Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Ideal is consensus/ reasonable disagreement. Compromise is constitutional…

- - - - Why are each of these dynamics problematic? an obvious problem would be tyranny of the majority. but that is 'easily' addressed by simply lamenting the fact that representatives are not sincere. Also, liberal constitutional constraints limit how far individual freedoms can be violated
        
        this dynamic can emerge without a 'tyranny.' the same majorities could be thinking in general terms, just unable to convince the minority of their position.
        
        it seems to be reasonable to make the following assertion: the perpetual existence of the same minorities, would suggest that they are not be adequately represented in political output. (issues of one issue party.)
        
        being the 'active' author seems to matter as well. even if the majority are 'getting it right' or approximating the general will, you are reliant on them to get it right. more importantly, in virtue of not taking part in the majority, you are not convinced that they are getting right.
        
        this is corrected for, with consensus, or as I will argue, taking turns.
      - By relaxing consensus and advocating liberal constitutionalism, what mechanism is deliberative democracy relying on to ensure to prevent of minimize these dynamics?
        should the forum in which deliberative takes place be equal and unrestricted, then we can expect that the deliberative and outcome to be reflective of that.
      - arguably, this dynamic can be saved, if the first two hold, but political outcome does reflect the 'whole.'