Humanities desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 19

"Democracies always fail because people vote for more benefits"

I quite often see people on the internet claiming some variation of this quote (usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, although our article on him disputes that):

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Now, regardless of the origin of the quote, I'm wondering: is there actually any case where this has been true (or has plausibly been true)? I can't think of any obvious ones (not the Roman Republic, or Athens, nor any modern democracy that I can think off, all of which fell either because of some other internal problem, or because of external attack). Iapetus (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very little voting was involved (none after the comitia became defunct or purely ceremonial by the early Empire period), but the lower class inhabitants of Rome received free grain rations, and it was understood that they were likely to cause trouble if such rations were cut off (see Cura Annonae). AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would count for this purpose, because it wasn't the

Keep in mind that America and Britain, for example, are not democracies - they're republics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is a monarchy, not a republic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, constitutional monarchy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the definition of republic and democracy. See democratic republic. --Error (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have just found an attribution to Franklyn of “Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good.” --Error (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tiresome game of semantics. See:

Democracy: "The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably, and, generally, the two current types of democracy are direct and representative."
Direct democracy: "Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which people decide on policy initiatives directly."
And among the many Democracy#Variants:
- Democracy#Constitutional monarchy, and:
- Democracy#Republic: "The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, ...". Though perhaps to Bugs' point, "James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a direct democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure."

According to [1], Madison's definitions were not standard even at the time, and "democracy" and "republic" tended to be used interchangeably. Iapetus (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of Iapetus's question, I'm sure they'd be happy with examples from any variant, though it would be useful to characterize the particular type of democracy in any given example -- ToE 02:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the important quality is that most/all of the population (or at least all classes) are able to vote, and have an influential voice. The quote/claim is normally brought up by people who argue that allowing everyone to vote (rather than just people like themselves) will be the downfall of society, because they assume that "nonproductive" people form a majority and will be able to out-vote the "productive" minority. So for that to be true (rather than BS used to justify voter suppression), you would need a society where a majority of the population could out-vote the wealthy classes. (I don't think the Roman grain ration mentioned by AnonMoos would count, as the recipients didn't depend on their voting power to ensure it). Iapetus (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State action and enforcing the US Senate's equal apportionment and the electoral college?

I've previously read an argument that the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency should be viewed as being unenforceable due to it requiring state action that is forbidden by the 5th and 14th Amendments in order to actually enforce it; law professor Laurence Tribe makes an argument along these lines here (last couple of paragraphs): https://harvardcrcl.org/reflections-on-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-as-illuminated-by-the-cruz-candidacy/

If so, I'm wondering--if it wasn't for the explicit protection that Article V of the United States Constitution provides for the equal apportionment in the US Senate, and if the equal apportionment in the US Senate and the Electoral College both weren't mentioned in any US constitutional amendments after the 14th Amendment, then could it be possible to likewise use Professor Tribe's logic here for the US federal judiciary and/or the US Congress to alter the apportionment in the US Senate and/or to abolish the Electoral College even without the passage of any new US constitutional amendments? Basically, do these provisions of the US Constitution likewise require state action to enforce them just like the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency does? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you ask this same question a year or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically in relation to the US Senate's equal apportionment and the electoral college, No. Futurist110 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The equal apportionment in the Senate is fundamental. If someone tried to turn the Senate into just another version of the House, there would likely be a rebellion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Trumpists rebelled over much less, you might very well be correct in regards to this, unfortunately. Still, I'm asking if this could be done from a theoretical perspective. Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Tribe's argument holds water in the first place, but even if it does, applying it to Senate representation would have to contend with the Article V provision that says provided...that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. See Article Five of the United States Constitution#Constitutional clauses shielded from amendment. If the 5th and 14th amendments are alleged to require population-based Senate representation, they would to that extent presumably run afoul of this entrenched clause. --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the first sentence of the second paragraph in my OP here. ;) Futurist110 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's postulating a theory, but the courts would have to decide what "natural-born citizen" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't matter what "natural-born" would mean if courts will declare that part to be unenforceable due to the 5th and 14th Amendments. Futurist110 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mighty big "IF". I recall in the 70s when the draft was being challenged because it allegedly violates the 13th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th doesn't apply because of the clause that says the Congress has the power to raise armies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in Professor Tribe's article that supports anything like what you claim. Nor does finding some novel Fourteenth Amendment way to alter the structure of the federal government appear to be the real point of the article. Last time you asked about the natural born citizen clause, I actually threw it out on social media for my colleagues. The reception was one of bemusement at best, and irritation at worst. One colleague, in my view convincingly, argued that the natural born citizen clause would survive strict scrutiny (if it were subject to it). I'm really not aware of any mainstream constitutional scholar—for what that's worth given they're often incorrect when it comes down to how the Supreme Court rules—that makes this sort of argument. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was your colleague's argument re: strict scrutiny? Futurist110 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]