Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: All hail the status quo! (esp. J. Giles)
Message-ID: <21655@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 00:03:39 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.21655
Posted: Thu Feb 14 00:03:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 05:28:49 EST
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 45

endum on any subject if the proper number of petition signatures are
filed).  The US is a democratic republic (which means that the people
select their representative - in ancient republics the representatives
were chosen by appointment and only from elite classes).  The US probably
represents, in practical terms, the closest thing to a real democracy which
would be workable for over 200 million people.

The thing that most people refer to as a REAL democracy is theoretically
impossible.  There are a number of criterion that people universally agree
that a democracy must meet.  If all these criterion are assumed in a
hypothetical government, contradictions arise.  For example, majority rule:
suppose there are three choices (or more) in an issue.  No single choice
has the support of a majority of the people.  Furthermore, none of the
choices are clearly superior (in support) if each two choices are compared
pairwise (choice 1 beats choice 2, choice 2 beats choice 3, and choice 3
beats choice 1).  This scenario is not just a funny theoretical oddity, it
really happens in elections.  That's why candidates for an election
sometimes win without having a majority of the vote in their districts.
There are other funny things about REAL democracies, see the article
in Scientific American a few years back for more.

The people who insist on using the word 'democracy' in reference to
something that can't be achieved are denying the use of the word in the
real world.  I will continue to use it as a contraction of 'democratic
republic' except when ambiguity can arise (like in comparison with some
other form of democracy or republic).  I don't think anyone really missed
the meaning that I was trying to convey in my original article.  Some
people just want something to argue about.

J. Giles

(NOT J. Gile's)