Jack Edwards told Councillor Pouget that ‘the majority has to rule on this’ during the Open Air Report discussion at the November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting.

And we frequently see the 4 votes at council meetings.

The following article is reprinted with permission of the author, Registered Parliamentarian Eli Mina.

Is the majority always right?

During a coffee break at a training session, a newly elected municipal official spoke to me
privately and said this: A wise person taught me that with a council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can
provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish.
After all, the majority is always right. What do you think about these words of wisdom?

On the surface, what he said sounded correct. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a basic
principle of decision making is that the majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a
measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the motion is
defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are ultimately the only thing that matter. Right?

Not so fast. Something significant is missing with this logic.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its
will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being
stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and
thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but
this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed; possibly leading to
flawed decisions that the majority, the minority, and the community, will regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it
may be making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, and loud and
aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a
careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end—getting enough votes—justifies the means, which
may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they’ll vote. On the other hand,
with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a
meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to and learn from
everyone, and treat minorities as partners in decision making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With
knowledge-based democracies, the individuals with the most relevant information and the most
astute and compelling analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning,
inquiry and excellence in decision making.

Ultimately, numbers-based democracies are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone
decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce
informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for affected organizations.