Deck 3: Philosophy, Democracy, and Political Communication

Question 1

Write an essay in which you describe classical direct democracy, liberal democracy, and deliberative democracy. Finally, make an argument why one of these three is preferable to the others and provide support for your case.

Answer 1

Classical direct democracy, liberal democracy, and deliberative democracy are three different forms of democratic governance, each with its own unique characteristics and principles.

Classical direct democracy is a system in which citizens have a direct say in the decision-making process. This form of democracy was practiced in ancient Athens, where citizens would gather in the assembly to debate and vote on laws and policies. This system is characterized by its emphasis on citizen participation and direct decision-making, without the need for elected representatives.

Liberal democracy, on the other hand, is a form of representative democracy in which citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. This system is based on the principles of individual rights, rule of law, and separation of powers. Liberal democracies also typically have a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch of government.

Deliberative democracy is a more recent concept that emphasizes the importance of public deliberation and reasoned debate in the decision-making process. In a deliberative democracy, citizens are encouraged to engage in dialogue and discussion with one another to reach consensus on important issues. This form of democracy places a strong emphasis on the exchange of ideas and the search for common ground.

Each of these forms of democracy has its own strengths and weaknesses. Classical direct democracy, for example, is praised for its emphasis on citizen participation and direct decision-making, but it can also be criticized for its potential to lead to majority tyranny and the exclusion of minority voices. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, is praised for its protection of individual rights and its system of checks and balances, but it can also be criticized for its potential to lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few elites. Deliberative democracy is praised for its emphasis on public deliberation and reasoned debate, but it can also be criticized for its potential to lead to indecisiveness and inaction.

In considering which form of democracy is preferable, it is important to consider the specific context and goals of a given society. However, in general, deliberative democracy may be seen as preferable to the other two forms. This is because deliberative democracy places a strong emphasis on the exchange of ideas and the search for common ground, which can help to foster a more inclusive and participatory decision-making process. Additionally, deliberative democracy can help to address some of the weaknesses of both classical direct democracy and liberal democracy, such as the potential for majority tyranny and the concentration of power in the hands of a few elites.

In conclusion, while each form of democracy has its own strengths and weaknesses, deliberative democracy may be seen as preferable due to its emphasis on public deliberation and reasoned debate. This form of democracy has the potential to foster a more inclusive and participatory decision-making process, and to address some of the weaknesses of classical direct democracy and liberal democracy.

Question 2

Write an essay in which you analyze the 2020 presidential election in terms of democratic norms. What aspects of the election were challenging for American democratic norms? What steps could political leaders of all parties have taken to resist the challenges to these norms? Provide specific examples to support your answer.

Answer 2

The 2020 presidential election in the United States was a highly contentious and polarizing event that tested the strength of democratic norms in the country. Several aspects of the election posed significant challenges to American democratic norms, including disinformation campaigns, voter suppression efforts, and attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process.

One of the most significant challenges to democratic norms in the 2020 election was the spread of disinformation and misinformation. Foreign actors and domestic political operatives used social media platforms to spread false information about the candidates, the voting process, and the election results. This deliberate effort to deceive and manipulate voters undermined the democratic principle of informed and free choice, and eroded trust in the electoral process.

Additionally, voter suppression efforts, particularly targeting minority communities, posed a significant challenge to democratic norms. Restrictive voter ID laws, the closure of polling places in predominantly minority neighborhoods, and efforts to purge voter rolls disproportionately affected marginalized communities and undermined the principle of equal access to the ballot box.

Furthermore, attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the election, including baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and attempts to overturn the results, posed a direct threat to democratic norms. By refusing to accept the outcome of a free and fair election, political leaders and their supporters undermined the fundamental democratic principle of peaceful transfer of power.

Political leaders of all parties could have taken several steps to resist these challenges to democratic norms. First, they could have publicly denounced and actively countered disinformation and misinformation campaigns, emphasizing the importance of accurate and reliable information in a democratic society. Additionally, they could have worked to expand access to the ballot box and protect the voting rights of all citizens, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status. Finally, political leaders could have unequivocally affirmed the legitimacy of the electoral process and committed to upholding the results of the election, regardless of the outcome.

For example, political leaders could have implemented measures to increase transparency and accountability in the electoral process, such as allowing independent election observers and conducting post-election audits to ensure the integrity of the results. They could have also worked to pass legislation to protect voting rights and prevent voter suppression tactics, such as automatic voter registration and expanded early voting opportunities.

In conclusion, the 2020 presidential election presented significant challenges to American democratic norms, including disinformation campaigns, voter suppression efforts, and attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process. Political leaders of all parties could have resisted these challenges by actively countering disinformation, protecting voting rights, and affirming the legitimacy of the electoral process. By taking these steps, they could have upheld the principles of democracy and strengthened the integrity of the electoral process.

Question 3

A political system in which individuals directly participate in everyday legislative and judicial activities best describes _________

A) Classical direct democracy
B) Liberal democracy
C) Deliberative democracy
D) Democratic socialism
E) Authoritarianism

Answer 3

Classical direct democracy

Question 4

Which of the following terms is used to describe the way a dominant political party bends the political map in its direction, drawing voting districts so they dilute the strength of the opposing party?

A) The Electoral College
B) Polarization
C) Partisan gridlock
D) Gerrymandering
E) Jim Crow laws

Question 5

According to a recent poll, roughly what portion of Americans say it is difficult to know whether the political information they come across is true?

A) About 1 in 10, or 10%
B) About one quarter, or 25%
C) Slightly less than half, or 50%
D) About three quarters, or 75%
E) 9 in 10, or 90%