Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In social choice theory, the majority rule (MR) is a social choice rule which says that, when comparing two options (such as bills or candidates), the option preferred by more than half of the voters (a majority) should win.
A government is not a majority government if it only has a majority when counting parties outside the government that have a confidence agreement with it. A majority government is usually assured of having its legislation passed and rarely if ever, has to fear being defeated in parliament, a state also known as a working majority. [2]
A majority is more than half of a total. [1] It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 31 individuals, a majority would be 16 or more individuals, while having 15 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is not vested in the general population of a state, such as authoritarian systems. Historically a rare and vulnerable form of government, [10] democratic systems of government have become more prevalent since the 19th century, in particular with various waves of democratization. [11]
According to Harris Mylonas, "Legitimate authority in modern national states is connected to popular rule, to majorities. Nation-building is the process through which these majorities are constructed." [3] In Mylonas's framework, "state elites employ three nation-building policies: accommodation, assimilation, and exclusion." [4]
A report by Pew Research Center, a think-tank in Philadelphia, carries this headline: “Majorities in Most Countries Surveyed Say Social Media Is Good for Democracy—but not in the U.S.”
Majoritarianism is a political philosophy or ideology with an agenda asserting that a majority, whether based on a religion, language, social class, or other category of the population, is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society.
Olson argues that when the benefits of political action (e.g., lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a ...