Journals / Alternatif Politika / 2019 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

SITUATING EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS AND MAJORITY RULE PRINCIPLE AGAINST THE EPISTOCRATIC CHALLENGE

EPİSTOKRATİK İTİRAZ KARŞISINDA EŞİT OY HAKKI VE ÇOĞUNLUK KARARI İLKELERİNİN KONUMLANDIRILMASI

Pages
375–400
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

After examining the justifications and limitations of both the principle of majority rule and the equal right to vote, it is concluded that; the equal right to vote has normative priority over the principle of majority rule and that the principle of equality, which justifies both of the principles, while necessitating certain limitations on majority rule, prohibits them on equal voting rights.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In contemporary political theory, the idea that the principle of majority rule should be subject to certain limitations is often praised.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Though praised less often, recently similar ideas have also been suggested in favor of limiting the principle of equal voting rights, especially by a group of thinkers labelled as epistocrats.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After examining the justifications and limitations of both the principle of majority rule and the equal right to vote, it is concluded that; the equal right to vote has normative priority over the principle of majority rule and that the principle of equality, which justifies both of the principles, while necessitating certain limitations on majority rule, prohibits them on equal voting rights.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In contemporary political theory, the idea that the principle of majority rule should be subject to certain limitations is often praised. Though praised less often, recently similar ideas have also been suggested in favor of limiting the principle of equal voting rights, especially by a group of thinkers labelled as epistocrats. In this context, a discussion concerning the normative justifications of these principles and the possibility of deriving certain legitimate limitations from them has become relevant. After examining the justifications and limitations of both the principle of majority rule and the equal right to vote, it is concluded that; the equal right to vote has normative priority over the principle of majority rule and that the principle of equality, which justifies both of the principles, while necessitating certain limitations on majority rule, prohibits them on equal voting rights.

Özet

Çağdaş siyaset teorisinde, çoğunluk kararı ilkesinin çeşitli sınırlamalara tabi olması gerektiği yaygın kabul gören bir kanaattir. Daha az yaygın olmakla birlikte son yıllarda benzer sınırlamaların demokrasi teorisinin bir diğer temel bileşeni olan eşit oy hakkı ilkesine yönelik olarak da önerildiği görülmektedir. Epistokratlar adı verilen düşünürler tarafından ortaya atılan bu önerileri sınayabilmek için eşit oy hakkı ve çoğunluk kararı ilkeleri arasındaki benzerlikler ve farklılıkların incelenmesi önem kazanmaktadır. Makalede hem çoğunluk kararı hem de eşit oy hakkına yönelik gerekçeler incelenecek ve bu gerekçelerden türetilebilecek olası sınırlamalar tartışılacaktır. Bu tartışmadan çıkan temel sonuç; eşit oy hakkının çoğunluk kararına karşı normatif bir üstünlüğe sahip olduğu ve her iki ilkenin de temel dayanağı olan eşitlik ilkesinin, çoğunluk kararının bazı durumlarda sınırlanmasını gerektirirken, eşit oy hakkına yönelik sınırlamaları ise kabul edilemez kıldığıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YUMLU, O. (2019). SITUATING EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS AND MAJORITY RULE PRINCIPLE AGAINST THE EPISTOCRATIC CHALLENGE. Alternatif Politika, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 375–400. https://ajindex.com/articles/141736

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Aristoteles (2013), Politika (İstanbul, Say Yayınları) (Çev. Furkan Akderin). Arneson, Richard (2007), “Equality”, Goodin, Robert; Pettit, Philip ve Pogge, Thomas (Der.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Pusblishing): 593-611.
  2. Brennan, Jason (2016), Against Democracy (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press). Christiano, Thomas (2000), “Waldron on Law and Disagreement”, Law and Philosophy, 19 (4): 513-543.
  3. Christiano, Thomas (2006), “Democracy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/democracy/.
  4. Cohen, Joshua (1996), “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy”, Benhabib, Seyla (Der.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton: Princeton University Press): 95-119.
  5. Cohen, Joshua (2010), Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Cunningham, Frank (2002), Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction (London & New York: Routledge). Dworkin, Ronald (1998), “The Partnership Conception of Democracy”, California Law Review, 86 (3): 453-458.
  6. Dworkin, Ronald (2002), Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press). Dworkin, Ronald (2005), Freedom’s Law (New York: Oxford University Press). Estlund, David (1995), “Making Truth Safe for Democracy”, Hampton, Jean & Roemer, John (Der.), The Idea of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 71-100.
  7. Estlund, David (2008), Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press). Finnis, John (2011), Natural Law and Natural Rights (New York: Oxford Univeristy Press). Gutmann, Amy (2007), “Democracy”, Goodin, Robert; Pettit, Philip ve Pogge, Thomas (Der.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Pusblishing): 521-531.
  8. Habermas, Jurgen (1992), Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas, Dews, Peter (Der.) (London & New York: Verso). Habermas, Jurgen (1996a),
  9. The Habermas Reader, Outhwaite, William (Der.) (Cambridge: Polity Press). Habermas, Jurgen (1996b), “Three Normative Models of Democracy”, Benhabib, Seyla (Der.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton: Princeton University Press): 21-30.
  10. Held, David (2006), Models of Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press). Hobbes, Thomas (1993) [1651], Leviathan (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları) (