Rubric · canonical · DEMOCRATIC-LEGITIMACY-v1

Democratic legitimacy under procedural and substantive norms

For arguments about whether a decision-making process or outcome can claim democratic legitimacy.

Status canonical Criteria 4 (equally weighted) Updated May 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument is about whether a process or outcome — an election, a referendum, an administrative rule, a court ruling, a procedural reform — can claim democratic legitimacy. The disagreement turns on competing theories of what makes democracy work, not on legal interpretation alone.

Not appropriate when: the case is purely about constitutional structure (use CONSTITUTIONAL-STRUCTURE) or about a specific statute’s authorization (use STATUTORY-INTERP).

Criteria

1. Engagement with majoritarian and minority dimensions

weight 25%

Does the argument acknowledge that democratic legitimacy involves both majority will and minority protection, and engage the tension?

10Engages both dimensions explicitly; acknowledges the tradeoff in this specific case. 7Engages one dimension; acknowledges the other exists. 4Treats one dimension as if it exhausted "democratic" legitimacy. 1Conflates majority preference with democratic legitimacy without qualification.

2. Process integrity analysis

weight 25%

Does the argument engage the integrity of the process by which the decision was made?

10Identifies the relevant procedural steps, evaluates each, and engages whether any failed integrity standards. 7Engages process at a high level; misses one specific procedural failure or success. 4Treats process as a black box; legitimacy assessed only by outcome. 1Outcome-only assessment dressed as procedural analysis.

3. Compatibility with democratic norms

weight 25%

Does the argument engage how the decision sits with broader democratic norms (rule of law, peaceful transition, free press, electoral integrity)?

10Names the relevant democratic norms at stake and engages each. 7Mentions one democratic norm; misses others clearly relevant. 4Treats "democratic" as synonymous with "I support this outcome." 1Argues for an outcome by re-defining democratic norms in self-serving ways.

4. Treatment of competing legitimacy theories

weight 25%

Does the argument acknowledge that legitimacy theories compete (procedural, substantive, deliberative, output-based) and explain why its theory should win?

10Names the competing theories and explains why its preferred theory better fits this case. 7Operates within one theory and acknowledges others exist. 4Treats one theory as obviously correct without explaining why. 1Switches between theories opportunistically.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication