I NOTE that the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers is holding a second ballot on the membership of women (“Golf club to reveal result of vote on female members”, The Herald, February 17). I am delighted to see ladies on the course, but with the proviso that they play at the rate of six holes rather than 600 words per hour.

Leaving aside the issue of membership and irrespective of the outcome I wholeheartedly applaud the Muirfield requirement for a two-thirds majority to effect a change of constitution. If only David Cameron had had the wit to think along similar lines.

In a Democracy the minority us expected to accept even a fine difference such as a 51/49 split as this is often said, with almost ecclesiastical reverence, to be the "will of the people". Unfortunately, people are not like that. There is something in the human psyche that rails against being forcibly fed something which we do not wish to consume. It would appear that if the narrow majority is in favour of the status quo being maintained this is less objectionable, as they live to fight another day. On the other hand, if the majority is for a fundamental change then all manner of problems arise.

It has been my sad experience throughout life to witness, thankfully for only a small number, of clubs and societies both sporting and social being decimated and even disbanded by members subsequently voting with their feet after a contentious vote. Rather than quote personal examples may I refer readers to the case of the famous Rylstone Women’s Institute Calendar Girls. This group of ladies broke up after a 6/5 vote never to speak again.

Decisions do have to be taken and if the two-thirds majority sets the bar a little on the high side how about Phi, the Golden Ratio roughly equal to 62/38, or even a majority of the total electorate rather than that of those only voting. Whatever system we use, Heaven preserve us from narrow majorities.

Dr G W Cross,

17 Dykesfield Place, Saltcoats.