Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:07:00.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History of the Majority Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John Gilbert Heinberg
John Gilbert Heinberg*
Affiliation:
Brookings Graduate School of Economics and Government
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps no convention of our day is more acceptable to both the political scientist and the man on the street than the employment of the simple-majority device to determine the will of a group. Even the ponderous German scholar Otto von Gierke is drawn to the facetious conclusion that it is only in the institution of matrimony that the majority principle cannot be used. Exceptions, of course, exist. Examples familiar to students of American government include the two-thirds and three-fourths majorities of the federal amending process, the two-thirds vote of the United States Senate in the approval of treaties, and like majorities in the overriding of presidential and gubernatorial vetoes. But these exceptions do not invalidate the commonly accepted “naturalness” of decisions according to simple majority. The theory has probably been expressed best by Grotius: “It is unnatural,” he says, “that the majority should submit to the minority—hence the majority naturally counts as the whole, if no compacts or positive law prescribe a different form of procedure.”

Although it now finds almost universal acceptance, the practice of reaching decisions by counting heads has not always prevailed, and even where employed its use has been limited and contingent. Speaking historically, the modern dogma of majority rule is a comparatively recent development, although it is probably an outgrowth of the various theories of majority rule of days gone.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1926 , pp. 52 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lowie, , Primitive Society, pp. 358–359Google Scholar.

2 Proverbs, II, 14. See SirLewis, George Cornewall, The Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion, (ed. of 1875), pp. 166–167, notesGoogle Scholar.

3 Institutes of Manu, Chap. VII, 54.

4 Ibid., Chap. VII, 56.

5 Ibid.

6 There was no legal obligation, in the Teutonic assemblies, to conform to the decision of a majority or to acknowledge it as one's own decision. He who stubbornly maintained his objection was not bound by their decision. See Gierke, , “Über die Geschichte des Majoritätsprinzips,” in SirVinogradoff, Paul (ed.), Essays in Legal History, delivered before the International Congress of Historical Studies (London 1913), p. 315Google Scholar.

7 On the Homeric assemblies see Borgeaud, C., Histoire du Plebiscite, p. 7Google Scholar. On the Teutonic assemblies see Tacitus, , Germany, Chap. XI (Trans, by Smith, N. S., 2nd ed.), p. 33Google Scholar. On the Spartan assemblies see Thucydides, I, 87.

8 Gilbert, G., Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens (trans, by Brooks, and Nicklin, ), p. 48Google Scholar.

9 Thucydides, I, 87.

10 Xenophon, , Hellenica, II, IV, 29Google Scholar. Lewis, Op. cit., Note B, p. 168. Gilbert, Op. cit., p. 52.

11 Thucydides, V, 30. Italics are not found in the original.

12 Ibid.

13 Gilbert, Op. cit., pp. 297, 304.

14 Gilbert, Op. cit., p. 297.

15 Ibid., p. 307. Lewis says that the courts of justice, smaller councils, and administrative bodies, the Athenian senate, board of generals, and Spartan gerusia also decided by a majority vote. Op. cit., p. 134.

16 Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht (2d. 1887–1888), Vol. III, pp. 394–408Google Scholar.

17 Mommsen, op. cit., Vol. III, pt. 2, pp. 978–1002.

18 Wolfson, Arthur M., “The Ballot and Other Forms of Voting in the Italian Communes,” in American Historical Review, Vol. V, No. 1, p. 3Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., p. 1.

20 Ibid., p. 3.

21 Ibid., p. 6.

22 Ibid., pp. 14–15. See Wolfson's citation of sources.

23 Ibid., pp. 13–14.

24 Hefele, , Histoire des Conciles (ed. 1869–1876), Vol. 1, p. 131Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., p. 320.

26 Hefele, Op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 369–370. Italics are not found in the original. After 1215, in the election of bishops, only a simple majority of the cathedral chapter was required. But here we have the idea of a concurrence of the major and sanior pars. See Jellinek, , The Rights of Minorities (trans, by Baty, A. M. and Baty, T., London, 1912), p. 7 and note on p. 35Google Scholar.

27 Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht, Vol. III, pp. 323–330Google Scholar.

28 Gierke, , Über die Geschichte des Majoritätsprincips, pp. 315–320Google Scholar.

29 Baty, Thomas P., The History of Majority Rule, in Quarterly Review, Jan., 1912, p. 9Google Scholar.

30 Baty, Op. cit., pp. 7–8, citing Pollock, and Maitland, , History of English Law, Vol. I, p. 491, quoting Jocelyn de BrakelondaGoogle Scholar.

31 Op. cit., p. 9.

32 Redlich, Joseph, The Procedure of the House of Commons, (trans, by Steinthal, A., London, 1908), Vol. II, pp. 263–264Google Scholar.

33 McKechnie, W. S., The New Democracy and the Constitution, pp. 155–156Google Scholar. Quoted from McKechnie, , Magna Charta, p. 548Google Scholar.

34 Ibid., p. 156.

35 Ibid., pp. 155–157.

36 Redlich, Op. cit., p. 263; Baty, Op. cit., p. 14.

37 Baty, Op. cit., p. 8.

38 Pollock, and Maitland, , History of English Law, Vol. II, pp. 623–624Google Scholar.

39 Sabine and Shepard, Introduction to Krabbe, , The Modern Idea of the State, p. XVIIGoogle Scholar.

40 Bentham, Jeremy, Works, Vol. II, p. 349Google Scholar.

41 Simmel, G., Soziologie, p. 187Google Scholar.

42 McKechnie, Op. cit., p. 157. Pollard, A. F., The Evolution of Parliament, p. 143Google Scholar, says: “We have no knowledge of the important process by which this extreme view of the rights of ‘liberty and property’ was surrendered, and the rights of an ‘estate’ to bind its individual members by a majority vote was established.”

43 McKechnie, Op. cit., p. 157.

44 Baty, Op. cit., p. 19.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., pp. 26–27.

47 Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII, pp. 258–265Google Scholar.

48 The device of the quorum, according to Redlich, was introduced on the 5th day of January, 1640–1. “It was ordered ‘That Mr. Speaker is not to go to his chair till there be at least forty members in the House’ (House of Commons Journals, Vol. II, p. 63). From that time the rule has been kept intact, and it has never been discussed again.” Redlich, Op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 75–76.

49 Konopczynski, W., “Une Antithèse du Principe Majoritaire en Droit Polonais,” in SirVinogradoff, Paul (ed.), Essays in Legal History, delivered before the International Congress of Historical Studies (London 1913), pp. 336–397Google Scholar. The liberum veto he says, “donnait à chaque député le droit de rompre la diète et à chaque gentilhomme celui de rompre la dietine.” Op. cit., p. 336.

50 Early German law, in its most primitive state, employed the principle of unanimity. Gierke, , Über die Geschichte des Majoritätsprincips, p. 314Google Scholar. For other instances of its employment see: Lewis, Op. cit., pp. 141–142, note p. 142; Simmel, Op. cit., pp. 187–188. Cf. also the American Articles of Confederation of 1781–89.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.