Redefinition of Democracy in the 19th Century and Its Impact on Social Choice Theory

Since Ancient Greece, aristocracy/ oligarchy was identified with elected governors, and democracy with selection of officials by lot. There is a principal difference between voting on proposals and voting on candidates for office. Voting on proposals is democratic, because it is a form of the execution of powers by the people. But voting on candidates for office is different, because it renders the powers to just a few executives, reducing the people’s access to political participation. Therefore, Athenians elected only few high-qualified professionals: military generals, those responsible for water supply, and treasurers.

The situation changed radically after the American and French Revolutions. At the outset, both the American and French systems were explicitly opposed to democracy. They practiced no selection of magistrates by lot, and participation by the people was restricted to election of representatives. Nonetheless, in the course of extending the right to vote to all adult citizens, the system of representative government was redefined as democratic.

It is argued that this redefinition produces a number of inconsistencies. In particular, the link between universal suffrage and democracy perplexed social choice scholars who attempted to design universal election rules. They encountered voting paradoxes showing that democratic choice cannot be always realized through the election of representatives. In other words, voting, proved to be democratic in the accepting/rejecting of proposals, can constrain the actual election-based democracy. It seems that the intermediation of the people’s will must be based on some more advanced methods than on voting for candidates by name.