Meaning of Majority Rule and Minority Rights

The construction of a bridge or a new school is a good example of where the majority should win. While some will argue that taxes violate people`s rights, a minority cannot always claim that their rights are being taken away by a decision that does not benefit them. There can be no universal answer to how differences in views and values between minorities and groups are resolved – only the certainty that only the democratic process of tolerance, debate and compromise can enable free societies to reach agreements that embrace both pillars of majority rule and minority rights. The case involved 13 parents who were not allowed to send their children to a nearby school because of racial segregation. The justices ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment`s equality clause. Minority rights are things that the majority of the minority should not or should not take away, even if they can win a referendum to take away their rights. Things like freedom of speech and the right to vote are not things that can be taken away from groups of people under the Constitution. Article VI restricts rather than protects the rights of States. It states that treaties, the Constitution, and federal laws take precedence over state laws. McGann argues that majority rule helps protect minority rights, at least in deliberative environments. The argument is that cycling ensures that parties that lose by majority have an interest in staying in the group process, as the decision can easily be overturned by another majority. Moreover, if a minority wants to overturn a decision, it must form a coalition with only enough members of the group to ensure that more than half agree with the new proposal. (Under supermajority rules, a minority may need a coalition of something larger than a majority to overturn a decision.) [1] 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] Many parts of the U.S. Constitution uphold minority rights. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination in voting. According to Kenneth May, majority rule is the only reasonable decision rule that is “fair,” meaning it doesn`t favor voters by making certain votes count more, or favors an alternative by requiring fewer votes to pass. More formally, majority rule is the only binary decision rule that exhibits the following characteristics:[4][5] However, some North Carolina residents considered the creation of a second black district unreasonable and had no real purpose. They took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the second black district was inappropriate and unnecessary. The Supreme Court said that while constituencies should be aware of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the original map of a single borough was not discriminatory. Majority rule is a means of organizing government and deciding public affairs; This is not another path to oppression. Just as no self-proclaimed group has the right to oppress others, no majority, even in a democracy, should deprive a minority or individual of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Another way to protect oneself from the tyranny of the majority is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including those with the right to vote, which cannot be exceeded by a majority, may be decided in advance as a separate act[8] by the Charter or the Constitution. According to that provision, any decision wrongly aimed at the rights of a minority could be classified as a majority, but would not constitute a legitimate example of a majority decision, as it would violate the principle of equality. In response, proponents of an unfettered majority rule argue that, since the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is usually a kind of qualified majority rule, this solution inherits all the problems that this rule would have. They also add that: First, constitutional rights, which are words on paper, cannot afford protection on their own. Second, in certain circumstances, one person`s rights cannot be guaranteed without imposing on another person; As Anthony McGann wrote, “one man`s property right in the pre-war South was another man`s slavery.” After all, as Amartya Sen noted in presenting the liberal paradox, the spread of rights can put everyone in a worse situation. [9] For example, whether or not to use taxpayers` money to build a new bridge, the majority should decide the issue. If the people vote directly on the issue, the majority should win.

If the representatives decide so, then the representatives must go with what the majority wants in order to win the next elections and respect the will of the people. Not all issues are about minority rights. Sometimes a decision should favour the majority because it does not interfere with the rights of a minority.