This paper proposes a critical discussion of an increasingly influential strand of contemporary democratic theory, which attempts to justify majoritarian institutions on the grounds that they are the most adequate ‘epistemic’ means for discovering and implementing an objective standard of normative truth. The analysis is divided in two parts. In the first, I show that the appeal to such epistemic standards is unnecessary, because it is possible to justify majority rule on the ‘purely procedural’ grounds that it is the best way of instantiating the values of freedom (as consent) and equality (as impartiality). In the second part, I suggest that the appeal to epistemic standards is also undesirable, because it conflicts with three key democratic values: that of autonomy (as self-government); that of inclusion (as lack of discrimination in terms of political competence); and that of pluralism (as fair representation of conflicting interests within the political process).
