It does though - "rule of the majority" in the Webster definition implies one person, one vote. If you work out the mathematics starting from n=2, and then by induction it holds. If not one-person/one-vote then for every n, there exists a set of weights, for which one person can usurp the popular vote. In the US, due to the electoral college, some state resident's vote counts for more than others which is why the loser of the popular vote can be the President. Company boards are famously not one-share-one-vote as the latest Muskian opera shows.
The legal age cutoff is a red-herring - every self-proclaimed democracy has a legal voting age i.e. definition of what constitutes the one-person. As long as it is applied uniformly across genders, races and the rest then it is does not take away from the one-person/one-vote criteria. I would argue that if they can enlist you to fight (and die) for them, then you should be able to vote. However different societies might have different criteria for what constitutes the person in one-person-one-vote.
BTW, thank you for your comment, after all the sneering and name-calling it is nice to engage is reasoned discourse.
Note majority rule isn't in the definition either, it's just strongly correlated. As the simplest example, a democracy that required 55% of the votes wouldn't stop being a democracy. For more different examples, see the lottery system I linked to, or imagine variations thereof (e.g., half the population votes one year, half the next year, etc.).
Also, I don't think the age-limit is a red herring in this case to be honest, since it's another manifestation of "who is a person". Claiming a 17yo is not a person in the US but is a person in Argentina undermines the notion that there's a universal definition of democracy (even one that has an age cutoff)... which is the premise of this entire argument! Otherwise we're acknowledging different societies can differ on whose votes they care about, and still be democracies. (Which I think is fine: we merely need a fair & just definition of democracy. It just isn't as simple as "one person, one vote", is all.)
> "As the simplest example, a democracy that required 55% of the votes wouldn't stop being a democracy."
Good point. Considering that 55% is > 50%, would we not say that anything that requires more than 50%, is a supra-majority system? In a multi-party system, they sometimes require some thresholds which requires runoffs but I would consider them supra-majority or supra-variations on the majority rule.
> Claiming a 17yo is not a person in the US but is a person in Argentina undermines the notion that there's a universal definition of democracy... which is the premise of this entire argument!
Societies the world over different notions of what constitutes legal age for driving, marriage, enlisting and in general to be considered of age. Voting is just one more manifestation of that inconsistency.
Your other point about lottery systems does seem interesting but could we not say that term-limits are a (poor) version of a lottery system? Term limits have pros-and-cons and those would transfer to the lottery system, namely lack of institutional knowledge to run a govt in which case the bureaucracy (also called the deep state in fringe literature) would dominate.
I just wrote a long reply to your comment, but I realized it ultimately was just a ramble, so I'll scrap it.
To answer your questions briefly:
- Sure, I guess we can call it that.
- Term limits seem orthogonal to the lottery system though? You can have either with or without the other. Not sure I can see them as being versions of each other.
The legal age cutoff is a red-herring - every self-proclaimed democracy has a legal voting age i.e. definition of what constitutes the one-person. As long as it is applied uniformly across genders, races and the rest then it is does not take away from the one-person/one-vote criteria. I would argue that if they can enlist you to fight (and die) for them, then you should be able to vote. However different societies might have different criteria for what constitutes the person in one-person-one-vote.
BTW, thank you for your comment, after all the sneering and name-calling it is nice to engage is reasoned discourse.