A citizen who votes for one policy as the right one must, as a democrat, also hold that the policy which won ought to be enacted, and so seems committed to two contrary views at once.
Wollheim set it out in 1962. Voting expresses a judgement about what ought to be done. Accepting the result expresses a second judgement, that what the majority chose ought to be done. The proposed escapes separate the two levels, or treat the second judgement as being about the procedure rather than the policy. The tension is why losing well is a learned political skill rather than an obvious one.
In practice
- A minister argues against a measure in cabinet and defends it in public, which is either hypocrisy or collective responsibility depending on which level is speaking.
- A club member who voted against the new rule enforces it as secretary.
- Standing
- A conceptual puzzle rather than a finding. Compare Sen's liberal paradox and the paradox of tolerance.
- Subject
- Law & Politics
- Essay
- The paradoxes of democracy and the quips of partisans