According to the epistemic defense of democracy (associated with Condorcet's Jury Theorem), why should we expect majority votes to track correct outcomes?
ADemocracy gives each citizen equal power, which is intrinsically fair and produces just outcomes
BDemocratic governments are historically more likely to protect individual rights than alternatives
CWhen many voters who are each independently more likely than not to choose correctly vote, majority rule is mathematically likely to reach the right answer
DCitizens generally vote in their own self-interest, and aggregating self-interests tends to produce the common good
Condorcet's Jury Theorem shows that if each voter has a better-than-even chance of choosing correctly on a given question, and votes are independent, majority rule becomes increasingly likely to be correct as the number of voters grows. This is an epistemic argument — democracy is justified because it tends to produce right answers — not a procedural or instrumental one. Crucially, it does not require voters to be experts, only minimally competent.
Question 2 True / False
Most democratic theorists hold that a legitimate democratic majority may make any decision it chooses, including voting to deny minority groups basic rights.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is a common misconception. Most democratic theories build in rights protections that constrain what majorities can decide — this is the 'scope' of democratic authority. Constitutional rights, fundamental liberties, and human rights norms are typically placed outside the reach of majority vote precisely because unlimited majority rule can produce oppression. The question of what majorities may NOT decide is central to democratic theory.
Question 3 Short Answer
What is the 'scope problem' in democratic theory, and why does it create tension with the basic idea of majority rule?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The scope problem asks which decisions democratic majorities are permitted to make. It creates tension because if democracy is justified by equal political power or by tracking correct outcomes, it is unclear why some decisions — such as those affecting fundamental rights — should be removed from majority control. Yet if majorities can decide everything, they can vote to oppress minorities, which seems to undermine the very values democracy is supposed to protect.
The scope problem reveals that 'majority rule' is not a complete theory of democracy — it says nothing about what majorities may rule over. Constitutional democracies resolve this in part by entrenching certain rights beyond ordinary majority reach, but this raises the further question of who gets to set those limits and on what grounds.