What is the Paradox of Democracy?

Answer 1

Democracy implies that every single citizen gets a "voice" and/or a vote, however due to the large population it would be impossible for everyone to have a voice for every single issue (this would simply slow down the voting process and little would ever get done), instead democracy is more of a republic with people being "represented" by those who share their same ideals.

Also, as "irony" means that the result is opposite to what the original expressed idea explicitly stated, not only is the fact that the United States was specifically NOT designed as a pure democracy (but, rather as a representative republic), but also the fact that virtually all democracies are explicitly designed to prevent absolute majority rule, which is what a true democracy means. That is, as a true democracy means the rule of the majority of citizens, all modern democratic political systems instead have designed-in limitations preventing the majority from having absolute power. The irony here is that small numbers of people (e.g. the US Supreme Court) can block attempts by the majority (even a vast majority) of citizens to take certain actions (in particular, modern democracies protect the rights of minorities from the actions of majorities). This is a Good Thing, though ironic.

In the case of the United States, the original Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) has several ironies (i.e. places where the design of the government contradicts the idea of a pure or representative democracy):

• Leaving aside the fact that it is NOT a pure democracy, but rather a representative democracy, the original Constitution only allows for direct election of members of the House of Representatives. The US Senate was appointed, and very much designed to be similar to the UK's aristocratic House of Lords. Also, the US President was not be to directly elected (and, still isn't), rather the Electoral College was used as an indirect method, one which was only marginally obligated to follow voter's desires.
• Almost 75% of the total population was excluded from voting: Native Americans, non-whites (specifically, slaves, but in practice, many non-white free men), women, and everyone under at least 21 (plus, many states had landholding or wealth requirements).
• Immigrants were explicitly excluded from attaining the highest office (US President). Only original citizens were allowed to be President, not naturalized ones. This stricture remains to this day.
• Large chunks of the Executive and Judicial branches were designed in a manner which insulates or removes them from direct voter approval, and much from even indirect voter approval.
• No mechanism for leaving the United States exists, which, presumably for a Federation of individual sovereign states, should exist in a real democracy

Answer 2

If you subscribe to democracy you believe that the majority view ought to prevail. So, let us suppose that you vote on an issue, where the choice is between opposing options A and B. You strongly favor A and vote accordingly because

1. You believe B ought not to be done

But, when the vote is counted, the majority has voted for B. Therefore, because you subscribe to the democratic principle stated above

2. You believe that B ought to be done

You are a rational person -- you don't endorse explicit contradictions. Yet your beliefs described in 1. and 2. are contradictory.

For a discussion of this paradox and its relation to some others, see

Laurence Goldstein, 'A Buridanian Discussion of Desire, Murder and Democracy', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 70 (1992), pp.405-414.