{"id":574,"date":"2020-12-01T17:54:54","date_gmt":"2020-12-01T17:54:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/"},"modified":"2020-12-01T17:54:54","modified_gmt":"2020-12-01T17:54:54","slug":"construire-la-democratie-2-0-rousseau-et-la-volonte-du-peuple","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/","title":{"rendered":"Construire la d\u00e9mocratie 2.0 : Rousseau et \u00ab la volont\u00e9 du peuple \u00bb"},"template":"","class_list":["post-574","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"This is part 8 in a multi-part series examining ways to build an inclusive democracy for the 21st century.","featured_image":null,"article_type":162,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"68\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":555}"],"related_issues":[109,417],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"[Special Note:\u00a0 This topic is especially timely in light of current events. The contestation over the presidential election on November 3 reflects a pattern that began at least in the 1990s where the losing party questions the outcome of the election. \u00a0This pattern has grown increasingly severe over time with the incumbent president now rejecting results based on claims of fraud. \u00a0This essay explains why such a pattern is a direct threat to democracy. Upcoming parts will address the reasons for this pattern and offer a path to break it.]<\/em>\r\n\r\nIntroduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAs we saw in previous essays, institutions we take for granted can have profound effects on the functioning of democracy. \u00a0Similar to political parties, we seldom think about our electoral system. \u00a0We tend to take it as a given.\u00a0 While we are vaguely aware that other democracies have different electoral systems, we do not pay much attention to them. \u00a0At their most basic level, electoral systems are the rules that determine how elections are conducted and the results determined, including how votes are translated into seats won by parties and candidates.\u00a0 Majority\/plurality voting, proportional voting or mixed voting systems along with ballot structure and district magnitude shape the way votes result in seats.\u00a0 These different systems are critical to shaping political culture, and thereby, democracy.\r\n\r\nLike other aspects of American democracy, there were few models for voting available at the time of the Constitutional Convention.\u00a0 Recall the arguments made in Federalist 10 comparing direct democracy and representative democracy.\u00a0 Madison made a case for large districts to overcome factions.\u00a0 However, the Founding Fathers said relatively little about how votes would translate into seats apart from apportioning U.S. House seats according to state population.\u00a0 The Progressive Movement produced a few significant changes to the electoral system such as the secret ballot and direct primaries. \u00a0Otherwise, the electoral system in the U.S. has seen few changes.\r\n\r\nNearly 250 years have passed since the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 Many more nations have joined the democratic club.\u00a0 In fact, there was a recent burst of activity in the 1990s with the fall of the Iron Curtain and a desire by developing countries to strengthen their democratic institutions. Suddenly, new democracies in Asia, Africa, the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and South America began looking at models that could be applied in their countries.\u00a0 We now have a multitude of electoral systems in place.\u00a0 We can observe them in action. \u00a0We can see how electoral systems impact political culture and the functioning of democracy.\u00a0 Systems can influence the level of factionalism, the strength of political parties, and the role of candidates.\u00a0 Systems also affect how parties and candidates campaign, how elites behave politically and how voters make decisions.\r\n\r\nResponding to the demand for assistance in setting up electoral systems, the international community established the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), first publishing a Handbook of Electoral System Design in 1997.\u00a0 Since then, the Handbook has been updated a number of times.\u00a0 It sets forth the types of systems and provides advice for electoral system designers.\u00a0 One particular challenge is that once a system is in place, parties and individuals adapt to the incentives and form a resistance to change.\u00a0 It can take a crisis on a massive scale to cause a nation to revisit its electoral system.\u00a0 For a democracy as old as the United States, resistance to change is substantial.\r\n\r\nThis section of essays will focus on the main types of electoral systems.\u00a0 To simplify the variation among the systems, the next essay will examine the majority\/plurality system adopted by the U.S. and a handful of other nations \u2013 mostly those in the British Commonwealth.\u00a0 The following essay will focus on proportional and other systems that rely on multi-member districts.\u00a0 The last essay on electoral systems will survey the range of proposals for electoral reform making their way onto the policy agenda in the U.S.\u00a0 These essays will consider the mechanics of the systems and the pros and cons associated with each type.\u00a0 This will provide a foundation for understanding the role electoral systems play in light of the current challenges to democracy in America and point the way toward concrete solutions.\r\n\r\nBefore examining the types of electoral systems, it is important to revisit a topic introduced in Essay Two:\u00a0 what is the meaning of voting in a democracy?\u00a0 Suriewecki\u2019s Wisdom of the Crowd<\/u> provides a lens to explain why humans gravitated toward democracy as a way for society to make decisions over public goods such as infrastructure, welfare, education, taxes and national defense.\u00a0 As a human adaptation, democracy has proven superior to other systems based on a central authority. \u00a0It has done so by relying on the concept of \u201cthe will of the people.\u201d\u00a0 This idea posits that elections reveal the collective sentiment of the people.\u00a0 Elections serve as a sacred event and should have consequences in the form of laws.\u00a0 Citizens are bound to honor the outcome of an election because it expresses the common good \u2013 at least until the next election occurs.\u00a0 This view of elections begs a question the answer to which has profound implications for electoral systems: \u00a0is it reasonable to believe voting systems can actually express the will of the people?\u00a0 This essay will seek to answer this question.\u00a0 In doing so, it will establish a framework for assessing electoral systems.\r\n\r\nRousseau and \u201cthe Will of the People\u201d<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPerhaps no one has shaped the way we look at voting more than Jean-Jacques Rousseau.\u00a0 He wrote his most influential work, The Social Contract,<\/u> a little more than a decade before the American Revolution and died a year after the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 Rousseau immortalized the concept of \u201cthe will of the people.\u201d\u00a0 He described a society governed by the people rather than a central authority.\u00a0 More importantly, he articulated what it means to live in a democracy and how to understand elections.\u00a0 A look at his work helps provide a framework for assessing whether electoral systems can reveal the will of the people.\r\n\r\nRousseau was born in Geneva, Switzerland in 1712.\u00a0 His mother died shortly after he was born.\u00a0 His father enjoyed the rank of citizen of Geneva, a status few others had. \u00a0That status afforded his father the right to vote in certain elections. \u00a0He provided his son an informal education up until the age of 10.\u00a0 After fighting in a duel, his father had to flee Geneva to avoid arrest.\u00a0 Rousseau continued to receive his education from a pastor and then a noblewoman.\u00a0 Despite the lack of formal education, Rousseau emerged as a brilliant thinker.\u00a0 He traveled to Paris to devise a numerically-based system of music.\u00a0 Although the French Academy rejected his system, Rousseau met many of the luminaries of the French Enlightenment, including Voltaire and Diderot.\u00a0 By the age of 30, he began writing contributions to Diderot\u2019s Encyclopedie<\/u>.\r\n\r\nUnlike others in his orbit, Rousseau was an iconoclast.\u00a0 He challenged prevailing norms and eventually attacked his friends and cultured society. Ultimately, he left Paris for the countryside and began his most productive period in the late 1750s. \u00a0After achieving success as a novelist, Rousseau embarked on The Social Contract<\/u>, a relatively brief tome started years earlier as a more ambitious work on political thought. \u00a0Although the book leaves many unanswered questions, it marked a major step forward in democratic theory by describing what it means to live in a society governed by its people.\r\n\r\nAt this time, political debate nibbled at the edges of the absolute power enjoyed by monarchs.\u00a0 As we saw with John Locke\u2019s Two Treatises of Government<\/u> published in the previous century, the debate over government at this time centered on the concept of a social contract.\u00a0 In return for protection and stability, citizens granted authority to a sovereign power.\u00a0 In such a construct, freedom was limited \u2013 only that which a central authority agreed to cede.\u00a0 In contrast to the legal theorists who advanced this theory, Thomas Hobbes insisted that sovereignty should be unified and absolute: \u00a0people have a choice between an absolute ruler and security or a free society and anarchy.\u00a0 Rousseau studied Hobbes\u2019 work as well as the legal theorists.\u00a0 He took Hobbes\u2019 concept that a sovereign must have absolute authority and turned it on its head by placing such authority in the hands of the people.\u00a0 Perhaps ironically choosing the title The Social Contract<\/u>, Rousseau blew up the framework of the legal theorists and argued that humans only<\/u> have security if they are free and rule themselves.\r\n\r\nRousseau begins The Social Contract<\/u> with a simple question:\u00a0 \u201cMy purpose is to consider if, in political society, there can be any legitimate and sure principle of government, taking men as they are and laws as they might be.\u201d \u00a0Without saying it explicitly, Rousseau is asking whether a legitimate government can exist if people are free. \u00a0He then famously states, \u201cMan was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.\u00a0 Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.\u00a0 How did this transformation come about?\u00a0 I do not know.\u00a0 How can it be made legitimate?\u00a0 That question I believe I can answer.\u201d\u00a0 Rousseau acknowledges he is not a prince or legislator.\u00a0 However, he says he is qualified to answer this question because he was born \u201cthe citizen of a free state and a member of its sovereign body\u201d and \u201cthe very right to vote imposes on me the duty to instruct myself in public affairs, however little influence my voice may have in them.\u201d\u00a0 By identifying as a free citizen, Rousseau announces his standing to describe a legitimate government.\r\n\r\nThe General Will<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWith that humble beginning, Rousseau embarks on describing a society that can be both free and secure.\u00a0 Instead of ceding power to an authority that stands apart from the people, Rousseau places authority in the form of the \u201cgeneral will.\u201d\u00a0 This concept is no more than the summation of the interests expressed by the people comprising a society.\u00a0 He does not state explicitly that an election is required to reveal the general will, but a republican form of government is an obvious way to achieve this result. \u00a0Such \u201cgeneral will\u201d forms \u201cthe basis of this common interest that society must be governed.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, the will as expressed by the people rules society rather than a monarch:\r\n

What then is correctly to be called an act of sovereignty?\u00a0 It is not a covenant between a superior and an inferior, but a covenant of the body with each of its members.\u00a0 It is a legitimate covenant, because its basis is the social contract; an equitable one, because it is common to all; a useful one, because it can have no end but the common good; and it is a durable covenant because it is guaranteed by the armed forces and the supreme power.<\/p>\r\nNo one had expressed democracy in these terms. The legal theorists assumed only a monarch, whose authority had to be bargained in a contract, had legitimacy.\u00a0 Rousseau said that the general will could replace the monarch and still maintain legitimacy.\u00a0 A social contract, as previously understood, was no longer necessary.\r\n\r\nImportantly, Rousseau connected equality to democracy.\u00a0 Anyone who participates in establishing the general will must be treated equally under its authority:\r\n

Whichever way we look at it, we always return to the same conclusion:\u00a0 namely that the social pact establishes equality among the citizens in that they all pledge themselves under the same conditions and must all enjoy the same rights.\u00a0 Hence by the nature of the compact, every act of sovereignty, that is, every authentic act of the general will, binds or favors all the citizens equally, so that the sovereign recognizes only the whole body of the nation and makes no distinction between any of the members who compose it.<\/p>\r\nIn such a society, the sovereignty or government must treat each member equally.\u00a0 Concomitantly, each member must have an equal voice in producing the general will. \u00a0Each citizen has the same weight in creating the general will, and we each have the same rights under a government produced by such general will.\r\n\r\nRousseau posits that any democracy must also possess the capacity to act upon the general will.\u00a0 The general will must lead to action.\u00a0 The logical way for that to happen is through the enactment of laws. \u00a0\u00a0He wrote:\u00a0 \u201cif the state, or the nation, is nothing other than the legal person the life of which consists of the union of its members and if the most important of its cares is its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling power to move and dispose of each part in whatever manner is beneficial to the whole ...\u201d He says an election constitutes \u201ca declaration of will,\u201d which is tantamount to an act of sovereignty no less than law.\u00a0 Distinguishing between administrative acts which carry out the law, Rousseau declares that the general will produces laws.\u00a0 In other words, the will of the people must be reflected in the enactment of laws consistent with such will.\r\n\r\nWithout providing details of its operations, Rousseau says that a democratic government has absolute authority regarding matters of mutual concern.\u00a0 He recognizes, however, that such power extends no further than the \u201cconcerns of the community.\u201d\u00a0 In addition, such power does not infringe on \u201cthe natural rights which [private persons] ought to enjoy as men.\u201d\u00a0 We relinquish our autonomy relating to \u201cthe concern of the community,\u201d but the sovereign leaves private matters to our discretion:\r\n

Sovereign power, wholly absolute, wholly sacred, wholly inviolable as it is, does not go beyond and cannot go beyond the limits of the general covenants; and thus that every man can do what he pleases with such goods and such freedom as is left to him by these covenants; and from this it follows that the sovereign has never any right to impose greater burdens on one subject than on another, for whenever that happens a private grievance is created and the sovereign\u2019s power is no longer competent.<\/p>\r\nTherefore, government is limited to the public domain, but within that realm, a democratic government has absolute power to act according to the will of the people.\r\n\r\nThreats to the General Will<\/strong>\r\n\r\nNext, Rousseau identifies two familiar threats to democracy:\u00a0 private interest and factions.\u00a0 He clearly wants citizens to act out of public duty.\u00a0 But he recognizes that it is not a fatal defect to the general will when some act out of private interest.\r\n

There is often a great difference between the will of all [what individuals want] and the general will; the general will studies only the common interest while the will of all studies private interest, and is indeed no more than the sum of individual desires.\u00a0 But if we take away from these same wills, the pluses and minuses which cancel each other out, the sum of the difference is the general will.<\/p>\r\nRousseau intuitively understands the concept of the collective mind \u2013 diverse individuals acting independently on private information can express the common good when all views are expressed:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cFrom the deliberations of a people properly informed, and provided its members do not have any communication among themselves, the great number of small differences will always produce a general will and the decision will always be good.\u201d\u00a0 Therefore, private interests can be subsumed through the compilation of all interests in a society.\r\n\r\nRousseau identifies factions as an agglomeration of private interests.\u00a0 Unlike individual private interests, factions pose a danger because they can combine such interests into a majority.\u00a0 He saw factions as a direct threat to the collective mind as expressed by the general.\u00a0 He wrote:\r\n

[When] sectional associations are formed at the expense of the larger association, the will of each of these groups will become general in relation to its own members and private in relation to the state; we might then say that there are no longer as many votes as there are men but only as many votes as there are groups.\u00a0 The differences become less numerous and yield a result less general.\u00a0 Finally, when one of these groups becomes so large that it can dominate the rest, the result is no longer the sum of many small differences, but one great divisive difference; then there ceases to be a general will, and the opinion which prevails is no more than a private opinion.<\/p>\r\nPresaging Federalist 51, Rousseau argues the general will cannot exist unless factions are controlled.\u00a0 Unlike Madison, he does not articulate a way to avoid factions only stating, \u201cit is imperative that there should be no sectional associations in the state and that every citizen should make up his own mind for himself\u2026.\u201d\u00a0 Simply put, Rousseau describes how individuals relate to a democracy.\u00a0 When they contribute to the general will by acting independently and in the common interest, they strengthen democracy.\u00a0 When they join forces with a faction, they undermine it.\r\n\r\nBy submitting to the general will, members of society achieve the vision set forth by Rousseau:\r\n

\u2026 they have profitably exchanged an uncertain and precarious life for a better and more secure one; they have exchanged natural independence for freedom, the power to destroy others for the enjoyment of their own security; they have exchanged their own strength which others might overcome for a right which the social union makes invincible.<\/p>\r\nThis vision was ambitious.\u00a0 While others may have conceived a democratic society, Rousseau was the first to articulate it in such terms.\u00a0 He described a reordering of society governed by the expression of each citizen.\u00a0 He said the combination of such expression is absolute and leads to outcomes in the form of laws or legislation.\u00a0 He also set forth the implications of democracy to public duty, governance, equality and freedom. \u00a0Shortly after publishing The Social Contract<\/u>, Rousseau fled France.\u00a0 From that point forward, his life was upended.\u00a0 His willingness to challenge the prevailing norms of his time proved costly.\u00a0 But the price he paid may have inspired our Founding Fathers to revolt rather than negotiate with a monarchical ruler.\r\n\r\nA Critique by Social Choice Theory<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSince its publication, The Social Contract<\/u> has inspired countless political theorists, philosophers and revolutionaries.\u00a0 Some have twisted Rousseau\u2019s work to justify totalitarian rule, viewing the general will as a static rather than dynamic force.\u00a0 They argue that once established, a ruler has absolute power to act for the people. This is particularly sad because Rousseau treasured freedom.\u00a0 His identity as a proud citizen of Geneva gave him the confidence to take on the judicial theorists of his day.\u00a0 He challenged their acquiescence to the notion that freedom could be bargained for security.\u00a0 Instead, Rousseau claimed we can be free and rule ourselves.\r\n\r\nMore recently, proponents of Social Choice Theory have attacked the concept of \u201cthe will of the people.\u201d\u00a0 They see it as a flawed way to understand voting in a democracy.\u00a0 Recall Kenneth Arrow\u2019s Impossibility Theorem in which he exposes the challenge of translating individual preferences into social preferences through the mechanism of voting.\u00a0 If the summation of individual preferences does not accurately reflect the general will, how can lawmakers claim support for any particular legislation following an election.\u00a0 This question goes to the heart of electoral systems.\r\n\r\nIn Liberalism Against Populism<\/u>, William Riker sets up Rousseau\u2019s idea of \u201cthe will of the people\u201d as a strawman.\u00a0 Riker argues this concept allows \u201crulers to believe their programs are the \u2018true\u2019 will of the people and hence more precious than the constitution and free election.\u201d\u00a0 In contrast, Ryker says a \u201cliberal\u201d view of voting merely \u201crequires regular elections that sometimes lead to the rejection of rulers.\u201d\u00a0 Ryker concludes:\u00a0 \u201cOutcomes of voting cannot, in general, be regarded as accurate amalgamations of voters\u2019 values.\u00a0 Sometimes they may be accurate, sometimes not; but since we seldom know which situation exists, we cannot, in general, expect accuracy.\u00a0 Hence we cannot expect fairness either.\u201d\u00a0 This is because \u201cthe method of counting partially determines the outcome of counting.\u201d \u00a0As a result, social choice theory assigns no significance to the results of an election:\u00a0 \u201cIf the people speak in meaningless tongues, they cannot utter the law that makes them free.\u201d\r\n\r\nRyker and other social choice theorists believe we will come to realize elections hold no special significance.\u00a0 At most, elections provide a way to remove undesirable people from office.\u00a0 But if the calculus of voting reveals anything, it is the act of voting depends on intrinsic motivations.\u00a0 A single vote rarely affects the outcome of an election.\u00a0 It takes time and effort to register, learn about candidates and make it to the polls.\u00a0 Therefore, we need a compelling reason to vote.\u00a0 We need to believe our actions are part of a larger social enterprise.\r\n\r\nFor this reason, Rousseau\u2019s concept of \u201cthe will of the people\u201d endures.\u00a0 We want to believe that voting has meaning.\u00a0 We want to believe an election expresses the common interest of the people and informs lawmaking until the next election occurs.\u00a0 While social choice theorists have provided good reason to question the role electoral systems play in driving the results of elections, their theory rests on an outdated model \u2013 one that says we only act in self-interest when expressing individual preferences.\u00a0 Rousseau understood citizens can act upon the common good when expressing individual preferences, especially when voting about public goods rather than private ones.\u00a0 As importantly, citizens consider how their vote matters within an electoral system that, while not perfect, expresses the interests of a society.\r\n\r\nThe Meaning of Voting and Elections<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThrough this lens, it is still possible to find meaning in \u201cthe will of the people.\u201d\u00a0 Recall Surowiecki\u2019s typology of problems to which groups of people are adept at solving:\u00a0 cognitive, coordination and cooperation.\u00a0 Voting and elections do not fall neatly into any one category.\u00a0 When viewed as a single act \u2013 a single election \u2013 it could be cognitive (i.e., expressing the right answer given the societal needs at that moment).\u00a0 When considered over a succession of elections, voting becomes an act of cooperation.\u00a0 We vote on candidates to establish an output that represents the common interest.\u00a0 We accept the common interest as reflected in an election even if our personal views depart from that output.\u00a0 We do so knowing that other participants implicitly agree to cooperate in accepting the results of a future election that may more closely align with our views.\r\n\r\nThere is reason to believe the cooperative aspect of voting deserves greater emphasis than the cognitive one.\u00a0 Social Choice Theorists assert that voters act rationally in a self-interested way.\u00a0 However, more recent evidence suggests humans tend to act in a \u201cpro-social\u201d way.\u00a0 A number of cross-cultural studies using game theory have demonstrated that people will choose mutual gain over self-interest. \u00a0For example, Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter used game theory to test decisions about public goods.\u00a0 They concluded that people tend to fall into one of three categories:\u00a0 25% act in a self-interested (rational) manner and a small percentage are altruistic. The largest group are termed \u201cconditional consenters.\u201d\u00a0 This latter group will act cooperatively, believing such behavior will benefit them in the long-run.\r\n\r\nHowever, this natural affinity for humans to exhibit \u201cpro-social\u201d behaviors has limits.\u00a0 It is conditional. When people believe others are taking advantage of them by not following the same norms, cooperation collapses. \u00a0Political scientist Robert Axelrod wrote, \u201cThe foundation for cooperation is not really trust \u2026 [but] whether the conditions are ripe for [the players] to build a stable pattern of cooperation with each other.\u201d\u00a0 He calls this \u201cthe shadow of the future.\u201d\u00a0 Typically, there must be some sanction for noncooperative behavior in order to establish a cooperative pattern.\u00a0 In short, most humans tend toward cooperation \u2013 a primary reason humans ascended to the top of the food chain.\u00a0 They easily acquire skills of cooperation when they see a stable pattern of others exhibiting similar behavior.\u00a0 That is when reciprocity lifts the fortunes of all participants.\r\n\r\nRousseau understood this aspect of voting.\u00a0 While the general will speaks to the meaning of an election, Rousseau placed an equal importance on the cooperation required in the aftermath of an election.\u00a0 Once the will of the people is established, we are duty bound to honor it until the next election.\u00a0 He wrote:\r\n

This formula shows that the act of association consists of a reciprocal commitment between society and the individual, so that each person, in making a contract, as it were, with himself, finds himself doubly committed, first, as a member of the sovereign body in relation to individuals, and secondly as a member of the state in relation to the sovereign.<\/p>\r\nEveryone must submit to the general will:\u00a0 \u201cevery individual gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all, and precisely because they are the same for all, it is in no one\u2019s interest to make the conditions onerous for others.\u201d\u00a0 Only by requiring complete acceptance of the general will \u2013 even if an individual\u2019s \u201cprivate interest may speak with a very different voice from that of the public interest\u201d \u2013 can we establish a pattern of cooperation, which is needed to forge a democratic society. \u00a0That is the only way a legitimate society can square freedom with order.\r\n\r\nThe Measure of Electoral Systems<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIf elections are more than \u201cmeaningless tongues\u201d as suggested by Social Choice Theory, what then can we expect of them?\u00a0 At a high level, we can measure electoral systems in relation to their impact on society rather than a compilation of individual preferences.\u00a0 Does the system act in a way that strengthens society, making it more cohesive and efficient?\u00a0 Or does it spur anti-social behaviors that drain resources and threaten stability? \u00a0Rousseau identified the key elements of effective electoral systems in terms of how a democratic society should operate.\u00a0 They include:\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. Participation<\/u>. The will of the people requires full participation of the electorate.\u00a0 Any society that governs itself rests on the engagement of its people.\u00a0 Otherwise, the will of the people fails to capture the full expression of the people.\u00a0 While Rousseau wants participants to act in the public good, he recognizes many will register their self-interest.\u00a0 And that is okay since the diversity of such perspectives will cancel each other out.\u00a0 Therefore, electoral systems must encourage popular participation.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Equality<\/u>. Electoral systems should treat all people equally.\u00a0 The general will represents the common interest of all.\u00a0 It cannot be \u201calienated.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, it cannot treat people differently nor can it recognize private interests.\u00a0 A corollary to this principle is the general will must reflect the input of the people equally.\u00a0 In other words, each person\u2019s voice must count equally in comprising the will of the people.\u00a0 Certain voices should not matter more than others. \u00a0Therefore, electoral systems must ensure each vote carries equal weight in expressing the will of the people.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Choice<\/u>. Establishment of the general will implies agency on the part of voters.\u00a0 Voters must, through independent judgment, produce an outcome among a set of options.\u00a0 Otherwise, the collective mind has no value.\u00a0 But it is important to see the relationship between choice and the electorate.\u00a0 Rather than a simplistic stacking of political philosophies, elections must offer choices that are meaningful to voters at a particular moment in time, recognizing those choices can be narrow.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Formation of majorities<\/u>. Rousseau believed that the general will should take the form of law.\u00a0 It should lead to outcomes expressed in the form of legislation (as opposed to administration of government).\u00a0 In other words, elections should have consequences.\u00a0 As we have seen in the early stages of American democracy, legislative action requires the formation of majority voting blocs.\u00a0 Parties help create such blocs.\u00a0 Any electoral system must translate votes into outcomes that allow officials to form voting blocs consistent with the outcome of an election in order to advance promises made during campaigns.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Shifting coalitions<\/u>. Factions threaten democracy because they place a private interest above the common interest.\u00a0 Rousseau understood this just as the Founding Fathers did.\u00a0 It is imperative that no faction comprise a majority.\u00a0 More importantly, the strength of democracy depends on the instability of majority coalitions so that private interests do not overtake the common good. \u00a0In order for the general will to produce laws consistent with the common good, majorities have to be nimble and flexible to mirror changes in the general will.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\r\nElectoral systems are critical to democracy because they determine how elections express \u201cthe will of the people.\u201d\u00a0 Rousseau understood that such an expression when made sovereign could reorder society \u2013 one governed by the people rather than a central power.\u00a0 To work, democracy requires cooperation among voters to accept the will of the people.\u00a0 Otherwise, we devolve to dictatorship.\u00a0 Democracy has succeeded as a human adaptation because it has produced societies more cooperative, cohesive and efficient than those that rely on authority to maintain stability.\u00a0 By seeing democracy as a social act, we can derive a framework for assessing electoral systems.\u00a0 Do they encourage participation in voting and on equal terms?\u00a0 Do they provide meaningful choices that lead to the formation of majorities so that elections can produce laws?\u00a0 Do they discourage private interests from acquiring and holding onto power?\u00a0 The answers to these questions determine whether an electoral system strengthens democracy or weakens it.\r\n\r\n
    \r\n\r\nMack Paul is a member of the state advisory board of Common Cause NC and a founding partner of Morningstar Law Group.<\/em>\r\n\r\nParts in this series:\r\n\r\nIntroduction: Building Democracy 2.0<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 1: What Is Democracy and Why Is It Important?<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 2: How the Idea of Freedom Makes the First Innovation Possible<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 3: The Second Innovation that Gave Rise to Modern Democracy<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 4: The Rise and Function of Political Parties \u2013 Setting the Record Straight<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 5: How Political Parties Turned Conflict into a Productive Force<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 6: Parties and the Challenge of Voter Engagement<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 7: The Progressive Movement and the Decline of Parties in America<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 8: Rousseau and \u2018the Will of the People\u2019<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 9: The Dark Secret of Majority\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 10: The Promise of Proportional\u00a0Voting<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 11: Majorities, Minorities and Innovation in Electoral\u00a0Design<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 12: The Misdirected Attempts at Electoral Reform in\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/a>\r\n\r\nPart 13: Building Democracy 2.0: The Uses and Abuses of Redistricting in American Democracy<\/a>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\nBuilding Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and ‘the Will of the People’ - Common Cause North Carolina<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-rousseau-et-la-volonte-du-peuple\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Building Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and ‘the Will of the People’\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-rousseau-et-la-volonte-du-peuple\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause North Carolina\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/\",\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and ‘the Will of the People’ - Common Cause North Carolina\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-01T17:54:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Building Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and ‘the Will of the People’\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause North Carolina\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Construire la d\u00e9mocratie 2.0 : Rousseau et \u00ab la volont\u00e9 du peuple \u00bb - Common Cause North Carolina","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-rousseau-et-la-volonte-du-peuple\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Building Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and ‘the Will of the People’","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/articles\/construire-la-democratie-2-0-rousseau-et-la-volonte-du-peuple\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/common-cause-share-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/","name":"Construire la d\u00e9mocratie 2.0 : Rousseau et \u00ab la volont\u00e9 du peuple \u00bb - Common Cause North Carolina","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-12-01T17:54:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/articles\/building-democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Building Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and ‘the Will of the People’"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/","name":"Cause commune en Caroline du Nord","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause North Carolina","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/574\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/north-carolina\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}