Editing Politics (section)

=== Democracy ===
{{Democracy sidebar}}{{main|Democracy}}
Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy. Democracy makes all forces struggle repeatedly to realize their interests and devolves power from groups of people to sets of rules.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Przeworski |first1=Adam |url=https://archive.org/details/democracymarket00prze |title=Democracy and the Market |date=1991 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |pages=[https://archive.org/details/democracymarket00prze/page/10 10–14] |url-access=registration}}</ref>

Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of democracy: ''aggregative'', ''[[deliberative democracy|deliberative]]'', and ''[[radical democracy|radical]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Springer |first1=Simon |year=2011 |title=Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence |url=https://www.academia.edu/354048 |journal=Antipode |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=525–562 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00827.x |bibcode=2011Antip..43..525S |access-date=14 June 2020 |archive-date=18 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210818002746/https://www.academia.edu/354048 |url-status=live | issn=0066-4812}}</ref>

==== Aggregation ====
{{Main|Aggregative democracy}}
The theory of ''aggregative democracy'' claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit the preferences of citizens, and aggregate them together to determine what social policies the society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on [[voting]], where the policy with the most votes gets implemented.

Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under ''minimalism'', democracy is a system of government in which citizens have given teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not "rule" because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. [[Joseph Schumpeter]] articulated this view most famously in his book ''[[Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy|Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy]]''.<ref>[[Joseph Schumpeter]], (1950). ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''. Harper Perennial. {{ISBN|0-06-133008-6}}.</ref> Contemporary proponents of minimalism include [[William H. Riker]], [[Adam Przeworski]], and [[Richard Posner]].

According to the theory of ''[[direct democracy]]'', on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter—with half to their left and the other half to their right. This is not a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. [[Anthony Downs]] suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book ''[[An Economic Theory of Democracy]]''.<ref>{{harvnb|Downs|1957}}.</ref>

====Polyarchy====
[[Robert A. Dahl]] argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term [[polyarchy]] to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open [[elections]] which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.<ref>{{harvnb|Dahl|1989}}.</ref> Similarly, [[Ronald Dworkin]] argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal".<ref>[[Ronald Dworkin|Dworkin, Ronald]]. 2006. ''Is Democracy Possible Here?'' Princeton: [[Princeton University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-691-13872-5}}. p. 134.</ref>

==== Deliberation ====
[[Deliberative democracy]] is based on the notion that democracy is government by [[deliberation]]. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. ''Authentic deliberation'' is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.<ref>[[Amy Gutman|Gutmann, Amy]], and Dennis Thompson. 2002. ''Why Deliberative Democracy?'' [[Princeton University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-691-12019-5}}</ref><ref>Cohen, Joshua. 1997. "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy." In ''Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy'', edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg. Cambridge: [[The MIT Press]]. pp. 72–73.</ref><ref>Ethan J. 2006. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?" ''[[Buffalo Law Review]]'' 54.</ref> If the decision-makers cannot reach [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule.