Washington, D.C. – In a bold move touted as both groundbreaking and wildly inefficient, the Democratic Party has unveiled its new “Minority Rules” system, a revolutionary political strategy that prioritizes efficiency over relevance, much to the confusion of both party members and voters alike.
“Frankly, we’ve been inspired by the sporting event we all adore: the backyard noisy democracy concept,” announced Eloise Stratford, the recently appointed Chair of the Committee for Predictable Chaos. “Why should majority opinion govern when we could save so much time by letting the least number of people decide?”
The radical approach was formalized after an exhaustive 17-minute study conducted by the think tank Institute for Minor Democracy (IMD), which concluded that decisions made by the smallest consensus groups — often one to four individuals — were completed 65% faster than those involving larger groups.
“We’ve been laboring under this outdated ‘majority rule’ system for centuries,” Stratford elaborated. “Real innovation comes from a mere fraction of us. Take a group of five people, for example: only one of them has probably read Robert’s Rules of Order.”
An exaggerated spokesman for the National Association of Practical Pundits, Mortimer Quelch, expressed moderate outrage tinged with bewildered admiration. “While this might sound absurdly impractical, it’s astoundingly consistent with the democratic principles of velocity and volume,” Quelch stated without missing a beat of his morning yoga podcast. “In essence, efficiency is the new relevance.”
The new system has already been tested in a small town named Minorburg, a place curiously parented by no fewer than six outdated border disputes, with varied results. The town’s Irrigation Committee elected their new chairperson after one decisive thumb war, leaving the less enthusiastic candidates and their supporters with mere seconds to sprinkle their lawn with excuses.
Some argue that this new system could spell an end to the town hall meeting as we know it, a sentiment echoed by Judith Kettleworth, a prominent figure in the Field of Checkers Randomization. “Honestly, fewer debates means more time affirming our singular convictions on social media,” she said, tapping aggressively at her antique typewriter.
Critics warn of potential chaos as decisions regarding national crises, holiday sales calendars, and even specify the correct pronunciation of ‘either’ could be left in the hands of too few. “It’s terrifying,” commented an anonymous analyst whose expertise depends solely on the finance section of a fortune cookie he once received. “But at the same time, it’s refreshingly quick.”
Meanwhile, citizens reportedly appreciate the efficiency, although recent polls show that a majority haven’t stopped binge-watching an entire series on involuntary decision delegation to be involved in the decision-making process.
As the Democratic Party continues to champion this system, only time will tell if it will lead to a utopia of supreme efficiency or devolve into spectacularly incoherent decision-making. But for now, at least, decisions — crucial or trivial — are guaranteed to conclusively, if not inclusively, be made before the pizza arrives.
Leave a Reply