It seems obvious that to make sure that a group of people can make a majority decision, there needs to be an odd number of people in that group (two people can either agree or disagree, if they disagree they won’t make a decision, three people on the other hand… etc.). It’s also rather obvious that you don’t want a situation where an important body of people, like say a parliament, can’t make a decision. But what is obvious to some people does not seem to be that obvious to others.
We’ve recently had a general election in the Czech republic. The result is rather unwelcome: both potential coalitions have exactly 100 seats in the parliament. Hence it’s next to impossible for them to form a sensible government. Yet if only the parliament had an odd number of representatives (199 or 201 or whatever, I don’t really see why we need all that many of them in the first place) we won’t have this problem. I wonder what the people who wrote the constitution back in 1990 have been thinking.