Christiano, Tom. "Democracy" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2015 ed., Edited by Edward Zalta.

Christiano, Tom. "Democracy" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2015 ed., Edited by Edward Zalta.

• The author defines 'democracy', the many variation of which will be discussed later, as a general method of decision-making characterized by rough equality between members of the group during essential processes. Democracy defined here is very broad and includes rough equality in decision-making over a group in both political and apolitical settings.
• Democracy is justified vis-a-vis other systems of political organization in two possible ways. Either, the justification of democracy is non-instrumental and democracy is a good unto itself, or democracy is good instrumentally because it creates better laws or developed a better populace than other systems of governance. 
• John Stuart Mill argues that democracy is the best system of government because it forces decision-makers to take account of the majority opinions and needs at the strategic level, the broad and open discussion characteristic of democracy leads to a better decision-making process at the epistemological level, and that the autonomy individuals receive under democracy forces the population to become more rational and moral.
• Many arguments exist that democracy processes better legislation, due to the open nature of dialogue and free press, and the plurality of opinions and interests represented under a democracy. Arguments for specific forms of democratic governance are also made under similar pretenses.
• Those theorists who make instrumentalist claims regarding democracy need to demonstrate that this instrumentalism is legitimate. Ideologies such as Utilitarianism which focus on outcomes justify it on moral grounds. Scholars who focus on legitimate rule over others as a basis of morality are divided on whether democracy provides that or contains intrinsic flaws which restrict any potential fairness or equality.
• Not all scholars agree that democracy can be instrumentally justified, instead claiming that democracy produces less efficient results. Plato argues that in a democracy skill in winning elections will be favored over skill in governance, leading to a decline in governmental ability. Hobbes rejects democracy on the grounds that it is destabilizing. Public choice theorist echo these concerns, claiming that political apathy in democracy allows special interests to control the system.
• Some scholars claim that democracy has an intrinsic value as a goal unto itself. These concepts focus on the core belief of liberty, equality, or public debate as fundamentally important elements within democracy.
• Certain scholars, like Dr. Carol Gould, argue that liberty and control over one's own life in an intrinsically important trait. Since this is so strong influenced by economic and political surroundings, democracy is the way of achieving liberty within the larger environment, including an ability to make bad choices. This argument is undermined by the necessary compromises within politics, which would seem to defeat individual liberty.
• Dr. Joshua Cohen, among others, claims that the public justification of policies through debate is a good unto itself, as the only way to derive legitimacy in a decision. This concept is still underdeveloped, as full consensus is not clarified, nor is the status of unreasonable political demands.
• Further demands within this argument call for a consensus on core issues between reasonable persons in society. This seems to be somewhat created through democracy, but requires the principle that demands should never disrespect the core beliefs of others. The idea implicit in here that 'talking on different wavelengths' implies disrespect or inequality is unexplored.
• Some claim that the equality intrinsic to democracy makes it valuable, because each person's differing view is given equal weight within discussions and decision-making. This version of democracy represents an equal advancement of all interests, as well as equality under institutions.
• Debates within groups about what form democracy should take are more complex, because what procedure can solve disputes about procedure?
• The definition of 'equality' itself is so contested that achieving the level of equality required for democracy is also constantly debated. Divides between concepts like equality of opportunity and equality of outcome cannot coexist within a democratic society.
• The essential bias of each individual towards his own interests, needs, and conceptions undermines some of the equality of judgement and equality of interest that should operate within a democracy. An attempt to correct for this would require a populist form of democracy not dependent on majority rule.
• The weight of the duties imposed on the average citizen by participation in democracy has been considered a problem in democratic society as early as Plato. The arguments usually made are that democracy is not coexistent with a true meritocracy, that citizens cannot expected to balance politics with their already complex lives, and that individual votes matter so little than political action is disincentivized in large democracies.
• Some theorists from the school of Elitist democracy have argued that this is exactly why highly deliberate democracies are to be avoided. Instead, they proposed that high levels of political apathy are beneficial, because it prevents politics by being swayed by uninformed and emotional idiots.
• While elitist democracy can be justified through instrumentalist arguments, it rejects the assumptions of non-instrumentalist demands for equality, public justification, or liberty by mandating that most citizens by removed from the majority of the political process.
• Interest-group theory solves some of these citizenship problems, by redefining the political process in terms of minority interest groups competing for policies. Each individual is a member of a bloc, whose interests can be represented by elites in that group. The equality of all members within interest group and between groups is used as an justification of the idea.
• Neoliberal theorists construct the citizenship problem is a different format, framing the issue as a small coterie of elites expanding government power to further their own interests at the expense of an inattentive public. The proposed Neoliberal solution to this is to transfer state power to the free market, which individuals can more easily understand and control.
• The Neoliberal disagree with interest-group theorist about the commonality of interest groups in society. The Neoliberals argue that only powerful economic interests are coordinated enough to create interest groups, leaving mass society demobilized.
• Neoliberalism fails to deal with two large problems raised by its creation of a minimalist state. Firstly, this state cannot effectively deal with the social justice and welfare expected by populations. Secondly, it is not clear how large concentrations of wealth in a neoliberal society is less dangerous than large concentration of wealth in a statist society.
• Many theorists of democracy assume that citizens are rational and self-interested, although many counter examples exist. Other theorist, such as Rousseau or Mill, have insisted that people can be motivated by the greater good. Empirical evidence supports a mixed view, that populations are general motivated by personal and moral considerations.
• The considerable responsibilities possessed by citizens in a democratic society raise questions about what knowledge citizens require to properly perform their democratic duties. Dr. Christiano proposes a solution wherein citizens should realize the virtues and aims of society, and then leave the minutia of implementation to experts in social science and other relevant fields.
• The main issue to this theory is the lack of a clear mechanisms or agents to guarantee that state institutions further the aims of citizens rather than personal or institutional goals.
• The forms of voting and the systems of legislative representation are another area of important divides in how democracies should be organized. The types of electoral processes, the strength of the executive branch, and the number of house in legislation have all been subjects of debate.
• Single-member district representation means that multiple individuals run in local electoral districts, the victor of which then represents that locality in a national legislature. 
• Proportional representation means that representatives are selected based on national votes, then representatives are elected based on non-local selection. The representatives are usually selected by parties, although sometimes corporate divisions or public lists are used.
• Those theorists in favor of single-member districts note that this system results in stability by favoring a moderate two-party system. This is in contrast to the numerous parties and fragile coalitions created by a proportional system. Those against single-member districts argue that they crush minority interests and pursue dubious 'big-tent' campaign plans.
• There are three popular theories advanced for why citizens should be bound to obey decisions made in a democracy. The first claims that, like all governments, a democracy must have moral authority in its actions. The second asserts that states automatically have a legitimate authority that any society owes to its other members. The third suggests that legitimacy derives from popular rule.
• Most instrumentalist reasons for legitimacy apply to democracy as well as other forms of government, however one theory argues that democracy in particular should be obeyed because -- according to the condorcet jury theory -- the majority is likely to be correct in large samples, meaning all individuals should recognize that the majority view is likely correct. 
• Several problems are raised by the use of the condorcet jury studies in this context. Firstly, they imply that citizens are fully informed, disinterested, and independent voters, none of which are likely to be true. Additionally, important moral decisions cannot be made on this basis.
• Some theorists in the school of consent or contract theory, such as John Locke, argue that democracy has a special legitimizing benefit. They argued that entering society involved a contract to respect the equality of other members by obeying the will of the majority.
• Some philosophers argue that participation in the democratic system is a form of consent which legitimate the decisions made under that system, because by participating they recognize the legitimacy of the system and its results.
• The definition of consent provided by these theorists is troubling because it assumes that consent is implied by the actions of voting or living in a particular country, despite lack of evidence that these actions constitute consent.
• Non-instrumental theorists who contend that liberty is an important value unto itself argue that democracy extends liberty to the political realm and is therefore legitimate. This idea faces issues of consent, as reconciling political liberty with personal liberty is difficult.
• Another non-instrumental approach notes that the equality intrinsic in democracy requires that decisions be respected, because not doing so implies that the majority of citizens are inferior. This explanation mostly holds, but it does not account for some disagreements about whether political or economic equalities should be paramount.
• Many philosophers and theorists have struggled with the idea of essential limits on democratic authority. This is the idea that democracies can impose limitation on their own future action, which of course creates a paradox because it reifies a limitation imposed by abstract law, which can be repealed by abstract law.
• The primary arguments for limitation of democracy argue that democracy must not be able to get rid of the institutions which allow for democracy. Thusly, a democracy cannot vote to remove elections or restrict freedom of speech.
• Limitations of these type were present in the works of John Locke, in the list of acts that citizens are justified to responding to with non-compliance or revolution. Locke proposes that these acts are those which violate the equality of citizens. 
• Even developed democracies can experience the issue of a consistent minority, frequently of indigenous or minority ethnic groups, within a democracy which find itself consistently oppressed by the majority opinion, even when that opinion is well meaning. This can serious degrade the legitimacy of democracy to that minority group.