is possible that a vote paradox will form. In other words, it is possible that there are alternatives a, b and c, so that one majority has to b prefer, another majority b to c, and another majority prefers c to a. Since the majority rule requires an alternative to obtain only a majority, a majority, as a majority, is particularly vulnerable to overturning its decision. (The minimum number of alternatives that can form such a cycle (electoral paradox) is 3 if the number of voters differs from 4, because the number of Nakamura is the rule of majority 3. In the case of supermajority rules, the minimum number is often higher, as the number of Nakamura is often larger.) The confusion between unanimity and consensus therefore usually leads to the failure of consensus decisions, and the group then returns either to the majority rule, or by super majority, or by dissolving. Many people see consensus as an expanded method of voting, in which everyone must vote in the same way. Because unanimous unanimity of this type is rarely present in groups with more than one member, groups that attempt to use this type of process are generally either extremely frustrated or forced. Either decisions are never made (which leads to the fall of the group, its transformation into a social group that does not perform tasks), or they are made undercover, or a group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes a person who occupies the “block”.

But no matter how it is done, there is NOT consensus. [40] Another argument in favour of the majority rule is that, in this atmosphere of compromise, there will be times when one minority group will want to support another group`s proposal in exchange for support for a proposal that it deems necessary. As it would be in the best interest of such a group to declare the true intensity of its preference, according to the argument, the majority rule distinguishes between weak and strong preferences. McGann argues that situations such as these minorities encourage participation because there are few permanent losers under majority rule and therefore majority power leads to systemic stability.