If Democratic Theory Calls for Informed Voters, Why is It Democratic to Expand the Franchise?
August 20, 2009
Three uncontroversial points add up to a paradox: 1) Almost every democratic theorist or democratic political actor sees an informed electorate as essential to good democratic practice. Citizens must know who or what they are choosing and why - hence the need for publicly funded education, and the rights to free speech, assembly, press, and movement. 2) In most if not all democratic polities, the proportion of the population granted the suffrage has consistently expanded, and seldom contracted, over the past two centuries. Most observers agree that expanding the franchise makes a state more democratic. 3) Each expansion of the suffrage brings in, on average, people who are less politically informed or less broadly educated than those already eligible to vote.
Putting these three uncontroversial points together leads to the conclusion that as democracies become more democratic, their decision-making processes become of lower quality. That conclusion presumably is controversial, and few have addressed it since the early nineteenth century. This paper explicates the historical trajectory of democratization in the United States (although the basic argument is not specific to that country). It then offers several plausible explanations for the paradox: voters are not really that ignorant; the United States is not really a democracy; institutions substitute for voters' knowledge; and democracy does not, or does not primarily, need cognitively sophisticated citizens. I offer a few reflections on these explanations, but cannot genuinely dissolve the paradox.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 20
Keywords: democracy, citizen competence, enfranchisement, heuristics, American political historyworking papers series
Date posted: August 22, 2009 ; Last revised: October 27, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.328 seconds