Abstract

In Wollheim's paradox of democracy, democracy appears to involve its adherents (at least sometimes, and it always presupposes the possibility) in holding two incompatible beliefs about what ought to be done, and if democracy does this then democracy is a sadly confused idea. I want to suggest a solution to this apparent paradox. I shall try to show that voter V's statement that A ought to be done and his statement that B ought to be done are not inconsistent because they are assertions about different things, though their verbal expression is similar. I shall do this by presenting reasons for saying that V is answering two different questions: he has different factors to consider on each occasion.