Reduce every multi-option debate, not to a series of binary ballots, short-lists of just two options, but to a few (not so) short-lists of, say, six options...  as would befit a multi-party parliament.  On each topic, MPs could debate and cast their preferences; on each, at best, the option with the highest average preference would be the winner.  And an average, of course, involves every voting MP  -  ah, the basis of all-party power-sharing, a pre-condition for tackling Climate Change.

Jean-Charles de Borda devised this methodology in 1770.  Wanting something controllable, however, Napoléon went back to majority voting; he chose the question  -  “Moi, oui ou non?”  -  and in a referendum in 1803, he was duly elected l’empereur; a ‘democratic dictator,’ he might have said.

Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet et al followed.  But there is little or perhaps nothing democratic in a majority vote.  After all, Ms Hobson, 2 options means not much choice.  With 3 options, there are six ways of casting all 3 preferences  -  ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB and CBA; 4 options allow for 24 nuances/opinions; 5 and then 6 can cater for the diversity of humankind.

With Trump, majority voting in Congress is part of the problem.  In the Knesset, Netanyahu’s majority coalition is a cause of war.  In the USSR, 'majoritarianism' in translation was 'bolshevism большевизм.'  And in Northern Ireland, majority rule sparked off The Troubles.  No wonder majority voting has been rejected by the COPs.  In all, it is primitive, divisive, and not (very) democratic.