The question is no really clear to me. In theory it has been discussed to protect minorities from majority decsions, especially in multi-ethnic societies to provent that a dominant ethnic group can inflict harm to minorties, but it is not clear to me, if the question goe sinto this direction...., what are true minority rules???

Dear Eberhard, thank you for taking the time to write....I appreciate the comments about clarity.

I added to the context of the question, “Other things being equal” so that we have responsible majority rule: it is ideally in the best interest of the majority to protect the rights of minorities as it is the case in Canada, the charter of rights and freedoms protects here legally the rights of minorities.  Now keep in mind, other things being equal normal democratic outcomes work under responsible majority rule expectations, but extreme democratic outcomes work under irresponsible minority rule.

Democracies, especially western democracies, supported by the majority rule based voting system, are expected to deliver normal democratic outcome each time where the majority choice or view wins the election, it is a contest between a true majority and a true minority where the true majority wins....

However in 2016 we had two cases within majority rule based systems, the BREXIT in the UK and the USEXIT in the USA, where the minority view won the day leading to widespread social discontent....and these are two cases of extreme democratic outcomes. 

Apparently social confusion or chaos or protest behaviour led to these two outcomes and this is the reason I asked the question: Can extreme democratic outcomes take place if there is no chaos?

I am working on an article right now where social confusion or chaos or protest behavior is assumed to lead to complacency behavior to show that only when there is full true majority complacency we should expect an extreme democratic outcome to take place within majority rule based democracies; and to point out that extreme democratic outcome not just need chaos or need to manufacture chaos to exist, but also they need it to persist/sustain themselves…..

I will share this paper as soon as it is published.  Again, thank you for your comment Eberhard.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

I would further like to add in this context. As suitably pointed out, the context of Brexit and the urge of residents of California in USA to demand secession from USA in the aftermath of the victory of President Trump are cases in point when minority view held edge over majority. But then there is the case of the recent French Presidential Election when Emmanuel Macron won the mandate despite having a party which was merely three years old riding on the wave of majority sentiments as his views lay between those of France’s two main political parties: the socialist party, Parti Socialiste or PS; and the traditional right, incarnated today as Les Républicains, or LR.This suggests to many that the French party system is being reshaped in response to a popular desire to replace an out-of-touch political elite. People are becoming disengaged, disenchanted with the political systems and they are resorting to abstaining from elections. 

Dear Amit, thanks for your comments.  The popular negative reaction to the actual election result in the UK and in the USA and the fact that the media/polling failed to predict it is explained by looking at extreme democratic conditions as normal democratic conditions...There is no extreme democratic outcome theory......and then the what it is thought to be impossible happens....the Murphy’s rule....

Knowing the structure of extreme democratic outcomes helps you understand when you should expect them to happen and how to deal with the situation to prevent extreme democratic outcomes from happening or to proper deal with extreme democratic outcomes or to see what needs to be done to revert the situation to a normal democratic outcome once they have happened....

Even when democratic systems are in the dark of extreme democratic outcome theory, the extreme democratic outcome practice in other places(USA, UK) sends a strong signal or fear that reduces true majority complacency in places where democratic contest are about to take place leading to true majority, full or partial no complacency, and under those conditions extreme democratic outcomes do not take place....this explains the French outcome, and the Netherlands/Dutch outcome...The extreme democratic outcome in practice in the UK(BREXIT) and in the USA(USEXIT) have a theory, they are based on a not yet known theory  of extreme democratic outcomes.

Another point, if an extreme democratic outcome is subjected to seeking a wider mandate, it will lose the contest as the after the fact social protest leads to the full true majority complacency to either contract or disappear and will challenge the previous mandate as the UK situation of seeking a wider mandate to BREXIT shows....

I had already written the paper before June 2016, but I decided to wait to see if the coming outcomes fit....then I was planning to publish it at the beginning of 2017, but I realized that I was trying to bring out too many new ideas at once so I decided to break it up in a series of articles I intend to write one by one having the previous one supporting the other; and the one that is to come out first is one with basic foundations and models to introduce the model and context of extreme democratic outcome theory contrasting it with normal democratic outcome theory.

I will share the papers when they are out as food for thoughts

Thank you for your time Amit

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Dear friends, just sharing this with you unpublished the article below about extreme democratic outcomes, you can take it as food for thoughts.

Have a nice day!

Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319743153_Majority_Rule_Based_True_Democracy_Under_Complacency_Theory_Pointing_Out_The_Structure_of_Normal_and_of_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Analytically_and_Graphically

Article Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory:...

Dear friends, you can now read when you have time the unpublished version of ART122 here and use it as food for thoughts, the one shared above is now published:

Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320443702_Upside_Down_Democratic_Outcomes_Stating_the_Complacency_Conditions_Under_Which_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Such_as_BREXIT_and_USEXIT_Should_Be_Expected_to_Take_Place_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Mean

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

It is a contentious view that Brexit was the minority view, and here already we have a problem on who decides what is a minority view and what is the majority view. Brexit was favoured in most parts of the UK outside London. Only, I believe, in London was it the minority view. Those who desired to remain, rightly or wrongly, have merely been extremely loud in their denunciations and have tended to have celebrity status. A minority in effect!

Following.However, I think the domineering of the minority in democratic governance cannot be free of chaos.

Dear Stanley, botth the BREXITand USEXIT came along as manufactured chaos was targeted to produce true majority complacency and trick the true majority into directing their anger/dissatisfaction against themselves without realizing it until the unexpected happened, the leave won in the UK and Trump won in the USA. These explains the after the fact social discontent in both countries soon after the murphy's law rules, what seems impossible happens....

While both outcomes are extreme democratic outcomes, USEXIT is being implemented by the leader of USEXIT, and BREXIT is not being implemented by the leaders of BREXIT, which explains why USEXIT went extreme from the beginning....

Thank you for your comment

Dear Dickson, my research/framework shows consistent with what you said that under no chaos or no complacency only normal democratic outcomes should be expected to take place and the majority view prevails.....

Extreme democratic outcomes only take place when there is real or manufactured true majority complacency, and then the minority view prevails...

When you have time you can find some food for thoughts here:

True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_extreme_democratic_outcomes_exist_without_chaos?view=5ad065a996b7e43714170c60

As you may see, extreme democratic outcomes lead to extreme liberal democracies, more extreme when the leaders of the extreme are in goverment or plan and implement policy....to ensure the best interest of the true minority...

and normal democratic outcomes are the heart of normal liberal democracies, they seek the best interest of the true majority

Have a nice day!

Some food for thoughts on democracy under amorality can be found here in this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329905677_Moral_and_Amoral_Liberal_Democracies_How_Targeted_Chaos_Can_Affect_the_Democratic_Process

No.