Q&A: The Limits of Democracy
The Limits of Democracy
Question
Should a new party whose platform is to change the elections to once every 15 years be disqualified by the Elections Committee, and what should the Supreme Court’s position be?
If it is approved, runs, and wins 61 seats from the public, is it moral to change the election law?
If not, then what about 80 seats?
Answer
I don’t know how to answer. On the one hand, there are significant advantages to elections being farther apart, because today a government’s planning horizon is only for the next few years, and it’s impossible to do any truly substantial work. On the other hand, that’s far too long a period, and so the public’s influence on the government is reduced too much. I don’t know where the line of reasonableness lies. In my opinion, there is no justification for disqualifying a party for running on such a platform. That seems obvious to me. The decision itself, however, could perhaps be made only by a very large majority. Eighty is starting to sound reasonable.