Sources · Is democracy best?
This house believes democracy is the best form of government.
Fact bank v1 · 12 cards
This is a philosophy motion, so the judge never rules either side's view true or false. These cards say what philosophers generally accept, and cover facts such as who argued what.
- DEM-01
“No famine has ever happened in a democracy.”
What philosophers generally accept
Mostly right: between 1870 and 2023 there was only one large famine in a democracy, in Northeast Nigeria from 2016 to 2019, during fighting with the rebel group Boko Haram. Some smaller deadly food crises have happened in democracies.
The economist Amartya Sen made this idea famous in his 1999 book Development as Freedom. Leaders who face elections and a free press have a strong reason to act fast when people go hungry. Our World in Data's famine records back this up: famines tend not to happen in democracies. The exact answer depends on how you define 'famine' and 'democracy'.
“there was only one large famine in a democracy between 1870 and 2023: in Northeast Nigeria between 2016 and 2019.”
Our World in Data·FaminesIndependent research institute · 1 Mar 2025 ↗ - DEM-02
“Democracy makes countries richer.”
What philosophers generally accept
Mostly right: a major study found that when a country becomes a democracy, its income per person rises by about 20% in the long run. That is an average across many countries, so it does not mean every democracy grows faster than every non-democracy.
The study is by economists Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo and James Robinson (2014, published in a journal in 2019). They think democracy helps through more investment, more schooling, economic reforms, better public services and less unrest. They found little support for the idea that poorer countries grow better without democracy.
“democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run”
National Bureau of Economic Research·Democracy Does Cause Growth (NBER Working Paper 20004)Independent research institute · 1 Mar 2014 ↗Further sources for this card
- DEM-03
“People in democracies live longer, healthier lives.”
What philosophers generally accept
Mostly right: every country that scores high on democracy has long life expectancy, and good studies suggest democracy itself helps improve health, not just that the two go together. It seems to work through more spending on public services and better delivery of them.
In Brazil, electronic voting from 1998 meant millions of poorer, less educated people had their votes counted. Health spending then went up and fewer babies were born underweight. In Africa in the 1990s, baby deaths fell when elections with several parties brought in a new leader, but not when the old ruler held elections and stayed. Some studies find the link is weaker once other factors are taken into account.
“there is good evidence suggesting the observed cross-country correlations are likely causal, hence suggesting that democratization leads to better health”
Our World in Data·Does democracy lead to better health?Independent research institute · 24 Jun 2019 ↗ - DEM-04
“Most people in the world now live in democracies.”
What philosophers generally accept
Not by the measure Our World in Data uses: in 2025 about 1.6 billion people lived in 'electoral democracies' (free and fair elections) and another 600 million in 'liberal democracies' (which also protect individual and minority rights). That is about 2.2 billion people, roughly a quarter of the world's more than 8 billion.
These numbers come from the Regimes of the World data, shown by Our World in Data. Counting countries, the world is about evenly split between democracies and non-democracies. But many people live in big non-democracies, like China. This data has called India (1.4 billion people) an 'electoral autocracy' since 2017, though other measures still call it a democracy. Even if you count India, the total is still under half. Other measures sometimes sort countries differently. The world has also become less democratic since the early 2010s.
“By 2025, about 1.6 billion people lived in electoral democracies in all regions of the world”
Our World in Data·DemocracyIndependent research institute · 26 Aug 2026 ↗Further sources for this card
- DEM-05
“Maths proves that a big group voting by majority will almost always get the right answer.”
What philosophers generally accept
Only if some big conditions hold: Condorcet's jury theorem says a majority gets more likely to be right as the group grows, but only if each voter is more likely right than wrong, votes honestly, and decides independently. Critics say real democracies rarely, if ever, meet these conditions.
Nobody disputes the maths. If the conditions hold, even a medium-sized group is almost certain to get it right. The problem is real life: voters persuade each other, have different information, and bring strong biases. Supporters reply with newer versions of the theorem that need weaker conditions.
“critics of CJT-based arguments for democracy argue that the assumptions underlying CJT are rarely, if ever, satisfied in actual democracies”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Democracy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Peer-reviewed research · 18 Jun 2024 ↗ - DEM-06
“Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.”
What philosophers generally accept
He did say it, in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947, but he began with 'it has been said'. So he was repeating a saying that was already around, not claiming it as his own idea.
Just before the line, Churchill said no one pretends democracy is perfect or all-wise. Straight after, he said the people should rule and that government ministers should be their servants, not their masters. So he used the line to defend democracy, not to attack it.
“it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”
UK Parliament (Hansard)·Parliament Bill, House of Commons debate, 11 November 1947 (Hansard vol 444 cc203-321)Government / parliament · 11 Nov 1947 ↗ - DEM-07
“Plato argued that democracy is a bad system and that wise experts should rule instead.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: in the Republic, Plato argued that democracy is worse than rule by a king, by the best few, and even by a rich few, because it pushes aside the expert knowledge needed to govern well. He wanted 'philosopher-kings' to rule.
Plato thought most people lack the skills to think clearly about hard political questions, so politicians win by telling crowds what they want to hear. Today, rule by experts is often called 'epistocracy'. A common reply is that any test for who counts as an expert could pick a narrow group of similar people with their own blind spots.
“Plato argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Democracy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Peer-reviewed research · 18 Jun 2024 ↗ - DEM-08
“Aristotle, like Plato, rejected democracy and thought only a wise few should rule.”
What philosophers generally accept
Partly: Aristotle did put democracy among the 'deviant' (faulty) systems, seeing it as rule by the poor for themselves, but he called it the best of the bad ones. He also argued that many ordinary people, pooling their good sense, can make better rulers than even one very wise person.
Aristotle sorted governments by who rules (one, a few or many) and whether they rule for everyone or only for themselves. For most real cities, he thought the best system was one run by a large middle class, which he saw as steadier and fairer than rule by the rich or by the poor. Modern defenders of democracy often point to his 'wisdom of the many' idea, which looks ahead to Condorcet's jury theorem.
“Although Aristotle classifies democracy as a deviant constitution (albeit the best of a bad lot), he argues that a case might be made”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Aristotle's Political Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Peer-reviewed research · 1 Jul 2022 ↗ - DEM-09
“Most voters know very little about politics.”
What philosophers generally accept
Largely right: a lot of evidence shows that citizens in big democracies are poorly informed and not very interested in politics. Whether that means they vote badly is still argued over.
One vote almost never decides an election: one estimate puts the odds in a US presidential race at 1 in 100 million. So, as the economist Anthony Downs argued, voters have little reason to study the issues. Studies also find people often reason in ways that protect their side's views. Defenders reply that voters use shortcuts, like news, parties, unions and talking with friends, to choose sensibly.
“A good deal of empirical data shows that citizens of large-scale democracies are ill-informed and apathetic about politics.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Democracy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Peer-reviewed research · 18 Jun 2024 ↗ - DEM-10
“China, which is not a democracy, lifted about 800 million people out of extreme poverty.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: over 40 years, the number of people in China living on less than $1.90 a day fell by close to 800 million, the World Bank says. That is close to three-quarters of the fall in extreme poverty across the whole world.
The report was a joint study by the World Bank and Chinese government bodies. It credits big economic changes that raised incomes, plus help aimed at the poorest areas and families. Its lessons include education, being open to the outside world and building roads and other infrastructure, and it says effective government helped. This shows a non-democracy can cut poverty fast. On its own, it does not show that non-democracies do better in general: a major study of many countries found that becoming a democracy raises income on average.
“China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty.”
World Bank·Lifting 800 Million People Out of Poverty – New Report Looks at Lessons from China’s ExperienceIntergovernmental body · 1 Apr 2022 ↗Further sources for this card
- DEM-11
“People around the world have lost faith in democracy and want something else.”
What philosophers generally accept
Partly: in a 2023 Pew survey of 24 countries, 59% of people in the typical country were unhappy with how democracy was working there. But solid majorities in every one of those countries still said representative democracy is a good way to govern.
'Typical' here means the median: the middle country when all the results are lined up from highest to lowest. Many people are open to other systems too. In Pew's 2017 survey of 38 countries, the median was 49% saying rule by experts, not elected politicians, would be good, and support for expert rule has risen in most countries since. In 2023, the median was 74% saying elected officials don't care what people like them think.
“A median of 59% are dissatisfied with how their democracy is functioning.”
Pew Research Center·Representative Democracy Remains a Popular Ideal, but People Around the World Are Critical of How It's WorkingIndependent research institute · 28 Feb 2024 ↗Further sources for this card
- DEM-12
“Arrow's impossibility theorem proves there is no such thing as 'the will of the people', so democracy is an illusion.”
What philosophers generally accept
That is one reading, not a proven fact: Arrow showed that no way of combining people's rankings can meet a short list of sensible-sounding rules in every possible case. Some thinkers, following William Riker, say this makes the will of the people an illusion. Others say no voting method should have to meet all of Arrow's rules.
A simple example shows the problem: three people rank three options so that a majority prefers A to B, B to C, and C to A. That goes round in a circle with no clear winner. But if everyone cares about the same one thing, like how far left or right each option is, and the number of voters is odd, majority voting never goes round in a circle. Kenneth Arrow won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1972.
“Others argue that social aggregation procedures cannot reasonably be required to satisfy all of Arrow’s conditions”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Arrow's Theorem (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Peer-reviewed research · 7 Dec 2025 ↗
The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.