An epistemic defense of democracy

Abstract

This work presents an epistemic defense of democratic governance, mainly analyzing the works of Condorcet and Landemore. The study begins by establishing rationality as a foundational concept for the analysis. It then explores Condorcet's Jury Theorem and Paradox, highlighting the paradox's implications for democratic theory and voting systems. Subsequent sections propose solutions to Condorcet's Paradox, including the elimination of minor pluralities and the concept of the median voter, demonstrating how these strategies address cyclicality in collective decision-making. The final section delves into Landemore's epistemic advocacy for democracy, discussing political cognitivism, the labyrinth metaphor, and the concept of Democratic Reason as the collective intelligence of the people. Landemore argues that democracy, through inclusive decision-making processes, can harness the collective intelligence of diverse perspectives, leading to superior outcomes. Her arguments underscore the epistemic virtues of democracy, suggesting that diverse and inclusive participation improves the quality of decisions by leveraging the collective wisdom of the populace. By synthesizing mathematical, philosophical, and political insights, this work underscores the complexities and strengths of democracy from an epistemic viewpoint. It demonstrates how democratic processes, informed by Condorcet’s and Landemore’s theories, can lead to decisions that are not only representative of the populace but also wise and well-informed. Ultimately, the work presents a compelling case for democracy's inherent value in producing informed, rational, and beneficial outcomes, thus advocating for its epistemic superiority over other forms of governance.