Equality, Proportionality, and the All-Affected Principle

IF 0.8 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI:10.3167/dt.2019.060105
J. Rosenberg
{"title":"Equality, Proportionality, and the All-Affected Principle","authors":"J. Rosenberg","doi":"10.3167/dt.2019.060105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The question of who ought to be included in the demos is distinct from, and yet related to, the question of how to distribute decisionmaking power among those who are included. Political equality is the most common answer to the former question within democratic theory. In democratic practice, it is usually realized through one person one vote. Within democratic theory, there is not as much agreement as to what the answer to the latter question should be. The answer that has attracted most attention within the scholarly literature is that all those who are affected should be included. However, prominent scholars have argued that this all-affected principle is incompatible with political equality and therefore an unattractive answer to the question of inclusion. This article challenges this critique and argues that it is based on a misconception of political equality and a narrow reading of the all-affected principle.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/dt.2019.060105","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2019.060105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The question of who ought to be included in the demos is distinct from, and yet related to, the question of how to distribute decisionmaking power among those who are included. Political equality is the most common answer to the former question within democratic theory. In democratic practice, it is usually realized through one person one vote. Within democratic theory, there is not as much agreement as to what the answer to the latter question should be. The answer that has attracted most attention within the scholarly literature is that all those who are affected should be included. However, prominent scholars have argued that this all-affected principle is incompatible with political equality and therefore an unattractive answer to the question of inclusion. This article challenges this critique and argues that it is based on a misconception of political equality and a narrow reading of the all-affected principle.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平等,比例,和所有影响原则
谁应该被纳入民众的问题不同于如何在被纳入的人群中分配决策权的问题,但又与这个问题相关。在民主理论中,政治平等是对前一个问题最常见的回答。在民主实践中,通常通过一人一票的方式来实现。在民主理论中,对于后一个问题的答案应该是什么,并没有达成一致意见。在学术文献中引起最多关注的答案是,所有受影响的人都应该包括在内。然而,一些著名学者认为,这种受所有影响的原则与政治平等不相容,因此对包容性问题的回答缺乏吸引力。本文对这一批评提出了挑战,并认为这是基于对政治平等的误解和对全影响原则的狭隘解读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Democratic Theory is a peer-reviewed journal published and distributed by Berghahn. It encourages philosophical and interdisciplinary contributions that critically explore democratic theory—in all its forms. Spanning a range of views, the journal offers a cross-disciplinary forum for diverse theoretical questions to be put forward and systematically examined. It advances non-Western as well as Western ideas and is actively based on the premise that there are many forms of democracies and many types of democrats. As a forum for debate, the journal challenges theorists to ask and answer the perennial questions that plague the field of democratization studies: Why is democracy so prominent in the world today? What is the meaning of democracy? Will democracy continue to expand? Are current forms of democracy sufficient to give voice to “the people” in an increasingly fragmented and divided world? Who leads in democracy? What types of non-Western democratic theories are there? Should democrats always defend democracy? Should democrats be fearful of de-democratization, post-democracies, and the rise of hybridized regimes?
期刊最新文献
Chinese Contemplations on Utopian and Dystopian Democratic Governance Socialist Democracy Conceptualizing Difference West By Not West Democracies Across Cultures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1