Schmitz and Tröger (2012) consider a collective electoral problem with two alternatives and show that majority rule maximizes utilitarian well-being under all incentive-compatible, anonymous and neutral voting rules, provided that the types of voters are independent. [6] However, if voters` utilities are stochastically correlated, other rules of dominant strategy choice may yield better results than majority rule. Azrieli and Kim (2014) extend the case analysis of independent types to asymmetric environments and taking into account anonymous and non-anonymous rules. [7] Majority rule is ubiquitous in many modern Western democracies. It is often used by legislators and other bodies where alternatives can be considered and modified through a consultation process until the final version of a proposal is adopted or rejected by a majority. [1] This is one of the basic rules prescribed in books such as Robert`s Rules of Order. [2] The rules contained in these books and the rules adopted by the groups may, in certain circumstances, additionally require the application of a supermajority rule, for example a two-thirds rule at the end of the debate. [3] Since a majority can win a majority vote, it has been generally argued that majority rule can lead to “[the tyranny of the majority].” Supermajority rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule, which is necessary to stop a filibuster in the U.S. Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures to address this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable.

The supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority protected by the qualified majority rule; They only claim that one of the two alternatives is the status quo and prefer it to be overthrown by a simple majority. To use the example of the U.S. Senate, if a majority votes against Clotture, then the filibuster will continue, even if a minority supports it. Anthony McGann argues that if there are multiple minorities and one of them is protected (or privileged) by the supermajority rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority is not already privileged, and if nothing else, it will be the one that will have the privilege of being aligned with the status quo. [1] Although plurality (first-past-the-post voting) is often confused with majority rule, it is not the same thing. [1] Plurality makes the option with the most votes the winner, whether or not the fifty percent threshold is exceeded. This corresponds to majority rule if there are only two alternatives. However, if there are more than two alternatives, it is possible for the majority to choose an alternative that has less than fifty percent of the votes cast in its favor. The Imperfect Priority Effect (EPE) states that groups that respond to what they initially think is important almost always change their efforts. When groups do this, they have not yet determined which factors have the greatest impact on their potential to achieve the desired change. Only after identifying these factors are they ready to take effective action.

EPE was discovered by Kevin Dye after extensive research at the Food and Drug Administration. [10] [11] The discovery of ECE has led to the realization that even people with good intentions for participatory democracy cannot take effective collective action unless they change the paradigm of languishing and voting. [12] ECE is a negative consequence of phenomena such as spread out thinking and groupthink. Effective priorities for action that depend on the recognition of patterns of influence of global interdependencies are rejected by the EEP when priorities are chosen on the basis of the aggregation of subjective coordination of different stakeholders, which is largely blind to these interdependencies. Dye`s work led to the discovery of the 6th century. According to the main theorem of structured dialogic design science,[11] namely: “Learning occurs in dialogue when observers seek relationships of influence between members of a set of observations.” The majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives that have a majority, i.e. more than half of the votes. This is the most commonly used binary decision-making rule in influential decision-making bodies, including all legislators in democratic nations.

To support the view that majority rule protects minority rights better than supermajority rule, McGann points to the U.S. Senate Closure Rule, which has been used to prevent the extension of civil liberties to racial minorities. [1] While Ben Saunders agrees that majority rule can offer better protection than supermajority rule, he argues that majority rule can do little to help the most despised minorities in a group. [16] Supermajority rules are often used in binary decisions where a positive decision is more important than a negative one.