Peter Emerson
The de Borda Institute, Northern Ireland
Majority voting and majority rule – in a word, majoritarianism – have been a cause of division in both parliamentary votes and binary referendums, and sometimes, subsequently, in societies as well. Indeed, at worst, such binary decisions have led to violence and war. Other, more inclusive voting procedures have been developed over the years, as often as not first used in Asia, and their adoption worldwide could lead to decisions, which more accurately reflect the common good. Furthermore, if decisions were based on a methodology which identified, not the more popular of just two options, but the most popular of a few – the option with the highest average preference – governance by a single party or a majority coalition could give way to that which is advocated for conflict zones: all-party power-sharing. Indeed, if such were the norm, consensus in international gatherings could more effectively be achieved, and maybe many violent conflicts could be at best prevented and at least resolved peacefully.