Alternatives to the Simple Majority Vote?

[Mark6]

Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been been understood and defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is.

The word "union" implies some kind of equality -- which throughout history was not the case. For thousands of years, in almost all societies, marriage was ownership of woman (or multiple women) by a man. It was no more a "union" than "union of Spanish Empire and Mexico" in 18th Century.

So tradition makes a very bad argument.

 

[Spindrift]

Well, in a lot of states where gay marriage has been contested the public has voted on it and a simple majority has decided the issue (simple majority meaning 50.1% or more).

[pendantic]
simple majority mean at least 50% + 1

50.00000001% is still a simple majority.
[/pendantic]

 

[openingmind]

well, some issues aren't about majority rule, even in a titular democracy, but most especially because we are a republic designed specifically to avoid the problems of the tyranny of the majority

Yes, but I bring up gay marriage in reference to simple majority-style voting because gay marriage propositions are being decided by simple majority votes across the nation. Prop 8 in California, for instance. Or Amendment 3 in Utah.

In both cases the issue was given to the (simple, i.e. 50.1%+) majority to decide.

Add:
Yes, a simple majority can be 50% plus 1 vote. So, yeah, it can be 50.0000001%.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, but I bring up gay marriage in reference to simple majority-style voting because gay marriage propositions are being decided by simple majority votes across the nation. Prop 8 in California, for instance. Or Amendment 3 in Utah.

In both cases the issue was given to the (simple, i.e. 50.1%+) majority to decide.

Add:
Yes, a simple majority can be 50% plus 1 vote. So, yeah, it can be 50.0000001%.

Gay rights are a human/civil rights issue which should not be a voted upon matter.

Gay marriage, is about gaining official acknolwledgment of the relationship between two gay individuals, and this is an issue that should be decided by the citizens of a state. However, if citizens vote against such recognition they are also ultimately voting against there being any acknowlegment of special privileges for any form of union between two individuals.

It is ironic that the biggest assault of heterosexual marriage privileges isn't those trying to extend the same privileges to gay unions, but rather those who are trying preserve those privileges exclusively for heterosexual unions.

 

[JJM 777]

So the thread became, or originally was, about gays and not about "alternatives to simple majority vote".

Gay rights are a human/civil rights issue which should not be a voted upon matter.

What else is a human/civil rights issue which should not be a voted upon matter? And how else will we decide which they are except by voting?

Polygamy, many-to-one?
Polyamory, many-to-many?
etc.

 

[openingmind]

It's natural for any group to decide upon how it will operate by surveying its members.

I'm thinking more and more that it's only big groups (150ish+) that really need a formal system of voting, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

Small groups, in which everybody knows everybody, lives and works and regularly hangs out with everybody, seemingly have less need to officially decide on rights issues.

Incidentally, I've seen anti-gay people in my own life do a 180 when they learned that someone close to them was gay. Suddenly gay people weren't other or they. This happened with my ex-mother-in-law when she learned that a young man she babysat and knew his whole life came out of the closet.

Most people against gay marriage that I know really don't have gay friends or spend any real amount of time with gay people (outside work or whatever). I mean, really hang out with them, vacation with them, drink with them, meet their family, etc.

Dunbar's Number says that a person, on average, is able to have about 150 stable, active relationships. I'd say that inside my 150, easily 75 or more are friendships with gay people (which includes familial relationships). So in my microcosm, gay people aren't a minority at all and the idea of them having second-class citizen rights is insane.

As far as human/civil rights are concerned, and which should be voted on...

I say if a person is a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of a society, then they should have any and all privileges that the society confers. The recognition of social monogamy (marriage) is one of those privileges and so are the health and tax benefits, etc. that come with it.

I really don't see how it gets more complicated than that.

The only case in which I think a person should be denied the privileges of her society is if she breaks a serious law or isn't paying her dues.

I guess I will throw in that I think any person paying taxes (including 15 and 16 year olds) should have the right to vote. It's awful that they're expected to pay into the system but have no voice in it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, in a lot of states where gay marriage has been contested the public has voted on it and a simple majority has decided the issue (simple majority meaning 50.1% or more).

Yes, but that's a generic feature of most state proposition systems. It's got nothing to do with gay marriage per se. And whether or not people think an issue should be solved in a particular manner, the typical human tendency is to use whatever methods are available that will produced the desired outcome. So if you oppose gay marriage and think a proposition will outlaw it, then you try to pass a proposition. If you support gay marriage and think the courts may rule it's a right, then you bring suit to force its adoption. In general, there are no deep assumptions being made here, only shallow ones: what tactic will produce my desired outcome? And that goes for both sides.

@Puppycow: I'm suggesting we decide which side needs a supermajority by determining who's making the extraordinary claim.

Not a useful criteria. You can't get consensus on what constitutes extraordinary claims.

As regards gay marriage, which of these two claims do you think is the more extraordinary:

(1) Law-abiding US citizens deserve the same rights.

(2) Only law-abiding US citizens of a certain type deserve the same rights.

Opponents of gay marriage are implicitly arguing #2 (as it refers to the right to marry).

Try to apply that reasoning to why we don't let blind people drive cars. You'll find that your criteria are insufficient to distinguish ordinary claims from extraordinary claims.

I'm also thinking that propositions be required to have extremely clear premises. For instance, if a proposition states "whereas marriage should only be between a man and a woman," it should be explained why that's being stated. Why should it only be between a man and woman? Then, if the premise explaining why includes an extraordinary claim -- like the notion of God -- then the proposition automatically gains the need for a supermajority on one side (75%+). (The side making the extraordinary claim has to get 75% of the votes.)

Yeah, that'll be real fun trying to sort out all the lawsuits that will produce, as different sides assert or deny that various claims are extraordinary.

 

[openingmind]

You can't get consensus on what constitutes extraordinary claims.

I think you're being willfully difficult here. If a person is a law-abiding, tax-paying member of a society, it's strange to suggest that they shouldn't enjoy all the privileges of that society. If you follow the rules and you pay the dues, what's the problem?

We can go around and around about what's ordinary versus extraordinary, but as far as gay marriage goes, it all comes back the idea of a group. Gay people are expected to pay full price for their group membership, but they don't get all the privileges of the group. They don't get a discount on taxes in exchange for the privileges they're disallowed. (In fact, heterosexuals are the ones getting the discount and all the rights.)

It's like this: Two people go into a restaurant. Both order hamburgers. Both are charged $10. One of them is given a whole hamburger and the other is given three-quarters of a hamburger. Both observed the rules of the restaurant. Both are wearing shirt and shoes, etc.

If I saw that situation in a restaurant, I would think that it was extraordinary that one person was denied the full meal when they paid just as much.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're being willfully difficult here. If a person is a law-abiding, tax-paying member of a society, it's strange to suggest that they shouldn't enjoy all the privileges of that society.

And yet, we do that all the time. Denying privileges to one set of law-abiding tax-paying citizens is in no way special, it's routine. You're objecting in this case because you think there's no good reason to do so here, but the idea that we restrict privileges to some groups and not others is not actually strange at all. In fact, it's so ordinary you probably don't even think about all the ways in which we do it.

We can go around and around about what's ordinary versus extraordinary, but as far as gay marriage goes, it all comes back the idea of a group. Gay people are expected to pay full price for their group membership, but they don't get all the privileges of the group.

Your statement about extraordinary claims was a generic statement. You were trying to figure out criteria one could use generically. Whether or not that criteria works cleanly in this case doesn't mean that it can in general. It can't, and no amount of argument about this one case can demonstrate otherwise.

And given that the majority of the population seems to oppose gay marriage, I'd say the notion that it works even in this case is unfounded. If you think gay marriage should be prohibited, chances are you don't think that prohibiting gay marriage is extraordinary. You can argue all you want to about why it should be considered extraordinary, but it doesn't matter: a lot of people think it's not. Which makes your scheme unworkable.

 

[Trakar]

So the thread became, or originally was, about gays and not about "alternatives to simple majority vote".

What else is a human/civil rights issue which should not be a voted upon matter? And how else will we decide which they are except by voting?

Polygamy, many-to-one?
Polyamory, many-to-many?
etc.

The point I was striving for, is that Human Rights are inherent, not granted nor rescinded by legal findings. You can vote to acknowledge such rights or ignore them, but votes and laws do not establish human rights.

Marriage is state established and controlled contractual issue between individuals and is thus fundementally different from basic human rights.

 

[zooterkin]

[pendantic]
simple majority mean at least 50% + 1

50.00000001% is still a simple majority.
[/pendantic]

[pedantic]
pedantic
[/pedantic]

 

[Spindrift]

[pedantic]
pedantic
[/pedantic]

I was waiting to see if someone would catch that. I didn't notice I did that until the next day, hoping it would slide by.

 

[Ziggurat]

I was waiting to see if someone would catch that. I didn't notice I did that until the next day, hoping it would slide by.

Never admit a mistake, pretend you were misunderstood.

Pendantic!

 

[openingmind]

Denying privileges to one set of law-abiding tax-paying citizens is in no way special, it's routine. ...the idea that we restrict privileges to some groups and not others is not actually strange at all. In fact, it's so ordinary you probably don't even think about all the ways in which we do it.

Your observation is correct, but routine doesn't equal right. Regularity doesn't mean an injustice or inequality is legitimate, ethical, or even lawful. Women are regularly paid less than men despite the fact that it's considered unethical and is even illegal in a lot of places. I mean, I don't really get the point of your response... There are white and black people alive now who remember how it was once routine for them to be told they couldn't marry who they loved (because of skin color)... So...? What? Gay people should just accept the routine?

You're probably right that it's impossible, or at least very, very difficult, to come up with general standards for deciding if a claim is extraordinary or not. But there's no harm in trying is there?

As for the majority disapproving of gay marriage, who knows. The numbers we have are based on the votes of those who show up to the polls, not on the total voting population or total population.

And, again, in a lot of places, the majority is quite slim. In most cases, the gay marriage bans are passing with simple majorities.

I started this thread more or less on the observation that most groups always require a supermajority or consensus for serious decisions. That's true about the Board of Directors for the company I work for.

By deciding on gay marriage with simple majority vote, there's a collective message being sent that the issue just isn't that important.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your observation is correct, but routine doesn't equal right.

I'm sure there are lots of cases where we discriminate that you would agree are acceptable. Not letting blind people drive is just one example, there are plenty more. That doesn't mean that any case of discrimination is acceptable, it only means that the criteria for acceptability must involve more than whether or not discrimination occurred. And because the criteria must be more complex, evaluating them is more complex too.

I mean, I don't really get the point of your response...

My point is that your proposed scheme is unworkable.

You're probably right that it's impossible, or at least very, very difficult, to come up with general standards for deciding if a claim is extraordinary or not. But there's no harm in trying is there?

There most certainly could be.

As for the majority disapproving of gay marriage, who knows. The numbers we have are based on the votes of those who show up to the polls, not on the total voting population or total population.

In a democracy, that's the majority that matters.

And, again, in a lot of places, the majority is quite slim. In most cases, the gay marriage bans are passing with simple majorities.

Then take heart: they can be overturned by simple majorities too. Whereas if supermajorities were required to ban it, it might have already been banned, and you wouldn't get that to change until a supermajority wanted to overturn it. Gay marriage support will reach majority status a lot sooner than it will reach supermajority status.

I started this thread more or less on the observation that most groups always require a supermajority or consensus for serious decisions. That's true about the Board of Directors for the company I work for.

By deciding on gay marriage with simple majority vote, there's a collective message being sent that the issue just isn't that important.

Yes, it isn't that important. Not to the public at large, and not even among most people who support it. You aren't actually surprised by that, are you?

 

[JJM 777]

The point I was striving for, is that Human Rights are inherent, (...) votes and laws do not establish human rights.

What establishes the Human Rights then?
And what are the Human Rights?
Since when have the Human Rights existed?
Whom do the Human Rights apply to, concerning unborn humans, the brain dead, criminals who have broken the Human Rights of others, etc.?

I am not trying to be overly critical, I think Human Rights would be a very useful universal concept, but agreeing what they are is not as easy as one might think. The UN thing, oh what crap the whole UN politics is.

This might deserve a thread of its own.

 

[openingmind]

Yes, it isn't that important. Not to the public at large, and not even among most people who support it.

Your comments are baffling me. There's this snarkiness in them that I don't understand. But, I don't know you, so I'll just take them at face value.

What is it supposed to mean that gay marriage isn't really important to people who support gay marriage? That's a weird, generalizing comment. Why would you assume that?

By saying that a message is being sent that the issue isn't that important because the public and government is "letting" it be decided by a simple majority vote, I don't mean that the message is intentional -- or an effect of apathy. (That so many people and cities and states, even the White House, are debating and discussing this shows that people care about it.) But I think the issue has been left to simple majority out of habit. It's very rare for us to debate the way we debate -- we get so wrapped up in opinions.

...Which is what we're doing here. Just getting wrapped up in opinions.

Bottomline, some people posting in this thread see gay marriage as a civil rights issue. And some people don't think it's a civil rights issue because they're grossed out by the thought of two men or two women touching each other and they never get as far as civil rights. They harp on the legitimacy of homosexuality and conveniently forget that we're talking about citizens who aren't actually breaking any laws in our society.

My personal opinion is that it's bad sense to make important decisions based on simple majorities. I see gay marriage as a civil rights issue and therefore as a very important matter.

Other people don't think gay marriage is important, or a civil rights issue, and that it's pointless or dangerous to talk about when or where we should decide on things by more than a simple majority. Which is fine.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is it supposed to mean that gay marriage isn't really important to people who support gay marriage? That's a weird, generalizing comment. Why would you assume that?

Because it doesn't actually affect most people. Let's suppose it's 40% of the population (the exact # is irrelevant). For how many of them does gay marriage actually make a difference in their lives? Only a small fraction of that number. Why would you expect any issue to be important to a large group if it only affects a small subset of them? People aren't like that.

My personal opinion is that it's bad sense to make important decisions based on simple majorities.

I understand, and I sympathize with that idea. But that doesn't mean that there's any good way to translate that idea into action. We have done so with some issues through the constitution, but there's no way to do so categorically for all "important decisions". And it might not even be wise. In some cases, requiring a supermajority may simply lead to paralysis, and there are times when that's worse than either of the competing alternatives.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Throughout a great deal of human history, marriage was understood as the transfer of ownership of a woman from father to husband.

More specifically, the transfer of ownership of a woman's unruptured hymen. If the goods turned out to be damaged, the transaction was voided retroactively.

I have to agree with Bob, you're deliberately missing his point and twisting what he says. Even in bigomy cases marriage is between one man and one woman, it's just that the man has multiple marriages. There isn't a single marriage between the man and all the women which is what you are trying to claim. If you want to make a good point, then actually use a correct argument.

You're saying John's marriage to Jane won't in any way affect his marriage to Joan?

 

[openingmind]

Because it doesn't actually affect most people. ...Why would you expect any issue to be important to a large group if it only affects a small subset of them?

I suppose my point of view is skewed. I live in a city with one of the highest gay populations per capita, I work closely with several gay people, and I have gay family members. The majority of people in my life are affected by the issue either directly or indirectly (through knowing someone close to them who's personally impacted).

I forget sometimes that there are people that don't know gay people, or try to know them, or don't care to know them.

I understand, and I sympathize with that idea. But that doesn't mean that there's any good way to translate that idea into action. We have done so with some issues through the constitution, but there's no way to do so categorically for all "important decisions". And it might not even be wise. In some cases, requiring a supermajority may simply lead to paralysis, and there are times when that's worse than either of the competing alternatives.

I appreciate you saying your sympathize with the idea.

The idea that categorically, or even loosely, deciding on what an "important" decision is could be unwise or dangerous is understandable. It's based on a fear of the tyranny of the majority; that bad people would exploit the categorical definition of "important."

A system that becomes paralyzes in a decision-making mode is not desirable either.

For me this comes back to Dunbar's Number. It's not actually hard to agree on what an important decision is in a group; it's only difficult if the group is bigger than 150 people or made up of people that don't know each other.