Plus… get yourselves a good form of government in place. For democracies, the choice is between winner-take-all and full representation. It really matters.

In winner-take-all, we have Two Rounds of Majority Rule.

1/ The majority in a district picks the winner.

2/ The majority of the winners make the decision.

0.6 x 0.6 = 0.36, so that doubled Majority Rule is most often a minority-rule outcome.

As long as we say we are the best democracy, but we have winner-take-all in place, we are actually fooling ourselves. A political elite benefits from doubled Majority Rule, and particularly the bottom of society pays the heftiest price.

—

Then we also have full-representation democracy. This has Majority Rule as well, but it occurs just once time only.

When a City has 4 council seats and votes proportionally, then 80 percent of the voters are guaranteed their pick in one of the seats. That is 30 percent more than in winner-take-all with 50 percent (plus one vote).

When a City has 9 council seats and votes proportionally, then 90 percent of the voters are guaranteed their pick in one of the seats. That is 40 percent more than in winner-take-all.

So when a decision is made with 60 percent of the representatives, we have:

* 4 seats 0.6 x 0.8 = 0.48

* 9 seats 0.6 x 0.9 = 0.54

That is a lot higher than 0.36. This 0.36 is the same no matter the number of seats on the council. With more seats in full-representation, that number actually goes up.

The majority rules, that's a given, but in one system the majority-of-the-majority rules and in the other the majority rules.

Particularly the bottom segment of society is better off when there is just one round of Majority Rule.

--

'Citizens Invoking the US Constitution'

https://fred-rick.medium.com/citizens-invoking-the-us-constitution-325c17290881